Car Audio Central - Ultimate Car Audio Forum and Community

QUOTE=kevinberry1] Yes Sadam had weapons of mass destruction in the late 80's up until 91, and he did kill his own people in the 80's. [/QUOTE]

Actually he even gassed the Shiites after the gulf war. They were starting to revolt after the end of the war, trying to take over the government. He gassed them to stop the revolt, and would have wiped them all out if we wouldn't have stepped in again. That’s why northern and southern watch were started, and why we started enforcing the no fly zones as strictly as we did. Most people don't know that an active duty USAF fighter squadron was on a 15 month training 3 month deployment schedule ever since the end of the war, just to keep him in check.

Ok here is something else for you.

A week and a half or so into the war a fighter squadron in the area received a scramble order for a few of its planes that were flying SEAD missions (suppression of enemy air defense). The reason for this scramble was Intel that Saddam was trying to launch a UAV loaded with chemical weapon sprayers. These planes were diverted to another area to clear out any radar sites so a bomber could come in and basically wipe out the entire AF base. This type of mass destruction is something the war planers were trying to stay away from, since they wanted to leave any bases possible, open for our own use later. That’s why you see the pictures of the taxi ways taken out at the intersections, and not the runway completely destroyed like first gulf war. My point is this Intel could have been fabricated by Sadam, or might have been real. Either way it shows he wanted to, and would have used chemicals against us if given the chance. The only reason he didn't during the first golf war, Daddy Bush told him if you use them "I will nuke your ass." So he didn't.

I admit I don't agree with every decision Bush, and his staff have made. But honestly who could have went in and gotten everything right, and kept everyone happy. Exactly, no one. A long time ago my mother told the there is three sides to every story. yours, mine, and the truth. Yet most people base their beliefs off of what bad things they see on the news, and don't think about the good that happens. In general people prefer to hear about the bad things that are happening, so that is what the media talks about. If a media center was always talking about the new school that we just finished and opened, or that a small village in northern Iraq has running water for the first time in 40 years who would remember that a few days later. But you tell them 2000 solders have died, and they will remember that for years.

Again I am not trying to change anyone’s view. One of the reasons so many Americans have given their life, is our freedom of speech. So I have no problem with everyone voicing their opinions on these subjects. Butt Kiki is right. We do need to remember why we are here, and keep these discussions at just that, discussions.

Before I step down from my pedestal I do want to say thank you. Every one here supports the troops of our wonderful country. Even though we have been tasked as the "POLICE FORCE of the WORLD" That support is what makes my job worth while, and why we volunteer to do what we do.

JeremyC

I hope I've proven my point of how easy it is to get some of you riled up over political discussions and why I continue to ask that these topics be left off of this forum. Nobody will be swayed from one side to the other, and the only thing that gets accomplished is hurt feelings and making people upset. Nothing positive is served or accomplished. This is why I've always asked that religious and political topics be kept to a minimum when possible.

While this may be an off topic area, I have the right to moderate discussions when they get out of hand, or start to get aggressive. There aren't any absolutes or guaranties here based on the title of a forum, and moderation is subject to interpretation.

"Kiki, are you a moderator?"

I'll simply refer to my signature, and the forum rules section.
thank you for your understanding and cooperation. You may not have known my status because I don't make a point of announcing or using it for status. What I do around here is rarely noticed by most of the participants, and on the few occasions I have had call to use the more drastic tools at my disposal, I've never really enjoyed having to do so. I rarely have need to do any of that though, because en mass the members of our community are mature and well mannered and there is hardly ever a reason to step in, and for that I'm thankful.

as an example, I could have closed this topic, and thought about it, but I felt that it's about run it's course anyway and everyone would step up and keep things under control on their own, so I left it, feeling that was a better course than closing it and having people get more upset about not getting in the last word or something, or yelling fascism and getting all upset.

The original point was that the president used false information to justify the war at a time of his convenience. Yes Sadam had weapons of mass destruction in the late 80's up until 91, and he did kill his own people in the 80's. He was an evil dictator who needed to be removed from power, no disagreement there. Like I said before, I just don't appreciate using scare tactics to justify a war, and I believe the leader of our country should be forthright with his intentions and not use misinformation to mislead the citizens of the United States. That's it. If you don't agree that is great; it is what makes our country great. The ability to voice opinions openly and publicly. This thread really went in a direction that I did not intend, and I'm done posting on this particular thread.

BTW, this is the Off Topic forum correct? Why should anyone keep something off the board because you believe it is 'crap'? Kiki, are you a moderator? Does the topic/message violate the message board rules? I don't think so, but if I'm wrong please have a moderator correct me and I won't post another thread like this.

actually Hussein had already used "WMD" when he gassed the Kurds, which proved his possession, and willingness to use such devices. The fact that we stopped him before he could develop a nuclear device in no way "proves" he had no intention of creating any.

"It is also convenient that the administration gave Sadam 48 hours to comply with UN requests before an invasion"

actually we'd given him chances for over a year to comply with UN inspectors, and he kept refusing them access or throwing them out. He was playing games, and he lost. Again. The final warning of 48 hours wasn't the first he knew of any intent to invade if he refused to comply. It was a final ultimatum which he again ignored. This is why I find liberals so amusing.. they can twist anything to their favor so everyone else seems like the evil badguys.. lol

"But what do I know? I have done absolutely no research or investigation on the subject, obviously "

apparently not much, and acceptance is the first step to enlightenment!
respectively.

and on that note, as I'd stated how ill-advised this was from teh start, I'm ending it before it gets any worse than it already is.

keep this crap off the board from now on. I don't care what anyone believes in, as long as I don't have to hear about it when I come to talk about car audio.

thank you!

Darthness wrote:Sometimes they become our own problems when terrorists slam loaded 747's into buildings and kill a few thousand people.. or when they set off bombs over london.

We do have a lot to learn from our middle eastern foreign policy over the last 30 years. Don't side with the likes of Osama bin laden to fight a mutual enemy and then leave the people high and dry. Sometimes being the world policeman has its consequences. For example, it is an unfortunate irony that many of the shoulder-fired missles used by Al Queda troops were purchased by us to be used by the Afgans against the Russians.

KikiTheCat wrote:incorrect again. we invaded Iraq because Hussein threatened to use "his weapons of mass destruction" against the US numerous times.
We called his bluff and he lost.
his fault, his problem. We struck preemptively due to his repeated threats to use chemical and biological weapons against the US and allied countries. Please, if you're going to buy into the liberal naysaying, at least get your facts straight about why we're over there right now.

Thank you.

Thanks for the comical reply :) My facts aren't straight huh? So what was the proposed purpose of the invasion? What case did Bush make before the UN and before his state of the union address? Please enlighten me, since I know nothing and my facts aren't straight :) Bush stated that Aluminum rods used for long-range nuclear capability were being purchased by Sadam in Africa. I also remember something about not wanting "the next terror attack to come in the form of a mushroom cloud". The Bush administration suggested to the American and International audiences that Iraq was planning to restart its nuclear program, which was eradicated in 1991. There was absolutely NO corroborated evidence for this. How can that not be fear mongering? It is also convenient that the administration gave Sadam 48 hours to comply with UN requests before an invasion, which was also one week before Hanz Blix report on Iraq's weapons was to be released. By the time his report was made public we were bombing Bagdad. And, surprise suprise, his report indicated that there was no evidence that Iraq was restarting its nuclear program or proliferating any weapons of mass destruction. I wonder why we didn't find any such weapons? :)

But what do I know? I have done absolutely no research or investigation on the subject, obviously :) Boy, I guess I'm 'wrong again'. And exactly what was I wrong about in the first place that prompts you to suggest that I am in fact 'wrong again'?

BTW, I don't buy into any certain group's naysaying, liberal or otherwise, and I don't think this is an example of naysaying at all. I am a moderate and think for myself. I simply don't appreciate being lied to by the leader of our country. This is one aspect in which my views are similar to liberals' (and some conservatives' perspective oddly enough).

--edited for clarity and expansion of perspective--

jonnyb wrote:the thing i dont like about our goverment overall, is that most of the money they have is put into military uses. we would be better off if it was put into education. we need to stop being the world police, and focus on our own problems.

Sometimes they become our own problems when terrorists slam loaded 747's into buildings and kill a few thousand people.. or when they set off bombs over london.

the thing i dont like about our goverment overall, is that most of the money they have is put into military uses. we would be better off if it was put into education. we need to stop being the world police, and focus on our own problems.

incorrect again. we invaded Iraq because Hussein threatened to use "his weapons of mass destruction" against the US numerous times.
We called his bluff and he lost.
his fault, his problem. We struck preemptively due to his repeated threats to use chemical and biological weapons against the US and allied countries. Please, if you're going to buy into the liberal naysaying, at least get your facts straight about why we're over there right now.

Thank you.

wasnt it in the first year he was president? 2001? first year out of a four year term = a quarter

did you click the link?
i meant that clinton had to deal with a terrorist attack in his first year too.. (oklahoma city bombing)