The WMD ( Chemical & Biological) was given by the US to Saddam and used during his war on Iran and on the Kurds, wat was left was never a threat to ppl in LA for ex ...and lets face it most of the countries have Chemical & Biological, even Israel do have Atomic bomb or Nukes in Dimona whatever u call them and NO ONE ...no one dare to ask for UN inspection and when this issue was raised by some countries in the ME Israel refused !! what was the international community response ?? Zero ...wat was the UN response ?? they put their heads in the sand ... man I'm not trying to argue with you on this coz it's a clear fact for any one that this war was for 1000 other than WMD

Dzone, I'm not going to argue with you over either Israel's nuclear weapons or general international rules on nuclear weapons in this thread. Feel free to start a new one if you like.

Here we are talking about Iraq. You have previously stated that Iraq did not have any WMD's - this seems to be contradictory to all the evidence prior to the war, evidence by his own admission and by the UN agencies whose job it was to dismantle his WMD's programme.

My previous questions to you stand! Please answer them.

1. What did he do with all the WMD's he acknowledged having for a large part of the 90's?

2. Why did he hamper the UN inspectors for so long?If he didn't have any, why not just help the inspectors?

BTW it was not just the USA who went to war with Iraq - over 30 other countries refused to bow to blackmail by the Sadaam appologists, sorry i mean the UN. Do you think that Poland, Spain or the UK really cared whether weapons could hit LA? I think most countries that entered into this war did so because they saw Sadaam as adirect threat to world order!

$50 bucks that it was crack in the vials

I'm still wondering if he hampered the inspectors so long to be able to move the Chemical and biological weapons unseen, but who'll tell?

Thanx for making my position clear to Dzone Brakada...

Isreal has Nukes, wasn't that already public? At least they don't use them to attack other people and convince them of the righteousness their religion.

[quote=davetlv] Here we are talking about Iraq. You have previously stated that Iraq did not have any WMD's - this seems to be contradictory to all the evidence prior to the war, evidence by his own admission and by the UN agencies whose job it was to dismantle his WMD's programme. [/quote]

Why don't you try answering the same question, posed in a different way. If there were so many evidence prior to war, how come noone has been able to find almost any evidence of existence of the Iraqi WMDs?

[quote=davetlv] My previous questions to you stand! Please answer them. [/quote]

I replied to your questions and I didn't hear your opinion, or am I not worth your comment on my replies? :wink:

[quote=davetlv] BTW it was not just the USA who went to war with Iraq - over 30 other countries refused to bow to blackmail by the Sadaam appologists, sorry i mean the UN. Do you think that Poland, Spain or the UK really cared whether weapons could hit LA? I think most countries that entered into this war did so because they saw Sadaam as adirect threat to world order![/quote]

Well, this point of yours could be argued. There is a dillema, whether most of those countries really saw Sadaam as a direct threat to world order or were they just "kissing Bush's ass". However, I do believe that Dzone was referring to Bush's and Blair's arguments that Iraq was a direct threat to the US and the UK, which I think it was not. IMHO, Iraq was not a threat to world order ANYMORE. I believe it is more of a threat now (with all the terrorists), than it was before (last years when Sadaam was in power). However, Iraq today is a lesser threat to Israel, which was (again this is only my humble opinion) in fact the only country to which Iraq represented a threat (by funding suicide bombers).

[quote=davetlv]Dzone, I'm not going to argue with you over either Israel's nuclear weapons or general international rules on nuclear weapons in this thread. Feel free to start a new one if you like.

Here we are talking about Iraq. You have previously stated that Iraq did not have any WMD's - this seems to be contradictory to all the evidence prior to the war, evidence by his own admission and by the UN agencies whose job it was to dismantle his WMD's programme.

My previous questions to you stand! Please answer them.

1. What did he do with all the WMD's he acknowledged having for a large part of the 90's?

2. Why did he hamper the UN inspectors for so long?If he didn't have any, why not just help the inspectors?

BTW it was not just the USA who went to war with Iraq - over 30 other countries refused to bow to blackmail by the Sadaam appologists, sorry i mean the UN. Do you think that Poland, Spain or the UK really cared whether weapons could hit LA? I think most countries that entered into this war did so because they saw Sadaam as adirect threat to world order![/quote]

davetlv ... i bit ya guys have wicked skunk up in Israel ..u seem like ya smoked couple b4 u reply to my quote, 30 countries plz name them 4 me how many other countries are actually fighting in Iraq, Man Poland FFS 80% of the country don't know where's Iraq on the map ( I've been to Poland myself), the UK u know the score Spain they chinked out coz ppl didn't believe in war and they sent the Pussy of PM to court of law now. As i said the WMD was sent to Iraq by the USA for the war with Iran and he used wat was left on the kurd in the north ...End of Story

I'm not asking you 2 argue with me over Israel's nuclear weapons, coz there is no argue in this matter, i have nothing against Israel or Israeli ppl, i actually meet lots of them in Sinai and all i meet are cool, nice, peaceful ppl and may i add very fit birds :)

I'm talking about double Standards... and it make since 2 Me coz who ever got the power this is the way he will act ...It's a power trip IMO and it has been always this way

Well, this point of yours could be argued. There is a dillema, whether most of those countries really saw Sadaam as a direct threat to world order or were they just "kissing Bush's ass". However, I do believe that Dzone was referring to Bush's and Blair's arguments that Iraq was a direct threat to the US and the UK, which I think it was not. IMHO, Iraq was not a threat to world order ANYMORE. I believe it is more of a threat now (with all the terrorists), than it was before (last years when Sadaam was in power). However, Iraq today is a lesser threat to Israel, which was (again this is only my humble opinion) in fact the only country to which Iraq represented a threat (by funding suicide bombers).[/quote]

Man i love your work :D

[quote=Dzone] davetlv ... i bit ya guys have wicked skunk up in Israel ..u seem like ya smoked couple b4 u reply to my quote, 30 countries plz name them 4 me how many other countries are actually fighting in Iraq, Man Poland FFS 80% of the country don't know where's Iraq on the map ( I've been to Poland myself), the UK u know the score Spain they chinked out coz ppl didn't believe in war and they sent the Pussy of PM to court of law now. As i said the WMD was sent to Iraq by the USA for the war with Iran and he used wat was left on the kurd in the north ...End of Story[/quote]

Dzone, your right my stats were wrong, over 49 countires joined what Bush called the 'coalition of the willing', these were the countries that were in favor of forcibly removing Saddam Hussein from power, whilst another 20 plus countries had an active or participant role. These countries included :- Australia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom

I'm very pleased you mentioned that many Spaniards did not approve of the war or their governments decision to take part in it. Thats the thing about living in a democracy, if you don't like what your politicians do you can get rid of them, that was something the people of Iraq did not have the luxory of. Well hopefully now after their election they will!

[quote=Dzone]I'm not asking you 2 argue with me over Israel's nuclear weapons, coz there is no argue in this matter, i have nothing against Israel or Israeli ppl, i actually meet lots of them in Sinai and all i meet are cool, nice, peaceful ppl and may i add very fit birds :)

I'm talking about double Standards... and it make since 2 Me coz who ever got the power this is the way he will act ...It's a power trip IMO and it has been always this way[/quote]

You're right there is a double standard. My views on this can be found on page two of this thread:- [url]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4914[/url]

As for the skunk comments - i find the hash better here then grass - skunk is too hard to get hold of!

Now over to Brakada: You and i have discussed these issues before, my previous posts here were directly aimed Dzone.

[quote=Brakada]I replied to your questions and I didn't hear your opinion, or am I not worth your comment on my replies? :wink: [/quote]

A bit unfair, matey especially as questions were not aimed at you! You know i just love our little discussions! :Naughty:

Dammit Brakada, you've worded it really nice again.

[quote=brakada][quote=davetlv] Here we are talking about Iraq. You have previously stated that Iraq did not have any WMD's - this seems to be contradictory to all the evidence prior to the war, evidence by his own admission and by the UN agencies whose job it was to dismantle his WMD's programme. [/quote]

Why don't you try answering the same question, posed in a different way. If there were so many evidence prior to war, how come noone has been able to find almost any evidence of existence of the Iraqi WMDs?

[quote=davetlv] My previous questions to you stand! Please answer them. [/quote]

I replied to your questions and I didn't hear your opinion, or am I not worth your comment on my replies? :wink:

[quote=davetlv] BTW it was not just the USA who went to war with Iraq - over 30 other countries refused to bow to blackmail by the Sadaam appologists, sorry i mean the UN. Do you think that Poland, Spain or the UK really cared whether weapons could hit LA? I think most countries that entered into this war did so because they saw Sadaam as adirect threat to world order![/quote]

Well, this point of yours could be argued. There is a dillema, whether most of those countries really saw Sadaam as a direct threat to world order or were they just "kissing Bush's ass". However, I do believe that Dzone was referring to Bush's and Blair's arguments that Iraq was a direct threat to the US and the UK, which I think it was not. IMHO, Iraq was not a threat to world order ANYMORE. I believe it is more of a threat now (with all the terrorists), than it was before (last years when Sadaam was in power). However, Iraq today is a lesser threat to Israel, which was (again this is only my humble opinion) in fact the only country to which Iraq represented a threat (by funding suicide bombers).[/quote]

Let the WMD's go.. we all know that they had them.. let me guess in your fairly tale world saddam got rid of them right?? ya he got rid of them all right.. right into the arms of the terrorists or maybe you call them "freedom fighters".. You honestly think that saddam terminated all his WMD for the better world.. if you think that you are stupider then i thought.. these are the first steps to giving them the education and technology they need to change their views on the western world..hell the omish people here have a better lifestyle then them.. they are jealous and they think we want to killl all of them because of hundreds of years of brainwashing..Iraq was a definite threat to World Peace.. you can't argue that.. the nation was ruled by as evil person.. that can't make the world any better, right? You guys blame Bush for the brain washing compared to a religion that has been brainwashing since its wrongful existence(another arguement all together) for thousands of years..

[quote=runningman]Let the WMD's go.. we all know that they had them.. let me guess in your fairly tale world saddam got rid of them right?? ya he got rid of them all right.. right into the arms of the terrorists or maybe you call them "freedom fighters".. You honestly think that saddam terminated all his WMD for the better world.. if you think that you are stupider then i thought.. these are the first steps to giving them the education and technology they need to change their views on the western world..hell the omish people here have a better lifestyle then them.. they are jealous and they think we want to killl all of them because of hundreds of years of brainwashing..Iraq was a definite threat to World Peace.. you can't argue that.. the nation was ruled by as evil person.. that can't make the world any better, right? You guys blame Bush for the brain washing compared to a religion that has been brainwashing since its wrongful existence(another arguement all together) for thousands of years..[/quote]

Fact: untill this very day, there have not been found any WMD's Runningmate...no, the Sarin vials do not count as WMD's because to be able to speak of WMD's you gotta have a little more than the amount found, IF it is really Sarin, and IF it is still useable.

Maybe Saddam moved them, maybe he really destroyed them: we don't know! But we do know they're not there, all that has been found were the leftovers they forgot to wipe off the glass (as a figure of speech). Iraq was numb, and no threat to world peace in that state, and if the UN had exercised a little more control on the money flows we could've easily prevented at least part of the fundings to terrorist groups.

We don't call terrorists freedom fighters, how did you even come by that thought? They call themselves freedom fighters, and you call yourselves freedom fighters. Who's to judge who is right? Ain't no God or Allah descending upon us in this lifetime to tell us...

From 29 Nov. [quote=brakada] Wars are not only about the number of military victims. :roll: Especially, the war in Iraq. The conditions in which civilians live are (sadly) today still worse than they were before the war, Iraq is a hotbed of terrorism and terror and one of the ironic thigs is that most of the victims were inflicted after the major military operations were supposed to be over, which I believe is not usually the case. And all in all Bush completely underestimated Iraq and promised a swift war, which unfortunately still isn't over. I still don't understand why Iraq had to be invaded so soon and why was it such an eminent threat to international security...[/quote]

As a matter of fact, this generalization of Iraq's difficutly is misleading and incorrect. You have made a picture of the situation in Iraq, which is simply not true, though I understand why you think it to be that way.

Overall, the majority of Iraq is stable and secure. There are hotbeds in certain cities, where the insurgents have built a base of support. Those place are being turned over at this time. Finally!

You see it this way, because of what you have heard and seen in the media. The bias never ends with the media, and it misleading for sure.

I can say this because I have heard first hand from 3 people who have been there within the last year.

One: a taxi driver in New York City. Angry at the misleading of the press. His family living there now whom he visits and communicates with regularly.

Two: a marine who was there for the first 16 months. He was there before it started and went across the desert in the beginning, and spent time in many of the cities before he had to leave.

Three: a pastor, who went there as part of a church related group who were to meet with ALL the pastors in Bagdad. He had Egyptian translators who led them around and kept them from doing anything that could get them in trouble.

As long as the media has all the power to give us the details they want us to see and hear, we will never hear the true side of what life is like in Iraq today.

Rob, Brakada: why does it have to be one way or another? Iraq can still be a hotbed of terrorism while large parts are relatively secure and stable.

And don't forget that by 'stable' it doesn't mean Western style stable. Speaking of which: I would never ever call any country stable in which Dutch soldiers are still attacked (not that often thoug), because we're the ones always 'helping' by sitting quietly in the most remote area because of our chicken shit government and because Netherlands wants to look like it's really helping out people all over the world while all it really cares about is itself. We even have a soldier facing court martial now because in a threatening situation he fired a wrning shot into the ground which bounced off and killed an Iraqi who was ready to kill him.

So much for supporting your troops and helping this planet... :mrgreen:

Another issue your on is whether or not Saddam had the WMD's or not, what happened to them, and was it a true threat for war.

Bush has said many times that it was a threat because those weapons could end up in the hands of terrorist. Links have been made where Bin Laden has met with certain individuals who have access to WMD material and some links have been made to him and nuclear scientist who could aid Bil Laden in his plan to hurt the west.

OK, 2 points quickly.

1. Bin Laden has had it out to hurt America (and its Allies) since Clinton's term in office - the 90's. I don't need to mention the attacks of that decade all orchestrated by Bin Laden. If he had use of Nukes or WMD's earlier, maybe all of New York would be smokin or choking.

2. Bin Laden himself called this a war, back in the 90's. He declared a WAR on America. Why do people not understand that for some of the terrorist, this is a 'holy' endeavor, and that is truly why they come from all the countries around to fight (and die willingly ) in Iraq.

This is a religious war to the terrorist, whether you like it, or want to admit it, or not!

Btw. only a month ago, an Imam in Iraq, who was on the side of fighting the American intruder, wrote a letter confirming my point. I don't remember much about the text, but his points were that the insurgents had Allah's blessing. He quoted the Koran in association with 'smighting the neck' or cutting off heads, and other things I can't remember now. Maybe someone else saw this in the 'hidden' press and can link us up. I say 'hidden' because it was totally overlooked by the widespread 'in your face' press which we can't help but hear.

So where do some of you here get the 'idea' that religion doesn't have anything to do with the insurgents coming to Iraq to fight?

Ey, did you notice me saying the insurgents coming to Iraq to fight the Americans did that as a field trip or a holiday-weekend special Kiling Amewican twoops 50% if bodycount exceeds 10?

I am well aware of the 'why' of this flood of Muslims and Mujahedhin into Iraq... :wink:

One thing the American cant get is, how 2 fight someone who want 2 die ??? i think it's very hard, esp when American care alot of their soldiers, you need to understand the mentalty of such a fighter, but i asure you will not coz it's huge gap in beleives.

Your correct Dzone. Good point! Its a very difficult proposition.

Yao, great Bugs Bunny line. :lol:

:mrgreen: