Dean Dropped Out!

[SlimStyleDSM]

Rem, quick question...you are obviously a strong democrat. Would you please explain to me why? Just curious, I can't understand why . Thanx

[92gsTEX]

alright, I just read this whole fucking thing and all im seeing is about three or four people vs. one. All that can be said is the one owned the three or four.

[LightningGSX]

I don't see how we're getting owned, remy is arguing a few small points, without looking at the big picture.

1.OIL? (Taken from the DOEs website) Less than 20% of US oil comes from the gulf, and less than 20% of that 20% comes from Iraq.There have been congressional studies that stated, even if all gulf oil was cut off, there would be a minimal economic impact on the US, since we can easily make it up with non-gulf oil sources.So Bush invaded Iraq for oil?

2.WMDs? Its well documented that Iraq DID have WMDs, if they are not in Iraq now, that means they made it to the black market, which is a HUGE threat to the US and in itself warranted removing Saddam from power.

3.US supporting Iraq? I assume you are talking about the Iran-Iraq war, in which the US's official stance was neutral.At MAX we gave incomplete Iraq intelligence(no weapons, no "support"), we did give Iran weapons(and the whole Iran-Contra scandal, about the time you were born).So I don't know where you got that idea, giving weapons to Iraq would have resulted in a huge scandal.

4.UN? Waiting for UN backing would have had little difference, considering there are troops from US, UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, etc in Iraq already.I would say that we do have international backing, wouldn't you? Whose else would have went in with UN backing? France? Germany? They had economical ties to Saddam, so they wouldn't have taken part even if we had UN support.The UN is basically powerless in everything but humanitarian efforts.

4.Saddam and terrorism? Just because there is, as of yet, no evidence of Saddam supporting Al Queida, doesn't mean he didn't.It also doesn't mean he didn't support other terrorist groups.It is known these terrorist groups have chemical weapons, where do you suppose they got them from?

Just because we didn't remove everyone of the worlds bad regimes all at the same time, doesn't mean we have somehow singled out Iraq.Iraq chose to fuck with the UN resolutions, which Saddam must of had a reason for doing so, why would he kick out UN inspectors for a long period of time and give the UN BS information, if he had no WMDs to hide? Iraq was just a start anyway, I'm sure over time all the other tyrants and rogue nations will get whats coming to them.Military actions against regimes that support terrorism(or even ones that don't at present, but have the capability) is the only way to fight terrorism.

[npaulseth]

Good lord man. Don't you see what your typing. YOU ARE MAKING HUGE ASUMPTIONS. You can't just asume that Saddam has this, or does that. You need proof! And look at how many internalion troops are fighting with us, and then try and tell me that it is an internal war. You are truely misinformed.

[Jakey]

Originally posted by npaulseth@Feb 21 2004, 09:59 AM
Good lord man.  Don't you see what your typing.  YOU ARE MAKING HUGE ASUMPTIONS.  You can't just asume that Saddam has this, or does that.  You need proof!  And look at how many internalion troops are fighting with us, and then try and tell me that it is an internal war.  You are truely misinformed.

Where are these assumptions, please specifically expand on what you're trying to say.

[npaulseth]

Originally posted by Jakey+Feb 21 2004, 10:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jakey @ Feb 21 2004, 10:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-npaulseth@Feb 21 2004, 09:59 AM
Good lord man.* Don't you see what your typing.* YOU ARE MAKING HUGE ASUMPTIONS.* You can't just asume that Saddam has this, or does that.* You need proof!* And look at how many internalion troops are fighting with us, and then try and tell me that it is an internal war.* You are truely misinformed.

Where are these assumptions, please specifically expand on what you're trying to say. [/b][/quote]
1. there were WMDs in Iraq at some point, they must of went somewhere, either unfound still in Iraq or even worse they made it to the hands of terrorists.

2. The WMDs are not a figment of Bush's(or his advisors) imagination and did exist in Iraq at some point.

3. And just because there is no evidence of Saddam supporting Al Queida, doesn't mean he didn't support Al Queida or other terrorist groups.

4. even if Saddam didn't directly support Al Queida up to the present, it was only a matter of time before he did support Al Queida or other terroristic efforts against us.

5. There is no doubt in my mind, history will show Iraq did support terrorism and its WMDs ended up in the wrong hands.

6. Like I said before, any tyrannical regime with a large military and large amount of wepons is a threat, especially when they are ignoring UN resolutions. (Iraq had a very small military actually. They had like two or three working Planes I think. You can thank the smart Bush for that one.)

7. I also fail to see how either of those can compare to the million+ people that were murdered under Saddam.

8. (Best one yet) By the way Iraq does have/had WMD we just havent found them yet becuase they are burried in there desserts or they are hiding in neighboring countries.

9. (Another good one) Its well documented that Iraq DID have WMDs, if they are not in Iraq now, that means they made it to the black market, which is a HUGE threat to the US and in itself warranted removing Saddam from power.

10. Waiting for UN backing would have had little difference, considering there are troops from US, UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, etc

11. Just because there is, as of yet, no evidence of Saddam supporting Al Queida, doesn't mean he didn't.

12. Iraq chose to fuck with the UN resolutions (The UN is "BS" so why are you arguing that they are important?)

13. Military actions against regimes that support terrorism(or even ones that don't at present, but have the capability (Every country in the whole world has capability to support a terrorist org.)

Don't ya think if we found something, it would have been reported so that Bush wouldn't look like such an ass right now?

[LightningGSX]

Exactly which one of those is an assumption? Iraq did have WMDs, its undebatable.Iraqs army was by no means small.This was taken from the website of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC.

As of 2001...
"Iraq’s military forces still have over 400,000 actives, some 375,000 men in its army, and the ability to mobilize up to 400,000 more reserves with some degree of combat capability. They still have some 2,200 main battle tanks, some 3,700 other armored weapons, 2,200 major artillery weapons, and 70-90 armed helicopters. They still have some 316 combat aircraft, most of which can be operational for at least short periods. They have some 140-160 major surface-to-air missile launchers, perhaps another 500-700 light surface-to-air missile launchers, and some 3,000 antiaircraft guns"

[npaulseth]

If it isn't proven, then it's an asumption. Prove one of those with hard evidence.

[LightningGSX]

Check the above post I edited it.And Iraq has admitted to having WMD's, to pursuing a nuke program, and Saddam has even used them on the Kurds, So yeah I guess I "assume" Iraq had WMDs at some point.Other than a few of those, which were my OPINION not an assumption, they are proven.

[npaulseth]

Sorry for my mistake, when people say WMD's, I think nukes. I totally agree that at some point they had chemical weapons, but never ever nukes. Where have you read that they admitted to pursing a Nuke program?

[LightningGSX]

In the Iraqi weapons reports to the UN after desert storm.

I think chemical weapons are a greater threat than nukes anyway, terrorists have actually used chemical weapons on US soil against us.Terrorists could bring nukes into the US, but not as easy as chemical WMDs.

[npaulseth]

Vote Bush

:stick:

[LightningGSX]

BTW Remy has said absolutely positively Iraq has no WMDs and Saddam absolutely positively hasn't had links to terrorists, and you're accusing me of making assumptions?

[npaulseth]

Yeees.

EDIT: Hey man, I'm done debating unless some new subjects are brought up. Thanks for the clean debate though. I'd much rather talk to someone like you, who I have different view points with, than with someone who just doesn't care. Thanks, and no hard feelings. Noah

[Jakey]

Originally posted by npaulseth@Feb 21 2004, 11:57 AM
Yeees.

EDIT: Hey man, I'm done debating unless some new subjects are brought up. Thanks for the clean debate though. I'd much rather talk to someone like you, who I have different view points with, than with someone who just doesn't care. Thanks, and no hard feelings. Noah

Isn't debating fun?? I love debating whether I lose or not

[npaulseth]

Ya. I wish I would have taken it in HS. I am a true keyboard warrior

Originally posted by LightningGSX@Feb 21 2004, 06:37 AM
I don't see how we're getting owned, remy is arguing a few small points, without looking at the big picture.

1.OIL? (Taken from the DOEs website) Less than 20% of US oil comes from the gulf, and less than 20% of that 20% comes from Iraq.There have been congressional studies that stated, even if all gulf oil was cut off, there would be a minimal economic impact on the US, since we can easily make it up with non-gulf oil sources.So Bush invaded Iraq for oil?

2.WMDs? Its well documented that Iraq DID have WMDs, if they are not in Iraq now, that means they made it to the black market, which is a HUGE threat to the US and in itself warranted removing Saddam from power.

3.US supporting Iraq? I assume you are talking about the Iran-Iraq war, in which the US's official stance was neutral.At MAX we gave incomplete Iraq intelligence(no weapons, no "support"), we did give Iran weapons(and the whole Iran-Contra scandal, about the time you were born).So I don't know where you got that idea, giving weapons to Iraq would have resulted in a huge scandal.

4.UN? Waiting for UN backing would have had little difference, considering there are troops from US, UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, etc in Iraq already.I would say that we do have international backing, wouldn't you? Whose else would have went in with UN backing? France? Germany? They had economical ties to Saddam, so they wouldn't have taken part even if we had UN support.The UN is basically powerless in everything but humanitarian efforts.

4.Saddam and terrorism? Just because there is, as of yet, no evidence of Saddam supporting Al Queida, doesn't mean he didn't.It also doesn't mean he didn't support other terrorist groups.It is known these terrorist groups have chemical weapons, where do you suppose they got them from?

Just because we didn't remove everyone of the worlds bad regimes all at the same time, doesn't mean we have somehow singled out Iraq.Iraq chose to fuck with the UN resolutions, which Saddam must of had a reason for doing so, why would he kick out UN inspectors for a long period of time and give the UN BS information, if he had no WMDs to hide? Iraq was just a start anyway, I'm sure over time all the other tyrants and rogue nations will get whats coming to them.Military actions against regimes that support terrorism(or even ones that don't at present, but have the capability) is the only way to fight terrorism.

I'm back dananana na na , just got off of work and read pretty much the same shit you've been bringing up the last few days, and I still don't understand how you can think that stuff up. One of the reasons that Iraqs oil exports have been so low is the embargos placed on them in 1996. So in other words if the US went into Iraq and "Liberated" it, what do you know the embargos would be lifted and the US and US oil companies could move in and suck it dry. And you're right just because there is NO evidence doesn't mean that Saddam did support terrorism either. In #2 you say that the WMD's could have made it to the black market. Well if you haven't heard Pakistans head nuclear advisor has been caught selling info and material to Lybia, North Korea, and other individuals. So its not like other people aren't out there giving people we fear, weapons that could fuck us up. I really love this part, in #4 you start raddling of shit about how the UN is worthless, this and that. And then at the end you justify the war by saying Iraq fucked with the UN. Give me a fucking break, which way is it, is the UN worthless, or not? And your right I am saying Iraq doesn't have WMD's I never said they didn't at some point. But they don't, more importantly they didn't when we invaded them. And yes I am saying the Saddam has no ties to terrorism, give me some fucking proof. Ohya you don't have any. :razz2:

According to a Senate Committee Report of 1994 [1]: From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were:

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.

and one more thing, the burden is on you to prove why the war was necessary not for us who oppose it to tell you why it wasn't.

One more thing I'm finding interesting. Why is the Whitehouse saying the CIA withheld or over estimated Iraq as a threat. Umm, WTF would the CIA have to gain from doing that. It all lays with the Whitehouse and their fuck up.

[LightningGSX]

Sorry but you are just plain wrong about the oil.The UN is worthless when it comes to military action, I was just stating he wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors and gave incomplete BS reports, if he had nothing to hide.I still don't get why you keep bringing up other places, like I said Iraq was a start, we can't take action against every bad regime at the same time.Chemical weapons are far more threatening to us anyway, and Iraq had considerable amounts that are missing.

Here's a graph of our oil imports from the whole persian gulf since 1973 (only a small percentage comes from Iraq).The whole oil thing is just bullshit, its far cheaper for us to get oil from our other supplies (off shore, wells, etc) than it is to import from the persian gulf.

You STILL have not justified the war. All you are doing is TRYING to disprove my arguement. Good luck.

I'll let you argue with yourself from now on.\\


Maybe

[LightningGSX]

"According to a Senate Committee Report of 1994 [1]: From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were:

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic."


But according to you, Iraq has no WMDs? Where did they go? BTW I was never trying to justify the war, I was just proving what you were saying was bullshit.