Quake3World

fucking hell is this still going on?

Yes, and you've yet to fuck off.

Imagine that......

YourGrandpa wrote:Let me get this straight. You are now picking and choosing which U.S. government official you are going to believe?

And why didn't Saddam let the inspectors investigate if he didn't have any WMDs?

Why haven't you answered my original question?

WHY?

picking and choosing? no.

in 2001 Powell is in accord with the the other western intelligence agencies. The UN oversaw the destruction of 95% of Saddam's wmd after 1991.

But then after 9/11 Bush fabricated a case for war. again, see here for evidence...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le9111.htm

so just keep jibber jabbering gramps. and tonight thank your god that your son hasn't had a bomb dropped on him or a bullet shot into his brain like so many Iraqi children have.

MidnightQ4 wrote:actually talking to me like that I don't give you any credit for being a human being, much less an American. Thanks for serving our country I appreciate that, however your intelligence doesn't impress me in the least. Probably why you opted to go into the military.

My intelligence has nothing to do with it, you're too stupid to listen to any sort of common sense. You've drunk deeply of all the bullshit punch that GeeDubya has poured for you, and you don't want to hear anything else. You really are a moron, which why you ignore answers people give to your questions, and when someone refutes a point, you completely alter your argument.
I'll pretty much guarantee that you couldn't have done my job in the Corps, not that I think you would have made it through boot, and I doubt you have even the slightest idea about the requirements for ANY field in the military, so shut the fuck up about that. Although, it's obvious that your complete lack of knowledge about a subject doesn't keep you from vomiting idiocy in the form of an opinion.

MidnightQ4 wrote:Already said this many times, go back and reread.

You haven't provided ONE SINGLE PIECE of publically verifiable information as to why Saddam was a direct threat to the US. not one. You can't, because he wasn't.

MidnightQ4 wrote: Duh, that's why we made him destroy them. Which doesn't mean that he didn't rebuild his stockpiles.

See, this is what I mean about you changing your argument when someone refutes your point. Go back and re-read the question you posted that prompted my response. Idiot.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

YourGrandpa wrote:Let me get this straight. You are now picking and choosing which U.S. government official you are going to believe?

And why didn't Saddam let the inspectors investigate if he didn't have any WMDs?

Why haven't you answered my original question?

WHY?

picking and choosing? no.

in 2001 Powell is in accord with the the other western intelligence agencies. The UN oversaw the destruction of 95% of Saddam's wmd after 1991.

But then after 9/11 Bush fabricated a case for war. again, see here for evidence...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le9111.htm

so just keep jibber jabbering gramps. and tonight thank your god that your son hasn't had a bomb dropped on him or a bullet shot into his brain like so many Iraqi children have.

Blah blah blah....

I'm going to keep this coversation on track and you're going to try to divert it.

You can't/won't answer the questions regarding viable alternatives and I've come to grips with that. You should do the same.

Game over.....

you're not at all deluded gramps

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.

Days before the fighting began, Vice President Dick Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.

"We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said. "And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."

Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, "I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement, so -- and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge."

No evidence of a nuclear weapons program has been found so far.

Blix, who recounts his search for weapons of mass destruction in his book "Disarming Iraq," said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."

Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks.

"Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."

The most spectacular intelligence failure concerned a report by ElBaradei, who revealed that an alleged contract by Iraq with Niger to import uranium oxide was a forgery, Blix said.

"The document had been sitting with the CIA and their U.K. counterparts for a long while, and they had not discovered it," Blix said. "And I think it took the IAEA a day to discover that it was a forgery."

Blix said that during a meeting before the war with the U.S. president, Bush told him that "the U.S. genuinely wanted peace," and that "he was no wild, gung-ho Texan, bent on dragging the U.S. into war."

Blix said Bush gave the inspectors support and information at first, but he said the help didn't last long enough.

"I think they lost their patience much too early," Blix said.

"I can see that they wanted to have a picture that was either black or white, and we presented a picture that had, you know, gray in it, as well," he said.

Iraq had been shown to have biological and chemical weapons before, "and there was no record of either destruction or production; there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?" ElBaradei said.

Blix said he had not been able to say definitively that Iraq had no such weapons, but added that he felt history has shown he was not wrong.

"At least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed," he said.

ElBaradei faulted Iraq for "the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime."

"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."

ElBaradei said he hoped the past year's events have taught world leaders a valuable lesson.

"We learned from Iraq that an inspection takes time, that we should be patient, that an inspection can, in fact, work."

I can't believe there are still people who support this war. Theres more evidence showing that Saddam didn't have WMDs than there is showing that he did (none). You've been lied to and fell for it. The best you can do now is snap the fuck out of it, learn from your mistake, and get pissed like the rest of us.

Nightshade wrote:

MidnightQ4 wrote:actually talking to me like that I don't give you any credit for being a human being, much less an American. Thanks for serving our country I appreciate that, however your intelligence doesn't impress me in the least. Probably why you opted to go into the military.

My intelligence has nothing to do with it, you're too stupid to listen to any sort of common sense.

I'm listening, when you guys start making some I'll let you know.

You've drunk deeply of all the bullshit punch that GeeDubya has poured for you, and you don't want to hear anything else.

much like you only seem to believe that everything the US does is for evil selfish reasons. Do you really think that Bush has a secret evil agenda? Do you honestly think he is not doing what he thinks in his heart is the best thing for the Iraqi people? I think he is a good person who has the best interests of human life at heart. Sometimes hard decisions have to be made and wars have to be fought to prevent even worse things from happening.

You really are a moron, which why you ignore answers people give to your questions, and when someone refutes a point, you completely alter your argument.

I don't ignore them at all. The very few times people have offered an answer to anything I just break down their arguement, that is not ignoring it at all. But seriously nobody seems to be able to answer the questions that either myself or gramps has asked. You guys should be qouting our questions and providing pointed answers to them if you want to say you are answering anything, which you are not.

I'll pretty much guarantee that you couldn't have done my job in the Corps, not that I think you would have made it through boot, and I doubt you have even the slightest idea about the requirements for ANY field in the military, so shut the fuck up about that.

My father and brother were in the military, I think that counts for something. I was not cause frankly there was no need for me to join up, especially when I graduated with top honors in my class and was going to a top university. It would make no sense to waste my intelligence in the military.

Although, it's obvious that your complete lack of knowledge about a subject doesn't keep you from vomiting idiocy in the form of an opinion.

same to you. All I see from you is flames, but no real knowledge about anything. Besides, since what we are really talking about here is not so much history, but what to do in the future about these situations, it is primarily people's opinion we are asking for. But nobody can seem to come up with a better way to do things in the future. So you just come up with stats about how many people have died etc., totally negating the idea that more people would die if Saddam was left to do his evil deeds.

MidnightQ4 wrote:Already said this many times, go back and reread.

You haven't provided ONE SINGLE PIECE of publically verifiable information as to why Saddam was a direct threat to the US. not one. You can't, because he wasn't.
[/quote]Saddam did not cooperate with UN inspectors. That's a fact for which I don't even need to find sources since we all agree on it. Whether he was a direct threat to the US is not in question, he was declaring war by his actions and was a threat to other nations which the US is inclined to protect, thereby he was a threat to the US.

So you can argue that even though he was in total violation of UN policies put in place by the whole of the UN that he wasn't directly threatening US soil, however that arguement doesn't mean anything, since we unfortunately have the position of peacekeeper for smaller nations whether we want it or not. If Iraq threatens any UN country, he threatens us, end of story. Kuwait has been in the UN since 1963.

MidnightQ4 wrote: Duh, that's why we made him destroy them. Which doesn't mean that he didn't rebuild his stockpiles.

See, this is what I mean about you changing your argument when someone refutes your point. Go back and re-read the question you posted that prompted my response. Idiot.

I'm not changing anything I said. When did I ever say that he didn't destroy his chemical weapons directly after the gulf war? I never said that. I said that it was never proved that he didn't have weapons at the time just before the invasion this time around. It was proved that after the invasion he didn't have any, which says nothing about the months prior to and during the invasion when he was stonewalling the inspections.

Give me one other plausible reason why he would stonewall the inspections if not to give himself time to get rid of chemical weapons. Shouldn't be hard I can come up with some myself, even though they are illogical and retarded.

DooMer wrote:I can't believe there are still people who support this war. Theres more evidence showing that Saddam didn't have WMDs than there is showing that he did (none). You've been lied to and fell for it. The best you can do now is snap the fuck out of it, learn from your mistake, and get pissed like the rest of us.

Again, this view point of hindsight is irrelevant. Whether he did or did not have weapons was not the reason we invaded Iraq. We invaded because frankly we didn't know if he had weapons or not, and we were not going to take that risk, coupled with the intelligence at the time which did indicate that he had weapons.

If it turned out he did have weapons, it still would not have been the justification for invading. The justification was the noncompliance with the UN. Whey people keep pointing out that there were no WMD's after we invaded and therefore the war was wrong I will just never understand.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful.

First of all, good post. However I would like to point out this one part above. It shows that Powell was relying on the current intelligence at the time, which did not suggest that WMD's existed. If at that time the intelligence has suggested the opposite, his speech would have been different.

So, later on when the intel did indeed report the opposite, you can see why whatever he said at the time of that speech was negated and irrelevant.

I mean to put it in context, imagine if the time lapse was different, say 10 years. At year 0 intel says no WMDs. At year 10 it says yes, there are WMDs. The situation has changed. So any reports or speeches by people at year 0 don't mean anything in the context of year 10.

Now, just because it was only 18 months prior, the concept still stands. The reason is that the real timetable was 10 years. It is just that the intel was not accurate. Now if it turned out that the intel they had just before the invasion was not accurate, that's fine because all Iraq had to do was to cooperate and problem solved. But they failed to do that, so war ensued.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Iraq had been shown to have biological and chemical weapons before, "and there was no record of either destruction or production; there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?" ElBaradei said.

This combined with noncooperation = act of war. Discussion over.

Blix said he had not been able to say definitively that Iraq had no such weapons, but added that he felt history has shown he was not wrong.

hindsight is easy isn't it? But what was the downside of being wrong?

"At least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed," he said.

ElBaradei faulted Iraq for "the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime."

"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."

again, noncompliance = act of war.

"We learned from Iraq that an inspection takes time, that we should be patient, that an inspection can, in fact, work."

if it worked then what were those previous quotes from? As was posted in another post on here, Saddam secretly got rid of his weapons after the Gulf war, so that he could later rebuild and let no one be the wiser. So letting him do the same again by waiting it out for "as long as Saddam wants" is not a good thing.

Non-compliance is an act of war? With who? Hows that work?

Did the UN send the US in?

jester! wrote:Non-compliance is an act of war? With who? Hows that work?

Did the UN send the US in?

Yes it is an act of war to not comply with UN sanctions and policies and inspections. Half of the UN did agree to invade, the other half did not, primarily because they were corrupted by oil deals (france) or had other selfish reasons (Turkey) not to go along with the very same policies they signed years earlier. Just because some countries become corrupted should not deter the rest from doing the right thing.

Was the US acting as a member of the UN or of their own accord?

Who was this act of war you talk about commited against?

MidnightQ4 wrote: Yes it is an act of war to not comply with UN sanctions and policies and inspections. Half of the UN did agree to invade, the other half did not, primarily because they were corrupted by oil deals (france) or had other selfish reasons (Turkey) not to go along with the very same policies they signed years earlier. Just because some countries become corrupted should not deter the rest from doing the right thing.

You really have no understanding of politics at all do you? It wasn't an act of war, it was a breach of policy you stupid fuck. It was up to the UN, not just one of it's member countries to decide on the repurcussions for that breach. Could you at least make an attempt at educating yourself and extracting your head from your ass before commenting further? Thanks.

Edit: Further to that, for the love of fuck do the genepool a favour and don't breed.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: Colin Powell said this about the sanctions
...

I hadn't really considered this before, but Colin Powell (and others like him) could be like Gladiator--return to the dream that was Rome, or in our case, the American Revolution. Instead, he doesn't want to be involved... such a shame.

If anyone wants to know what the real problem with America is, Colin Powell's behavior is central. Not to minimize their contributions, but the problem isn't people like Bush and Dick.. it's the lack of activism at the highest levels of government and society. Sure Powell resigned more or less in protest, but he ain't comin' back to change jack shit. Democrats are pussies too and just as much a part of the problem as Republicans. The two party system and the lack of popular individual initiative to challenge it is the reason this country is going to get fucked if it ever does. Its also the reason I refuse to associate myself with any political party.

YourGrandpa wrote:You can't/won't answer the questions regarding viable alternatives and I've come to grips with that.

that's very noble of you but you're overlooking the stunningly obvious reason this thread has dragged on for so long, which is that you and MQ4 identify THE PROBLEM as saddam and his (non-existent) WMDs and his (unproven) desire to acquire nukes. to you, that's THE PROBLEM to which you want solutions and "alternatives" as you put it

FOR EVERYONE ELSE, however, THE PROBLEM is rampant US power and unilateralism which, unlike saddam, is REAL; unlike saddam, has REAL WMD's and spends as much as the rest of the world combined on a huge hi-tech arsenal of weaponry; unlike saddam, has attacked a list of countries as long as your arm and shows no sign of stopping; and very much LIKE saddam, has contempt for international law (including the UN) and the opinion of the rest of the world when it suits them. to everyone else, that's THE PROBLEM

this is why there are two sides in this thread talking past each other, and why you thinking you're winning when in fact you're defending ground no one's holding

if you're still going to demand a solution to YOUR defintion of the problem, it's only reasonable for everyone else to demand a solution from you of THEIR definition of the problem, a solution you have so far failed to provide or even acknowledged the possibility of

MidnightQ4 wrote:I'm listening, when you guys start making some I'll let you know.

You've yet to listen to anything anyone other than Gramps has said.

MidnightQ4 wrote: much like you only seem to believe that everything the US does is for evil selfish reasons. Do you really think that Bush has a secret evil agenda? Do you honestly think he is not doing what he thinks in his heart is the best thing for the Iraqi people? I think he is a good person who has the best interests of human life at heart. Sometimes hard decisions have to be made and wars have to be fought to prevent even worse things from happening.

There's nothing secret about it, and you have a very selective memory. All you have to do is look at who benefits from us invading Iraq. Even YOU should be albe to do that. Hey, do you think that Vietnam was all about stopping Communism, too? I think my daughter is actually less naive than you are.

MidnightQ4 wrote:I don't ignore them at all. The very few times people have offered an answer to anything I just break down their arguement, that is not ignoring it at all. But seriously nobody seems to be able to answer the questions that either myself or gramps has asked. You guys should be qouting our questions and providing pointed answers to them if you want to say you are answering anything, which you are not.

Oh, so I've ignored Gramps' questions? Can you read?

MidnightQ4 wrote:same to you. All I see from you is flames, but no real knowledge about anything. Besides, since what we are really talking about here is not so much history, but what to do in the future about these situations, it is primarily people's opinion we are asking for. But nobody can seem to come up with a better way to do things in the future. So you just come up with stats about how many people have died etc., totally negating the idea that more people would die if Saddam was left to do his evil deeds.

Again, you dismiss what others say because you don't agree with it. This discussion is about more than just future situations, which by the way dumbass, I was talking about with Gramps.
Let's see here, you telling people that they don't get it and that they're not Americans isn't insulting? Perfectly ok for you to do, but no one else? You really ARE a republican.
Yes we are posting stats, in an effort to get your dumb ass to realize that there has been a huge cost associated with this giant fucking mistake of the war. And here again you engage in the strawman argument of "Would you rather Saddam was still in power?"

MidnightQ4 wrote:Saddam did not cooperate with UN inspectors. That's a fact for which I don't even need to find sources since we all agree on it. Whether he was a direct threat to the US is not in question, he was declaring war by his actions and was a threat to other nations which the US is inclined to protect, thereby he was a threat to the US.

I can't believe you actually posted this. Did you actually read that and think that it made sense? You assume that Saddam was a threat, so that means he was a threat. Hey, what nations was Saddam 'threatening'? Let me guess, ISRAEL? Oh, so we'll go to war to protect Israel, and you can't see my point about Bush being a liar and having an agenda?
Again, show me one piece of publically verifiable evidence that Saddam Hussein was a DIRECT THREAT, as GeeDubya stated he was.

MidnightQ4 wrote: I'm not changing anything I said. When did I ever say that he didn't destroy his chemical weapons directly after the gulf war? I never said that. I said that it was never proved that he didn't have weapons at the time just before the invasion this time around. It was proved that after the invasion he didn't have any, which says nothing about the months prior to and during the invasion when he was stonewalling the inspections.

Give me one other plausible reason why he would stonewall the inspections if not to give himself time to get rid of chemical weapons. Shouldn't be hard I can come up with some myself, even though they are illogical and retarded.

You are changing what you said, go re-read your post. "What if he had chemical weapons when he invaded Kuwait?" HE DID HAVE THEM, JACKASS. He didn't use them, and we threw his ass out.

MidnightQ4 wrote: Again, this view point of hindsight is irrelevant. Whether he did or did not have weapons was not the reason we invaded Iraq.

Idiotic post of the fucking century, there Midnight. The stated reason for the US invading Iraq was the fact that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMD, and was attempting to develop nuclear weapons, specfically that he was trying to acquire uranium from Niger.

MidnightQ4 wrote:

jester! wrote:Non-compliance is an act of war? With who? Hows that work?

Did the UN send the US in?

Yes it is an act of war to not comply with UN sanctions and policies and inspections. Half of the UN did agree to invade, the other half did not, primarily because they were corrupted by oil deals (france) or had other selfish reasons (Turkey) not to go along with the very same policies they signed years earlier. Just because some countries become corrupted should not deter the rest from doing the right thing.

if thats true moron then we should be bombing the fuck out of israel since they are in defiance of more un resolutions then anyone...don't be an idiot...

Defying the UN? Who would do such a thing?
http://www.ipsnews.org/news.asp?idnews=31346

UNITED NATIONS, Dec 8 (IPS) - In 1989, the United Nations put forth the Convention on the Rights of the Child -- a treaty that protects the civil and economic rights of children around the world.

To date, 192 nations have ratified the treaty. Only two have not.

A decade later, just seven countries voted against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), an independent body created to prosecute genocide and crimes against humanity.

And in October of this year, members of the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) voted overwhelmingly to pass a new treaty aimed at protecting cultural diversity worldwide. Only two states voted against it.

The United States is the only nation to oppose all three. And the list of U.N. treaties and conventions that Washington has not signed or has actively opposed goes on and on.

While the vast majority of the world's governments support these treaties, as well as other U.N. diplomatic efforts and conventions, the U.S. government can almost be expected to stand in opposition each time such treaty proceedings arise.

Indeed, the United States, especially in recent years, is increasingly being seen in the world as a lone state, thumbing its diplomatic nose at international pacts on everything from banning the use and production of landmines to curbing global warming.

This staunch refusal to join with other nations on such a wide range of treaties, experts say, is hurting the already tarnished image of the world's sole superpower in the eyes of the international community.

"It sends the message that the United States has been the biggest violator and thrasher of international law in the post-war period," Richard Du Boff, a professor emeritus of economic history at Bryn Mawr College in the state of Pennsylvania, told IPS.

Du Boff added that while the U.S. has often opposed U.N. conventions since the end of the Second World War, its isolationist posture "has escalated dramatically and reached a level never before challenged" during the presidency of George W. Bush.

This, Du Boff said, makes the U.S. a "rogue" in the realm of international law.

"The term is inspired by U.S. officials themselves," he said. "This is a term that they constantly apply to any country that does something we may not like: 'rogue state'."

However, it is the record of the U.S. and its stance on international legislation, he said, that stands in such stark contrast to that of the rest of the world.

The U.S. stands alone with the East African state of Somalia in its refusal to ratify the 1989 Convention on the Rights of a Child. The treaty, which the U.N. calls "the most powerful legal instrument that not only recognises but protects [children's] human rights", is one of the most widely supported international agreements in the U.N.'s history.

While the U.S. government has publicly stated its support for the treaty, it has not taken the necessary steps to ratify it.

Others that Washington has rejected include the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Treaty Banning Antipersonnel Mines, a protocol to create a compliance regime for the Biological Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The U.S. is also not complying with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Commission, and the U.N. framework Convention on Climate Change.

One of the touchiest areas in the rocky relationship between the U.S. and the international community is Washington's overt hostility toward the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague.

The U.S. was one of seven states to vote against the formation of the ICC in 1998. In taking this stance, the U.S. defied the rest of the democratic world's support for the court and aligned itself with notorious human rights abusers like China, Iraq, Libya and Yemen.

The U.S. continues to stand alone among even its closest allies in its refusal to recognise the authority of the ICC.

The Bush administration maintains that U.S. personnel must be exempt from prosecution by the court, and has pressured ICC member states to sign bilateral deals promising not to hand over any U.S. nationals to the court's jurisdiction.

Human rights advocates and non-governmental organisations say the U.S. government's stance toward ICC creates a two-tiered system of international law: one for U.S. nationals and one for everyone else.

Organisations such as the New-York based Human Rights Watch (HRW) have blasted the U.S. for its refusal to recognise the legitimacy of the court, saying such a stance hurts the image of the U.S. in the world.

"U.S. ambassadors have been acting like schoolyard bullies," Richard Dicker, director of HRW's International Justice Programme, said in a statement. "The U.S. campaign has not succeeded in undermining global support for the court. But it has succeeded in making the U.S. government look foolish and mean-spirited."

Dave wrote: Not to minimize their contributions, but the problem isn't people like Bush and Dick.. it's the lack of activism at the highest levels of government and society.

I agree with your sentiment Dave. But I tend to think that the root of problem lies within us, not our leaders. They are but reflections.

i know its not really relevant but another reason why we shouldnt be there is because they havnt got the money

and we cant give this support not because we are but a few countries in the world doing the right thing.... its because every country in the world knows the entire war is bullshit

Nightshade wrote:

MidnightQ4 wrote: Again, this view point of hindsight is irrelevant. Whether he did or did not have weapons was not the reason we invaded Iraq.

Idiotic post of the fucking century, there Midnight. The stated reason for the US invading Iraq was the fact that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMD, and was attempting to develop nuclear weapons, specfically that he was trying to acquire uranium from Niger.

lol, is mq4 suggesting iraq was invaded to *find out* if iraq had wmds? holy mother of fuck that's retarded