Mr.Budge - The fucking 9/11 attacks did not need to be exploited to justify removing a piece of shit like Sadamm Hussein from power in the heart of the Middle East - the brutality of that day was enough for me to want him taken out - period
Then why did they use it? The brutatlity of that they was worth the lives of the 10's of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi's that have died as a result the US? An innocent life = innocent life regardless of nationality, religion, or affiliation. Brutality is a two way street not one.
The attackers of 9/11 were of Saudi descent, but these were state-sponsored attacks and the state was Afghanistan -
If one of the hijackers were named O'brien would you be looking to invade Ireland???????
Think about it
So, from your statement the war should have ended in Afghanistan. So, why are we in Iraq?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
So, from your statement the war should have ended in Afghanistan. So, why are we in Iraq?
You could'nt be farther away from the truth
Afghanistan / Iraq two completely different wars
Afghanistan was a response to an attack on our soil
Iraq was finally dealing with a problem that no one else wanted to deal with
The war should not have ended with Afghanistan - In reality the war should end with Iran and Syria's fucking heads on a silver platter - but I would not be in favor of such action because we would undoubtedly go at it alone, and
are obviously not capable of planning for a post-war scenario
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
You could'nt be farther away from the truth
Afghanistan / Iraq two completely different wars
Afghanistan was a response to an attack on our soil
Iraq was finally dealing with a problem that no one else wanted to deal with
The war should not have ended with Afghanistan - In reality the war should end with Iran and Syria's fucking heads on a silver platter - but I would not be in favor of such action because we would undoubtedly go at it alone, and
are obviously not capable of planning for a post-war scenario
So do you not care about civilians? I thought that's why your so upset? I dotn seem to understand where you're coming from.
You could'nt be farther away from the truth
Afghanistan / Iraq two completely different wars
Then maybe we need to explain that to this Administration because every speech since 9/11 had/has blurred Iraq as the evil do'er of 9/11 and another 9/11 type event.
Afghanistan was a response to an attack on our soil
Again, if as you continue to state that Afghanistan is responsible for 9/11 and supposedly we have won the war in Afghanistan then we as a nation have achieved our goal to bring "those responsibile for 9/11" to bear. There was not reason to invade Iraq.
You could'nt be farther away from the truth
Afghanistan / Iraq two completely different wars
Iraq was finally dealing with a problem that no one else wanted to deal with
What problem was that? Saddam and Kurds? What about our ally Turkey and Kurds. WMDs? or simply because like Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia viewed Saddam as a threat to the ruling regime.
The war should not have ended with Afghanistan - In reality the war should end with Iran and Syria's fucking heads on a silver platter - but I would not be in favor of such action because we would undoubtedly go at it alone, and
are obviously not capable of planning for a post-war scenario
Say we had the backing of other G8 nations. Why? Iran and Syria?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Then maybe we need to explain that to this Administration because every speech since 9/11 had/has blurred Iraq as the evil do'er of 9/11 and another 9/11 type event.
Again, if as you continue to state that Afghanistan is responsible for 9/11 and supposedly we have won the war in Afghanistan then we as a nation have achieved our goal to bring "those responsibile for 9/11" to bear. There was not reason to invade Iraq.
What problem was that? Saddam and Kurds? What about our ally Turkey and Kurds. WMDs? or simply because like Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia viewed Saddam as a threat to the ruling regime.
Say we had the backing of other G8 nations. Why? Iran and Syria?
A) TWO DIFFERENT WARS - YET FIGHTING THE SAME CRAP AFGHANISTAN WAS WON - No matter how much you wish this country would've failed - The Karzai goverment was much quicker to form than the Iraq govt' - The re-surgence of the Taliban is due to their in-ability to control their people - we're still fighting there , yes, and I'm pretty sure we're gonna have to send more troops there at some point to exterminate once again
C) The problem? The problem was this : Every piece of intell we had at our disposal was that stockpiles of WMD existed - you would've wanted to just leave him be because he wasn't bothering anyone - I would've chosen to remove the chance of those stockpiles ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda -
D) Iran & Syria - Are you that bent? These two are the biggest supporters of terrorism in the region - This is a war on terror - period
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
I'm still waiting to hear what civilians lives are worth to you. You're sooo mad about 3k, yet you support actions that give us numbers such as 30k. There has to be some kind of logic there, can u explain please.
What am I wrong about? All's I said was that BECAUSE of 9/11 there was a wake up call that threats needed to be re-evaluated - I did'nt say without 9/11 there would have been no invasion...in fact that's exactly what I said!
Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say
Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs
Monday, March 22, 2004 Posted: 1:34 AM EST (0634 GMT)
U.N. inspectors look for chemical weapons in Iraq before the war.
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."
You sit here and trivialize something like this? And then follow up asking me how I feel about 30,000?
30,000 what? In Iraq? Our military does not target civilians. 9/11 did.
Our actions in Iraq were to rid the world of a dictator. The bombings that took place by the US military, while enduring civilian casualties, were targeting military installations and Sadamm's regime. The death toll in Iraq is highly attributable to these fucks running around planting bombs on roads and blowing up car bombs.
Do yourself a favor, because I think even the people who I would tend to disagree with in most topics, would side with me on this one - don't say things like you did about the 3000 AMERICANS slaughtered on 9/11
Thank You
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
after he mentioned the women who lost her husband in the WTC, i couldn't help but think of the ??,000 families that are facing the same thing in iraq right now. the whole thing is a clusterfuck, and it sucks that he used 9-11 as a crutch, as he always has in any speech he gives, to somehow connect the war to that tragic event...seriously, we have no concept of whats going on over there, and if we did, we would get out asap. over 100 people die a day gang...think about it.
i wholeheartedly agree with you. i was in the car with my dad yesterday, and i was asking him why we are still in iraq anyway. just cuze we need our prescious oil? we could use the 1billion+dollars a day the war is costing towards researching new alt. feul sources anyway
they call them fingers, but i never see them fing. oh, there they go
You sit here and trivialize something like this? And then follow up asking me how I feel about 30,000?
30,000 what? In Iraq? Our military does not target civilians. 9/11 did.
Our actions in Iraq were to rid the world of a dictator. The bombings that took place by the US military, while enduring civilian casualties, were targeting military installations and Sadamm's regime. The death toll in Iraq is highly attributable to these fucks running around planting bombs on roads and blowing up car bombs.
Do yourself a favor, because I think even the people who I would tend to disagree with in most topics, would side with me on this one - don't say things like you did about the 3000 AMERICANS slaughtered on 9/11
Thank You
I'm not trivilizing it at all; intent, doesnt bring back those people. The people in Iraq who have died as result of our actions are dead wether we meant it or not. What makes it sick; are the lies that were used to justify going into Iraq and you're defending. Instead of capatilizing AMERICANS just come out and say that lives have different values to you. As they do to the terrorists, in other words your not so different from the ones you hate.
I'm not trivilizing it at all; intent, doesnt bring back those people. The people in Iraq who have died as result of our actions are dead wether we meant it or not. What makes it sick; are the lies that were used to justify going into Iraq and you're defending. Instead of capatilizing AMERICANS just come out and say that lives have different values to you. As they do to the terrorists, in other words your not so different from the ones you hate.
I'm biting my toungue trying really hard to understand you. You did trivialize it. You can try to talk your way out of it , but it was your quote , not mine.
That aside, I do understand your point of intent. I did'nt say or imply that lives are different. I can see where you pull that out from, but that is not what I was saying - And no, I am nothing like the terrorists. Unfortunately, the forum does not present a full picture of another - I'm not judging you here, but in the last hour or so, you said something that hit very close to home with me and then followed it up by saying I'm not so different than
a fucking Al Qaeda hijacker. If this is the way you get your points across, it is obviously not working with me - You and I live in different worlds and I will leave it at that
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
I'm biting my toungue trying really hard to understand you. You did trivialize it. You can try to talk your way out of it , but it was your quote , not mine.
That aside, I do understand your point of intent. I did'nt say or imply that lives are different. I can see where you pull that out from, but that is not what I was saying - And no, I am nothing like the terrorists. Unfortunately, the forum does not present a full picture of another - I'm not judging you here, but in the last hour or so, you said something that hit very close to home with me and then followed it up by saying I'm not so different than
a fucking Al Qaeda hijacker. If this is the way you get your points across, it is obviously not working with me - You and I live in different worlds and I will leave it at that
Dude...stop looking at things at the surface. I'm not at all trying to talk my way out of it. For me lives are lives it doesnt matter where they're from. Whether it's 3k Americans or 30K Arabs. I dont understand how you can be so mad about 3k people dying and not 30k. Much less support so adamently a regime that has used to the lives of those 3k people to partake in taking those 30K lives. It just doesnt make sense... As far as the terrorist comparison, there are good people and bad people everywhere name them what you want. Put them in similar circumbstances and enviroments and their actions will not differ much.
EDIT: Addendum to the terrorist comparison look which group of people on both sides are the ones most in favor of war: conservative and religious zealots.
Dude...stop looking at things at the surface. I'm not at all trying to talk my way out of it. For me lives are lives it doesnt matter where they're from. Whether it's 3k Americans or 30K Arabs. I dont understand how you can be so mad about 3k people dying and not 30k. Much less support so adamently a regime that has used to the lives of those 3k people to partake in taking those 30K lives. It just doesnt make sense... As far as the terrorist comparison, there are good people and bad people everywhere name them what you want. Put them in similar circumbstances and enviroments and their actions will not differ much.
EDIT: Addendum to the terrorist comparison look which group of people on both sides are the ones most in favor of war: conservative and religious zealots.
Ok man. You really wanna play this game - this is like the 4th time you mention 30K arabs getting killed. Humanitarian are we? Where the fuck were you when Sadamm Hussein was absolutely butchering these very Arabs you speak of? Did you even give a shit then? Or was it out of sight out of mind?
What this piece of crap did to these people was inconceivable - I really hope you were somewhere protesting the abuse and death of the Iraqi's you care so much for......
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
Ok man. You really wanna play this game - this is like the 4th time you mention 30K arabs getting killed. Humanitarian are we? Where the fuck were you when Sadamm Hussein was absolutely butchering these very Arabs you speak of? Did you even give a shit then? Or was it out of sight out of mind?
What this piece of crap did to these people was inconceivable - I really hope you were somewhere protesting the abuse and death of the Iraqi's you care so much for......
Are you kidding dude? This is the furthest thing from a game. We didnt invade Iraq as a humanitarian effort. We went in there under the guise of a terror threat which numerous people on this thread and an article are witness to being a lie. You have no place taking up for the people that sadam killed dont you get it, those that he didnt kill, we are killing as a result of our actions (which you are blindly defending) Fighting a massacre with a massacre isnt the answer to anything. Read back through this thread and instead of getting so angry and pissed off try to comprehend; i'm done with you...
Are you kidding dude? This is the furthest thing from a game. We didnt invade Iraq as a humanitarian effort. We went in there under the guise of a terror threat which numerous people on this thread and an article are witness to being a lie. You have no place taking up for the people that sadam killed dont you get it, those that he didnt kill, we are killing as a result of our actions (which you are blindly defending) Fighting a massacre with a massacre isnt the answer to anything. Read back through this thread and instead of getting so angry and pissed off try to comprehend; i'm done with you...
No - you missed the point - I wasn't saying we went in as a humanitarian effort - You should learn to read before you speak - I brought up the humanitarian thing for one reason only - for you - you kept referring to dead Iraqis and using it to balance the dead on 9/11 - you did that pal, not me - I implored you not to go there but your stubborn ass refused to listen - So, all I did was ask you if you cared about " The Same " people when they were getting butchered by someone other than the US - your reaction to this?
You mix it in with why the US invaded and then tell me you're done with me and never answer my question - as I presumed
Now my friend I'm done with you
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
You sit here and trivialize something like this? And then follow up asking me how I feel about 30,000?
30,000 what? In Iraq? Our military does not target civilians. 9/11 did.
Our actions in Iraq were to rid the world of a dictator. The bombings that took place by the US military, while enduring civilian casualties, were targeting military installations and Sadamm's regime. The death toll in Iraq is highly attributable to these fucks running around planting bombs on roads and blowing up car bombs.
Do yourself a favor, because I think even the people who I would tend to disagree with in most topics, would side with me on this one - don't say things like you did about the 3000 AMERICANS slaughtered on 9/11
Thank You
I think you're being a bit dramatic here...I read the question as being: why is one life seem to be worth more than another...?
Ok man. You really wanna play this game - this is like the 4th time you mention 30K arabs getting killed. Humanitarian are we? Where the fuck were you when Sadamm Hussein was absolutely butchering these very Arabs you speak of? Did you even give a shit then? Or was it out of sight out of mind?
What this piece of crap did to these people was inconceivable - I really hope you were somewhere protesting the abuse and death of the Iraqi's you care so much for......
Actually I supported the war when it was first spoken of because of this reason. Because a tyrannt was killing his own people. Now I oppose it, because I believe there was more to it than America trying to liberate a people. (Which I support by the way.) Why did America decide to act on Saddam when there is plenty of other countries who pose greater risk to set our sights on? Also, even if the politicians who went into this war started off with the best of intentions their faults have outweighed their intentions. To completely underestimate the type of people who would take up arms is ignorant. To believe that a war of this sort could be won within a few months is just plain idiotic. I read plenty and watched plenty to plead the case that Saddam was unhuman. This war would not receive so much backlash if the politicians had created a plan and executed it without having the public believe it was going to be a cakewalk.
I've not listened to a word Bush has said for about 5 years, the guy is a fucking racist red neck and I have no time for red necks.
"I am a doughnut." (live - Berlin, Germany - 11/03/96)
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
1. Please show me an example of how he is a racist
2. Calling him a "red neck" is itself basically racist - sterotyping someone from the south
Shut up.
"I am a doughnut." (live - Berlin, Germany - 11/03/96)
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
Thanks for the response. Your intellect is very impressive.
No problemo, I just can't be arsed getting into a debate about Bush, he's irrelevant to me.
"I am a doughnut." (live - Berlin, Germany - 11/03/96)
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
No problemo, I just can't be arsed getting into a debate about Bush, he's irrelevant to me.
Yeah, irrelevant is a great way to describe him. Notwithstanding your ill-conceived assumptions about him, he's still the leader of the free world. And you're irrelevant.
Yeah, irrelevant is a great way to describe him. Notwithstanding your ill-conceived assumptions about him, he's still the leader of the free world. And you're irrelevant.
Ill concieved? So tell me 5 laws he's passed which has helped the average black guy earning 5 bucks an hour at McDonalds.
"I am a doughnut." (live - Berlin, Germany - 11/03/96)
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
Comments
Then why did they use it? The brutatlity of that they was worth the lives of the 10's of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi's that have died as a result the US? An innocent life = innocent life regardless of nationality, religion, or affiliation. Brutality is a two way street not one.
So, from your statement the war should have ended in Afghanistan. So, why are we in Iraq?
You could'nt be farther away from the truth
Afghanistan / Iraq two completely different wars
Afghanistan was a response to an attack on our soil
Iraq was finally dealing with a problem that no one else wanted to deal with
The war should not have ended with Afghanistan - In reality the war should end with Iran and Syria's fucking heads on a silver platter - but I would not be in favor of such action because we would undoubtedly go at it alone, and
are obviously not capable of planning for a post-war scenario
Untill their will grows tired
So do you not care about civilians? I thought that's why your so upset? I dotn seem to understand where you're coming from.
I totally agree with your sentiment...
Rhyno
11/30/1991 ~ 3/25/92 ~ 8/28/92 ~ 6/30/98 ~ 10/8/2000 ~ 6/18/2003 ~ 6/21/2003 ~ 6/26/2006 ~ 6/27/2006 ~ 7/7/2006 ~ 8/5/2007 ~ 6/24/2008 ~ ALPINE VALLEY in '09 ;-)
Then maybe we need to explain that to this Administration because every speech since 9/11 had/has blurred Iraq as the evil do'er of 9/11 and another 9/11 type event.
Again, if as you continue to state that Afghanistan is responsible for 9/11 and supposedly we have won the war in Afghanistan then we as a nation have achieved our goal to bring "those responsibile for 9/11" to bear. There was not reason to invade Iraq.
What problem was that? Saddam and Kurds? What about our ally Turkey and Kurds. WMDs? or simply because like Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia viewed Saddam as a threat to the ruling regime.
Say we had the backing of other G8 nations. Why? Iran and Syria?
A) TWO DIFFERENT WARS - YET FIGHTING THE SAME CRAP
C) The problem? The problem was this : Every piece of intell we had at our disposal was that stockpiles of WMD existed - you would've wanted to just leave him be because he wasn't bothering anyone - I would've chosen to remove the chance of those stockpiles ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda -
D) Iran & Syria - Are you that bent? These two are the biggest supporters of terrorism in the region - This is a war on terror - period
Untill their will grows tired
So you believe. What if the intell on the WMD had turned out to be accurate.
Would you still feel that way?
Untill their will grows tired
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say
Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs
Monday, March 22, 2004 Posted: 1:34 AM EST (0634 GMT)
U.N. inspectors look for chemical weapons in Iraq before the war.
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."
Are you high?
You sit here and trivialize something like this? And then follow up asking me how I feel about 30,000?
30,000 what? In Iraq? Our military does not target civilians. 9/11 did.
Our actions in Iraq were to rid the world of a dictator. The bombings that took place by the US military, while enduring civilian casualties, were targeting military installations and Sadamm's regime. The death toll in Iraq is highly attributable to these fucks running around planting bombs on roads and blowing up car bombs.
Do yourself a favor, because I think even the people who I would tend to disagree with in most topics, would side with me on this one - don't say things like you did about the 3000 AMERICANS slaughtered on 9/11
Thank You
Untill their will grows tired
I'm not trivilizing it at all; intent, doesnt bring back those people. The people in Iraq who have died as result of our actions are dead wether we meant it or not. What makes it sick; are the lies that were used to justify going into Iraq and you're defending. Instead of capatilizing AMERICANS just come out and say that lives have different values to you. As they do to the terrorists, in other words your not so different from the ones you hate.
I'm biting my toungue trying really hard to understand you. You did trivialize it. You can try to talk your way out of it , but it was your quote , not mine.
That aside, I do understand your point of intent. I did'nt say or imply that lives are different. I can see where you pull that out from, but that is not what I was saying - And no, I am nothing like the terrorists. Unfortunately, the forum does not present a full picture of another - I'm not judging you here, but in the last hour or so, you said something that hit very close to home with me and then followed it up by saying I'm not so different than
a fucking Al Qaeda hijacker. If this is the way you get your points across, it is obviously not working with me - You and I live in different worlds and I will leave it at that
Untill their will grows tired
Dude...stop looking at things at the surface. I'm not at all trying to talk my way out of it. For me lives are lives it doesnt matter where they're from. Whether it's 3k Americans or 30K Arabs. I dont understand how you can be so mad about 3k people dying and not 30k. Much less support so adamently a regime that has used to the lives of those 3k people to partake in taking those 30K lives. It just doesnt make sense... As far as the terrorist comparison, there are good people and bad people everywhere name them what you want. Put them in similar circumbstances and enviroments and their actions will not differ much.
EDIT: Addendum to the terrorist comparison look which group of people on both sides are the ones most in favor of war: conservative and religious zealots.
Ok man. You really wanna play this game - this is like the 4th time you mention 30K arabs getting killed. Humanitarian are we? Where the fuck were you when Sadamm Hussein was absolutely butchering these very Arabs you speak of? Did you even give a shit then? Or was it out of sight out of mind?
What this piece of crap did to these people was inconceivable - I really hope you were somewhere protesting the abuse and death of the Iraqi's you care so much for......
Untill their will grows tired
Are you kidding dude? This is the furthest thing from a game. We didnt invade Iraq as a humanitarian effort. We went in there under the guise of a terror threat which numerous people on this thread and an article are witness to being a lie. You have no place taking up for the people that sadam killed dont you get it, those that he didnt kill, we are killing as a result of our actions (which you are blindly defending) Fighting a massacre with a massacre isnt the answer to anything. Read back through this thread and instead of getting so angry and pissed off try to comprehend; i'm done with you...
No - you missed the point - I wasn't saying we went in as a humanitarian effort - You should learn to read before you speak - I brought up the humanitarian thing for one reason only - for you - you kept referring to dead Iraqis and using it to balance the dead on 9/11 - you did that pal, not me - I implored you not to go there but your stubborn ass refused to listen - So, all I did was ask you if you cared about " The Same " people when they were getting butchered by someone other than the US - your reaction to this?
You mix it in with why the US invaded and then tell me you're done with me and never answer my question - as I presumed
Now my friend I'm done with you
Untill their will grows tired
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHSiqQpg7Uc
naděje umírá poslední
I think you're being a bit dramatic here...I read the question as being: why is one life seem to be worth more than another...?
Actually I supported the war when it was first spoken of because of this reason. Because a tyrannt was killing his own people. Now I oppose it, because I believe there was more to it than America trying to liberate a people. (Which I support by the way.) Why did America decide to act on Saddam when there is plenty of other countries who pose greater risk to set our sights on? Also, even if the politicians who went into this war started off with the best of intentions their faults have outweighed their intentions. To completely underestimate the type of people who would take up arms is ignorant. To believe that a war of this sort could be won within a few months is just plain idiotic. I read plenty and watched plenty to plead the case that Saddam was unhuman. This war would not receive so much backlash if the politicians had created a plan and executed it without having the public believe it was going to be a cakewalk.
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
1. Please show me an example of how he is a racist
2. Calling him a "red neck" is itself basically racist - sterotyping someone from the south
Shut up.
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
Thanks for the response. Your intellect is very impressive.
No problemo, I just can't be arsed getting into a debate about Bush, he's irrelevant to me.
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
Yeah, irrelevant is a great way to describe him. Notwithstanding your ill-conceived assumptions about him, he's still the leader of the free world. And you're irrelevant.
Ill concieved? So tell me 5 laws he's passed which has helped the average black guy earning 5 bucks an hour at McDonalds.
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed