Jump to content

Lare Kikkeli

Members
  • Content Count

    794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Lare Kikkeli

  • Rank
    (6) Magician
  1. yet the bush regime claimed they had intelligence that proved saddam had WMD's. if the cia have the manpower in iraq to get trustworthy intelligence why did the us goverment base their whole attack on it? maybe they overestimated cia's ability to collect information? that sounds pretty damn incompetent to me. maybe the cia just got lied to, maybe it wasn't their fault, maybe saddam was smarter than them (i don't get this, how was he smarter than them? there was no wmd's). again, that's incompetence. or maybe you're saying that saddam did have wmd's just like cia said and that bush admitting the cia was wrong was just one of his many embarrassing moments in front of the camera. why would saddam have hid the wmds instead of using them? to make a fool out of the usa, sacrificing his life in doing so? possibly, but thats pretty damn far fetched. it all comes to this: either the bush regime knew the intelligence was false or they didn't. either they lied about it because it gave them a pretty damn good excuse to attack iraq, or they trusted the false intelligence and started a war based on false info. "uh, sorry guys we bombed your village with napalm. you see this guy told us you had a missile but turns out he was wrong...real sorry dudes".
  2. bias is bias - you'd rather believe the US leadership would lie because you are ideologically opposed to them. there's a major problem with your explanation, too: you've set up a bifurcation, i.e., you've given yourself only two options. both of these options express contempt for the US and demonstrate your bias in the matter. these are not the only two choices, there are many others. you do not see other choices because you do not want to. what other options are there? either saddam had wmd's or he didn't. bush himself has admitted that most of the intelligence regarding wmd's was false. rostere said he'd rather believe a superpower such as the usa would lie instead of being so grossly incompetent to start a war based on false intelligence. i do, too. thats a pretty damn big mistake to make. i've posted sources, most from the us goverment themselves on every one of my claims. i've yet to see any of you do the same. seriously, prove me wrong. any proof, no matter if its a right wing blog. anything to disprove what i've posted in the past few pages. also i'm sorry for hurting your feelings wrath of dagon, i didn't know you'd be so sensitive. i'll refrain from such things from now on, feel safe to keep posting.
  3. Many North Korean soldiers have fake wooden guns. North Korea wouldn't give America any real trouble in a war (any more than Afghanistan or Iraq at least) - it'd be the massive influx of refugees to surrounding countries which would cause massive trouble (and be massively destabilising). That's not in America's interest, and it certainly isn't in China's, South Korea's, Russia's, or Japan's. I suppose there's the risk that North Korea could get off a single nuke, but from what we've seen so far that risk is low, and they'd probably manage to miss any densely populated areas. North Korea also has a pretty respectable amount of short range missiles and could potentially bomb the hell out of Seoul.
  4. Good point, althought it's hardly proof they didn't exist. According to Volourn not only did he not use the WMDs he had against an overwhelmingly superior invading force while having nothing to lose he hid them so well that no trace of them was found. I'm sure they're still there somewhere... A melancholy melody in the desert. A battered old ice cream truck drives from dune to dune. An old man driving, a sad character dressed in a tattered military uniform. Now and then he checks his rear view mirror for any pursuit, knowing there is none. He drives, because he's a man of God and Country. He drives.
  5. Stop making silly claims that I can refute with a lazy google search then. My link says, with the information coming from the US goverment and president Bush, that Saddam didn't have any WMD's and that he was lying to intimidate Iran. But I bet your crystal ball tells you otherwise, huh. Proof of that please. Most of the countries involved are also in NATO, and most likely had the choice of either getting kicked out or assisting in the war. Not to mention they were probably supplied with falsified information to begin with. I can see you're dropping most of your more absurd claims and sticking the less silly ones that you think I can't prove wrong. You seem to think the war was a good thing. Fine, maybe the end justified the means in this case. Russia did the same in Georgia, do you think that was ok? Would you think it was ok for Russia to invade, aka free the baltic? What about the US doing that to South America? hahaha also what polls have you been reading volourn? http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55 here's some of the highlights, taken from different polls:
  6. *sigh* I suppose you think people cease to exist every time they leave the room? no, but if a person exists a room and thousands of men search for him for a year with no success it's reasonable to assume that person might be dead. stupid analogy anyway. How do you know he was telling the truth about the number of WMD's he had? You obviously choose not to believe him when he said that he doesn't have any. Here's some interesting thing he said: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-from-Iran.html There's only one fact known: no WMD's or facilities capable of manufacturing them were found. It's reasonable to assume they didn't tell all of their allies their true intentions or reasons if the VP candidate of the GOP didn't know them. Or maybe Palins just an idiot. Also you've made these claims yet offered no proof, no article or source that supports them. Your credibility is wearing thin if it even existed. I've already caught you of hyperbole on the number of countries that were involved in the war. Unless you have some sources where you base those FACTS you're so eager to throw around I'm just going to ignore you from now on.
  7. he sees a way to get rich quick 1. censor internet 2. ????? 3. profit!
  8. alright so let me get this straight...no WMD's were found in Iraq, yet they must exist because there's no proof they were destroyed.. Nice logic. You think anti-american rhetoric is reason enough to attack a country. There were about 20 countries involved in the Iraq war, most of which are also in NATO. Big surprise they decided to aid the US? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops...t_coalition.htm http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2007/09/14/h...ops-in-iraq.htm Also most countries went into the war thinking Saddam was an actual threat, because of the claims he might have been directly involved in 9/11 and that he had WMD's, both of which proved to be false. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...nge-inspections http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-from-Iran.html
  9. 100% sure huh? Alright, please link some evidence of that. The way I remember no WMD's were ever found, nor any facilities where they could have been manufactured. Please, prove me wrong. Proof of this? You can't know what his intentions were. I'm sure he was up to no good and basically every dictator in the world wants WMD's of some kind. That still doesn't mean Saddam had any, or had any realistic chance of getting any. Also the UN decided against the attack but the US did it anyway. Truly, what a joke. I believe Saddam deserved to get overthrown and even die, the same way I believe Bush deserved to get overthrown. That still doesn't change the fact that the Bush regime lied to everyone to get a casus belli on Iraq.
  10. So that's an excuse? Everyone else is doing it? I think I just proved the claim was not bogus, but I agree the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was to remake the Middle East, it wasn't just about Saddam and his malfeasance. of course saddam was suppying different militant muslim organizations in the middle east, thats a given. just like the us does in both the middle east and other parts of the world. however iraq was in no way directly involved in 9/11, unlike the bush regime claimed and unlike sarah palin apparently believed. i also believe claims of saddam having wmd's was a big reason why he needed to be attacked. which turned up bogus. what the hell are you arguing about anyway?
  11. So did basically all of the Middle Eastern goverments. You know it was a bogus claim and that the real reason is most likely something else entirely, this was just a good time to execute the attack on Iraq and make it seem legit.
  12. It's pretty damn embarrassing that she did, since it was pretty damn obvious to anyone with half a brain that Iraq had nothing to do with it. I don't think Iraq was behind 9/11, but it's not so obvious Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/new-evidence-...errorism-links/ Ah yes, Pajamas media. (the writer of that article) Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com and the director of intelligence at the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). He’s also the national security researcher for the Christian Action Network and a published author. WorldThreats.com seems to be some sort of a patriotic blog of sorts that lists military experiments and terrorist attacks from countries or groups "hostile" to the US. AWIC's website is down. Christian Action Network sounds like a joke. All of his "sources" are other right wing blogs that link to each other. Forgive me if I don't consider your little article to have any credibility.
  13. Are you guys going to have the same "War...war never ends...." voice actor? That seems to be a continuous phenomena over the course of the fallouts. Ron Perlman.
  14. It's pretty damn embarrassing that she did, since it was pretty damn obvious to anyone with half a brain that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Eh, what Biden or Obama said is not relevant to this thread at all since all politicians misspeak and bend the truth, but most don't go on national television and admit to being ignorant about basic facts as a VP candidate. Agreeing to VP candidacy while having no clue about anything relevant to the job is a pretty sure sign that she's either not even abled to understand politics or that she's so sure of her own woefully lacking skills that one could say it makes her an idiot.
×
×
  • Create New...