yes, i kind of already figured that.Uzique wrote:
Believe it or not, I actually don't buy that explanation.
i will let GS have a go at you about that.
i will let GS have a go at you about that.
I still reckon whatever weapons they did have were buried somewhere in the desert before the attack.Turquoise wrote:
You're right that they did. They first tried to say that the WMD's had been moved to places like Syria. The administration hardly wanted to look like a bunch of fools.Uzique wrote:
Believe it or not, I actually don't buy that explanation. You have pretty sophisticated surveillance equipment, spy satellites etc. It's exactly as if we're back in the 1940's where an army of cardboard tanks on the coasts of England fooled the Nazi's into thinking we had military supermight. When no WMD's were found, it seems like your administration tried pretty hard to cover its tracks and make up a plausible explanation as to why they were so far off the mark.
It wasn't until later that this duping was revealed. The only reason I buy it is because of how embarrassing it is. Usually, when you lie about something, you want to look dignified about it. When it turned out we got tricked by Saddam's own people, I'm sure they didn't want to talk about it any sooner than they had to.
Your guess and theories are as good as anyones, but the fact remains that whilst nothing concrete has been / will be found, the American administration (and their allies us the British- I'm not ducking us out of any responsibility) have a lot of explaining to do and a lot of things to clean-up. Conspiracies and all the rest of that conjecture could go on in this thread forever and it wouldn't progress the discussion anywhere... I really do hope there isn't any war-profiteering interests in Iraq, because it lets down my faith in the USA. But I also would hope that the American people wouldn't settle for ridiculous explanations. American intelligence knew what the WMD's looked like, they knew what sort of facilities were needed to manufacture them and house them; I really don't follow the dupe story. The world's greatest superpower fooled by a bunch of scientists in the desert that can't even make a crude version of a ballistic missile.
And as for the reasoning of 'We never knew for sure whether they had the weapons until we went there'... honestly how does that explain the extent and scale of the invasion that took place. You didn't need to bomb Baghdad endlessly for 6 months to find out if they had WMD's hidden up their sleeves. It's so non-sensical.
And as for the reasoning of 'We never knew for sure whether they had the weapons until we went there'... honestly how does that explain the extent and scale of the invasion that took place. You didn't need to bomb Baghdad endlessly for 6 months to find out if they had WMD's hidden up their sleeves. It's so non-sensical.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Ron Paul isn't an anti war candidate anyways.. just ask him. He's a non interventionist. Something most conservatives claim.Turquoise wrote:
I can agree with you on that at least.Kmarion wrote:
and Conservative used to be a Democratic thing. Of course so did slavery..lol. We've got to stop marrying ourselves to a "political club".Turquoise wrote:
Being antiwar used to be a conservative thing. It's a shame Ron Paul is one of the few conservatives that fits that description now.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
When did we "bomb Baghdad endlessly for 6 months"? It would be a pile of rubble if that happened I would think. Then again you think we "annihilated 2 countries" ..your hyperbolic rhetoric makes you lose credibility, as well as your seeming lack of the historical context on Iraq. We had been at low-level war with Iraq for years, long before 9/11. Those attacks merely stopped us from "kicking the can down the road" so to speak; the urgency to deal with Saddam was ramped up by the very real threat of this group (that had attacked us before) showing itself to be willing and capable of mass attacks on our soil.
The typical arguments about "iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" are simplistic; AQ is a borderless, international outfit. The reasoning was not that Saddam orchestrated 9/11, but that with the new security picture, tolerance for a rogue who would not 'come clean' on his weapons (as he had agreed to do) ran out.
It is amusing watching the verbal gymastics from a brit who wants to scold americans about imperialism with impunity when(as was mentioned) Britain has been there in Iraq and Afghanistan since day one (and BTW, we haven't invaded Iran)
My favorite argument so far on british "imperialism" has to be " but we don't do that anymore"
You guys were the absolute epitome of imperialism --
Britain had it's own adventures in Iraq as well.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/is … hindex.htm
This thread was about the US and it's shitty war in the Phillipines 1899-1903 ..if you want to turn that into "US imperialism in the 20th century" it will be difficult to keep any perspective without at least noticing the british part in things.
The typical arguments about "iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" are simplistic; AQ is a borderless, international outfit. The reasoning was not that Saddam orchestrated 9/11, but that with the new security picture, tolerance for a rogue who would not 'come clean' on his weapons (as he had agreed to do) ran out.
It is amusing watching the verbal gymastics from a brit who wants to scold americans about imperialism with impunity when(as was mentioned) Britain has been there in Iraq and Afghanistan since day one (and BTW, we haven't invaded Iran)
My favorite argument so far on british "imperialism" has to be " but we don't do that anymore"
You guys were the absolute epitome of imperialism --
Britain had it's own adventures in Iraq as well.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/is … hindex.htm
This thread was about the US and it's shitty war in the Phillipines 1899-1903 ..if you want to turn that into "US imperialism in the 20th century" it will be difficult to keep any perspective without at least noticing the british part in things.
oh christ.Uzique wrote:
I really have no idea what you're on about I'm talking about the fake armies that the English built on the coasts of England in the lead-up to Operation Overlord, as a ruse to convince the Nazi spies/intelligence that we were going to lead an attack to a different location other than the beaches we chose in Normandy. Basically I'm saying it's not as if governments these days are using the same basic and crude surveillance equipment as the Nazi's did back there in the 1940's, i.e. I just don't buy it that the American government were fooled by Saddam's hot air.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Lolque?Uzique wrote:
Believe it or not, I actually don't buy that explanation. You have pretty sophisticated surveillance equipment, spy satellites etc. It's not exactly as if we're back in the 1940's where an army of cardboard tanks on the coasts of England fooled the Nazi's into thinking we had military supermight. When no WMD's were found, it seems like your administration tried pretty hard to cover its tracks and make up a plausible explanation as to why they were so far off the mark.
They hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both civilian areas so what? You hit the civilians, they will pressure their gov into surrendering (Very very hard for the Japanese since their Emperor is God)You think they'd rather admit to the real reasons why they invaded Iraq than concede something as minorly 'embarassing' as that? I hate sounding conspiratorial because conspiracies normally just make me laugh, but it bemuses me that people still believe that the Iraq war was just about national security and the danger posed by fake paper-maché models of WMD's out in the desert. It was about empire.Turquoise wrote:
When it turned out we got tricked by Saddam's own people, I'm sure they didn't want to talk about it any sooner than they had to.
1.3 percent of Iraq's military budget was diverted to maintain a clandestine weapons operation before 2003. The funds were sent through the same channels that were responsible for Iraq's wmd programs from the mid 90's and before.
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-08-03 14:51:25)
I don't know what everyone's problem is with imperialism. I'm proud we owned most of the world, we probably did a better job of governing the countries than they could themselves anyway...
As a proud Aussie and member of the Empire I say...jord wrote:
I don't know what everyone's problem is with imperialism. I'm proud we owned most of the world, we probably did a better job of governing the countries than they could themselves anyway...
I agree.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
fuck
USA #1
USA #1
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-08-03 15:01:13)
DickFlecco wrote:
As a proud Aussie and member of the Empire I say...jord wrote:
I don't know what everyone's problem is with imperialism. I'm proud we owned most of the world, we probably did a better job of governing the countries than they could themselves anyway...
I agree.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Bollocks. The British defined raping and pillaging on a immaginable scale, tell me what part of the British Crown Jewels has actually been dug up here in Britain? Here is the tip of the iceberg:jord wrote:
I don't know what everyone's problem is with imperialism. I'm proud we owned most of the world, we probably did a better job of governing the countries than they could themselves anyway...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qissa_Khwa … r_massacre
British imperialism is NOTHING to be proud of. If they wanted to live like cavemen, then fucking let them.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
uzeek wont listen, he knows everything cause he saw it on youtube. you know nothing gs.God Save the Queen wrote:
1.3 percent of Iraq's military budget was diverted to maintain a clandestine weapons operation before 2003. The funds were sent through the same channels that were responsible for Iraq's wmd programs from the mid 90's and before.
Well, where is it?M.O.A.B wrote:
I still reckon whatever weapons they did have were buried somewhere in the desert before the attack.Turquoise wrote:
You're right that they did. They first tried to say that the WMD's had been moved to places like Syria. The administration hardly wanted to look like a bunch of fools.Uzique wrote:
Believe it or not, I actually don't buy that explanation. You have pretty sophisticated surveillance equipment, spy satellites etc. It's exactly as if we're back in the 1940's where an army of cardboard tanks on the coasts of England fooled the Nazi's into thinking we had military supermight. When no WMD's were found, it seems like your administration tried pretty hard to cover its tracks and make up a plausible explanation as to why they were so far off the mark.
It wasn't until later that this duping was revealed. The only reason I buy it is because of how embarrassing it is. Usually, when you lie about something, you want to look dignified about it. When it turned out we got tricked by Saddam's own people, I'm sure they didn't want to talk about it any sooner than they had to.
Sorry, that's just a BIG NO.
1,625 UN and US inspectors spent two years searching 1,700 sites at a cost of more than $1bn. Yesterday they delivered their verdict
good. shame on his generals for lying to him.r'Eeee wrote:
Well, where is it?
Sorry, that's just a BIG NO.
Grrr, who?usmarine wrote:
good. shame on his generals for lying to him.r'Eeee wrote:
Well, where is it?
Sorry, that's just a BIG NO.
the people who told saddam they had all these really cool weaponsr'Eeee wrote:
Grrr, who?usmarine wrote:
good. shame on his generals for lying to him.r'Eeee wrote:
Well, where is it?
Sorry, that's just a BIG NO.
I remember traces of all sorts of shit being discovered in the tigris. Ricin, Sarin and VX. I was in country though, I dont know if that made news The amounts were minute. They made us carry our pro masks everytime we crossed the bridge after that. I thought it was pretty silly.r'Eeee wrote:
Well, where is it?M.O.A.B wrote:
I still reckon whatever weapons they did have were buried somewhere in the desert before the attack.Turquoise wrote:
You're right that they did. They first tried to say that the WMD's had been moved to places like Syria. The administration hardly wanted to look like a bunch of fools.
It wasn't until later that this duping was revealed. The only reason I buy it is because of how embarrassing it is. Usually, when you lie about something, you want to look dignified about it. When it turned out we got tricked by Saddam's own people, I'm sure they didn't want to talk about it any sooner than they had to.
Sorry, that's just a BIG NO.1,625 UN and US inspectors spent two years searching 1,700 sites at a cost of more than $1bn. Yesterday they delivered their verdict
The iraqi government did what it could to maintain the image of a nation with nbc capabilities. Whether their target audience was the world community or Saddam himself is really the only thing up for debate.
I haven't refuted anything said by Gs let alone said he "knows nothing", get off his cock please marine
I've never denied that the UK were pretty much the paragons of textbook Imperialism, all I've done is interpret the recent military conflicts in the Middle-East as an ostensible form of expansionism. "I find it amusing" that you think I'm 'scorning' Americans for Imperialism. As if I'd be foolish enough to sit on some sort of high-chair here in the UK. If anything, I've only scolded Americans for being far too accepting of the total bull that the administration has offered to the public as regards the Iraq conflict. Yes, I know that the UK are involved in the Middle-East, and have been for just as long as the Americans have... congratulations in repeating what I've been reiterating for the last 3 pages. Then you throw a large diagram and some statistics at me that basically acknowledge what I already know... and much like Jord for something that I'm not altogether ashamed of. I'm glad your "favourite argument" on the 'topic of British imperialism' is that we don't do it anymore. I wasn't aware an argument had arisen over British Imperialism. And I am aware that is doesn't happen anymore, - not that it was ever used as a 'defense' for that non-existent argument in the first place.
I also didn't turn the thread into a discussion on perceived imperialist actions in the 20th century, the discussion was already onto that when I read through this thread- hence my first contribution. I also said in almost every single one of my posts that I didn't want to talk about the Iraq conflict in any real depth or detail- and then tried to reinterpret the events in terms of empire-building/expansionism, as I've said I am skeptical of the reasons provided for the conflicts. So all of your retorts really don't 'answer' anything... and in the grand scheme of things we're all just spouting conjecture, because who out of the regular Forum crowd here are really informed about this? We all have Google and national media.
I've never denied that the UK were pretty much the paragons of textbook Imperialism, all I've done is interpret the recent military conflicts in the Middle-East as an ostensible form of expansionism. "I find it amusing" that you think I'm 'scorning' Americans for Imperialism. As if I'd be foolish enough to sit on some sort of high-chair here in the UK. If anything, I've only scolded Americans for being far too accepting of the total bull that the administration has offered to the public as regards the Iraq conflict. Yes, I know that the UK are involved in the Middle-East, and have been for just as long as the Americans have... congratulations in repeating what I've been reiterating for the last 3 pages. Then you throw a large diagram and some statistics at me that basically acknowledge what I already know... and much like Jord for something that I'm not altogether ashamed of. I'm glad your "favourite argument" on the 'topic of British imperialism' is that we don't do it anymore. I wasn't aware an argument had arisen over British Imperialism. And I am aware that is doesn't happen anymore, - not that it was ever used as a 'defense' for that non-existent argument in the first place.
I also didn't turn the thread into a discussion on perceived imperialist actions in the 20th century, the discussion was already onto that when I read through this thread- hence my first contribution. I also said in almost every single one of my posts that I didn't want to talk about the Iraq conflict in any real depth or detail- and then tried to reinterpret the events in terms of empire-building/expansionism, as I've said I am skeptical of the reasons provided for the conflicts. So all of your retorts really don't 'answer' anything... and in the grand scheme of things we're all just spouting conjecture, because who out of the regular Forum crowd here are really informed about this? We all have Google and national media.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-03 15:36:07)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
oh wow...remember what you yelled at me about before? well look at what you are doing. shame on you sir.Uzique wrote:
I haven't refuted anything said by Gs, get off his cock please
and yes you did refute. you said you did not beleive in that theory. well there you go. he just told you. so does that mean you take back all your BS?
Last edited by usmarine (2008-08-03 15:35:33)
Well, if anything, then it's nothing that will destroy the world. Hence, why the world map is still the same.
Also, US marine, I don't know what are you on about.
Also, US marine, I don't know what are you on about.
jesus are you from iraq or not?r'Eeee wrote:
Also, US marine, I don't know what are you on about.
it is fact he was lied to about having wmd's. they were too affraid to tell him no i guess.
I think I have more than a casual knowledge of middle east history and contemporary events.Uzique wrote:
I haven't refuted anything said by Gs, get off his cock please
I've never denied that the UK were pretty much the paragons of textbook Imperialism, all I've done is interpret the recent military conflicts in the Middle-East as an ostensible form of expansionism. "I find it amusing" that you think I'm 'scorning' Americans for Imperialism. As if I'd be foolish enough to sit on some sort of high-chair here in the UK. If anything, I've only scolded Americans for being far too accepting of the total bull that the administration has offered to the public as regards the Iraq conflict. Yes, I know that the UK are involved in the Middle-East, and have been for just as long as the Americans have... congratulations in repeating what I've been reiterating for the last 3 pages. Then you throw a large diagram and some statistics at me that basically acknowledge what I already know... and much like Jord for something that I'm not altogether ashamed of. I'm glad your "favourite argument" on the 'topic of British imperialism' is that we don't do it anymore. I wasn't aware an argument had arisen over British Imperialism. And I am aware that is doesn't happen anymore, - not that it was ever used as a 'defense' for that non-existent argument in the first place.
I also didn't turn the thread into a discussion on perceived imperialist actions in the 20th century, the discussion was already onto that when I read through this thread- hence my first contribution. I also said in almost every single one of my posts that I didn't want to talk about the Iraq conflict in any real depth or detail- and then tried to reinterpret the events in terms of empire-building/expansionism, as I've said I am skeptical of the reasons provided for the conflicts. So all of your retorts really don't 'answer' anything... and in the grand scheme of things we're all just spouting conjecture, because who out of the regular Forum crowd here are really informed about this? We all have Google and national media.
You bastard!Kmarion wrote:
DickFlecco wrote:
As a proud Aussie and member of the Empire I say...jord wrote:
I don't know what everyone's problem is with imperialism. I'm proud we owned most of the world, we probably did a better job of governing the countries than they could themselves anyway...
I agree.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.