Why we still had to go to war in Iraq

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Jetstorm, Feb 4, 2004.

  1. Jetstorm

    Jetstorm Freshman

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    29
    ....and why the nattering nabobs of negativism are still wrong.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/02/03/ixopinion.html


    The money quote:

    "So Saddam didn't have WMD. Conversely, Colonel Gaddafi did. And hands up anyone who knew he did until he announced he was chucking it in. The only way you can be absolutely certain your intelligence about a dictator's weapons is accurate is when you look out the window and see a big mushroom cloud over Birmingham (Mod. edit: or New York, or Washington, or Baton Rouge) . More to the point, it's in alliances of convenience between the dictatorships and freelance groups that the true horrors lie - and for that you don't need big stockpiles, just a vial or two of this or that. You can try and stop it day by day at the gate at Heathrow, but, even if you succeed, you'll bankrupt the world's airlines.

    The Left is remarkably nonchalant about these new terrors. When nuclear weapons were an elite club of five relatively sane world powers, the Left was convinced the planet was about to go ka-boom any minute, and the handful of us who survived would be walking in a nuclear winter wonderland. Now anyone with a few thousand bucks and an unlisted number in Islamabad in his Rolodex can get a nuke, and the Left couldn't care less."
     
  2. CottonBowl'66

    CottonBowl'66 Freshman

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    1
    What Qaddafi did was give up something he did not have anyway, and probably had no intention of pursuing, namely nuclear weapons.

    He has been sucking up to the West for a decade, wanting Western investment in Libya. He saw an opening and took it.

    It made a good headline for Bush, but Libya has not been a serious threat to the West for over ten years now.

    Again, the right wing exaggerates the threat posed by another country. I am sure that they will now move on to another looming nuclear threat, perhaps, Syria, Somalia, or Ecuador.

    They will need something else that Bush and Blair "saved" us from.
     
  3. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    927
    by your logic, are there any real threats?
     
  4. Jetstorm

    Jetstorm Freshman

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    29
    But of course martin.

    The evil Bushitler is the threat, and the only threat, to the world, and once he's gone, we can all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya." And once a Democrat is in the White House, the world will magically love us again. Oh, that nasty little country Israel, they are a threat, but once we let the Muslims kill them off, the Muslims will love us too.

    Kumbaya, my friends....
     
  5. JSracing

    JSracing Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    152
    Oh how Smurfy! We're all gonna sing kumbaya! SWEET! universal democratic love for all! I can hear it now in groovver's voice on sesame street.
    " blow jobs in the white house for every bodieeeeeeeeeee"

    give me a break f**kin liberal retards.
     
  6. CottonBowl'66

    CottonBowl'66 Freshman

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am sorry that the investigators, when they got into Libya, found out that the so-called "nuclear arms program" did not really exist, and that they found little evidence of WMD elsewhere.

    If Qaddafi wanted nuclear bombs and bio and chemical weapons, he would have them.

    He has reversed his policies years ago, and has been sucking up to the West for a long time now. Notice that in all the discussions about Bin Laden and Al Qaida, you have NEVER read anything about Qaddafi being linked with them, or any other lunatic Islamic terrorist group that is targeting America.

    Bin Laden was based in the Sudan for a while, but never Libya. That is a result of the moderating policies of Qaddafi over the last ten years or so. But on the other hand.....

    Why let the facts get in the way of you right wing nuts? You don't let truth or facts affect your positions on anything else.

    You guys want to live in a comic book world where God himself intervenes in Presidential elections, annoints Bush as President because only he can ride in on a white horse and save America from the bad guys like Saddam and Qaddafi.

    That is the shallow kind of understanding you want of complex situations. It is another reason why you people bring very little to this discussion board. You are too ignorant of the facts.
     
  7. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    927
    and if that happened arent you glad a man who isnt afraid to fight would be the one threatening him about it? you dont want to be on bush's bad side. and if you harbored terrorists and had nuclear bombs, you would be pretty nervous about your status as a leader.

    thats the point. thats why it matters that we arent cowards. it is not safe to be a coward.
     
  8. CottonBowl'66

    CottonBowl'66 Freshman

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    1
    So what are you martin, fifteen years old?

    You watch a John Wayne movie marathon and believed every line?

    Libya was no threat to America and had not been for a long time.

    I just told you that. The Libyan "story" was a non-story.
     
  9. Jetstorm

    Jetstorm Freshman

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    29
    CB66, not everyone shares your opinion that Libya was completely harmless.

    UK Says Libya Was Close to Developing Nuclear Bomb

    LONDON (Reuters) - Britain said Libya was close to making a nuclear bomb and had significant quantities of chemical agents before it reached a deal announced on Friday to abandon weapons of mass destruction.

    Libya had not acquired a nuclear bomb, “though it was close to developing one,” a British official said.

    The official said a British team working with the Libyans had been shown “significant quantities of chemical agent” and that Libya had acknowledged that it was developing nuclear material intended to create a weapon.

    The team saw nuclear projects underway at more than ten sites, including the enrichment of uranium. It also saw dual-use sites with the potential to support work on biological weapons.

    Libya Opens Nuke Programs To Inspections

    Libya’s decision followed a meeting its delegation had Saturday with Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The session came after Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s surprise announcement Friday that his country would give up nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.

    ElBaradei said he would lead the first inspection mission, which he described as a positive step on the part of Libya “to rid itself of all programs or activities that are relevant or could lead to the production of weapons of mass destruction.”

    “We will start as early as ... next week,” ElBaradei said. He said he and senior experts would meet with Libyan government officials in the capital, Tripoli, to agree on how to carry out pervasive inspections, with actual inspection teams following shortly afterward.

    Libya has admitted to nuclear fuel projects, including the possession of centrifuges and centrifuge parts used in uranium enrichment — a nuclear effort more advanced than previously thought. It also agreed to tell the IAEA about current nuclear programs and to adhere to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty


    Ghaddafi's son says Libya paid Pakistan for nuclear technology and plans, a charge Pakistan denies. Don't know who to believe here, but where there is smoke, there is usually fire.

    Pakistan: Libya Nuclear Report Unsubstantiated

    ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan said on Monday a British newspaper report that said Pakistani scientists sold plans to make nuclear bombs to Libya appeared unsubstantiated, but any official complaint would be investigated.

    Pakistan admitted late last year that scientists involved in its atom bomb program may have been driven by “personal ambition or greed” to export technology to Iran, but insisted the government had no part in any such deals.

    The London Sunday Times quoted Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, as saying that Libya had spent $40 million on nuclear components from various black-market dealers, including Pakistani scientists.

    A senior Pakistani official, who did not want to be identified, said the government had received information in the past that some scientists had sold nuclear technology to Iran and these charges were being investigated.

    “If any such complaint is officially received in relation to Libya, that will be also be examined and investigated. So far they seem more like totally unsubstantiated allegations.”

    Yet another story about how Libya's nuclear program, while not at the level of producing a working weapon, was frighteningly well organized and advanced. And had the U.S.A. in it's sights.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._libya_usa_dc_1


    And not all are of the opinion that our Iraq operation did not have an effect on Ghaddafi's decision to come completely clean.


    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...k20031226.shtml

    ``Libya Vows to Give Up Banned Weapons; Two Decades of Sanctions, Isolation Wore Down Gaddafi''
    -- Washington Post headline, front-page news analysis, Dec. 20.


    WASHINGTON -- Yeah, sure. After 18 years of American sanctions, Gaddafi randomly picks Dec. 19, 2003, as the day for his surrender. By amazing coincidence, Gaddafi's first message to Britain -- principal U.S. war ally and conduit to White House war councils -- occurs just days before the invasion of Iraq. And his final capitulation to U.S.-British terms occurs just five days after Saddam is fished out of a rat hole.


    As Jay Leno would say, what are the odds?



    Bottom line; Libya was once a sponsor of terrorism, a rogue state with a wacko dictator (Ghaddafi) who had dreams of empire, which frequently attacked it's neighbors (Chadean Wars) and used the sceptre of WMD development to intimidate it's enemies and to keep the West off it's back. Just like Iraq. They were a menace. But they aren't anymore. And they caved in because Ghaddafi was finally made to realize that one day, the West and the U.S. might tire of his little game and come for him, just like they came for Saddam Hussein.

    The world is getting a lot safer because of our actions and our vision. Peace is not the absence of war. Peace is making sure the bad guys are too afraid to act badly.
     
  10. CottonBowl'66

    CottonBowl'66 Freshman

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    1
    Jetstorm, the British also said Saddam was getting ready to nuke us and could deploy WMD in 45 minutes.

    The inspectors have already been in Libya and the reports were that they found basically nothing.

    Now, don't bother me again on this.
     

Share This Page