US Military Wikileak Video...WARNING GRAPHIC

[sois]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='08 April 2010 - 10:12 AM' timestamp='1270746760' post='876085']
You know what. Forget it.

No sense in getting into all of this again.

Some people think and believe what they want.

I think Saddam should have been taken out in 1991.

And after a decade of him thumbing his nose, was glad to finally see it happen.

It's that simple.
[/quote]

I'm on your side brother! I can agree with all of those "good" reasons you listed. That's totally cool with me. You went down the list with the noble reasons and I agree with them 100%.....


















... but while we are there, we might as well go after the "best" reason, which happens to reside underground, right? No sense in letting that good oil go to waste.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='08 April 2010 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1270746532' post='876081']
No. Your a fucking asshole because you attack me for my beliefs.
And my beliefs are based on fucking facts.

You did not, or could not dispute one fucking thing I said.
Instead you attack me. So fuck you asshole. Get it? Asshole.


I am not trying to debate whether or not you think we should have went.

I was repsonding to someone that said we invaded a country that did NOTHING.

Saddam did do something. He never complied with the terms of surrender.
He wanted us and the World to believe he had WMDs. He shot at our pilots.
He had chances to comply. Numerous chances. He didn't.
[/quote]

The Justification for this war has been moving around like a pig in slop ...

First we had to stop them they had WMDs, False (spare me the mustard gas stuff)

Then we had to fight them over there so we didnt have to fight them over here (a justification that I have seen you still use)....fight who? Who in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? Which conspirator was even Iraqi?...None

Now the justification for you is simply that he did not comply by the terms of surrender. Well what if the terms of surrender are bullshit? Sanctions on the people are not good for the people and you cant sanction just him. I could argue that the "terms of surrender" placed on Germany after the first WW heavenly contributed to the 2nd WW.

The bottom line is we had no business there. Like I said, Ahab wanted his whale.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='sois' date='08 April 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1270746947' post='876089']
I'm on your side brother! I can agree with all of those "good" reasons you listed. That's totally cool with me. You went down the list with the noble reasons and I agree with them 100%.....


















... but while we are there, we might as well go after the "best" reason, which happens to reside underground, right? No sense in letting that good oil go to waste.
[/quote]


[img]http://slapnose.com/images/blog/1104/1104_black_bush350x267.jpg[/img]

[size="6"]I'm trying to get that oil...ohhh cough...[/size]

[|Bunghole|]

Oh good,[i] this[/i] conversation again!

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='08 April 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1270746988' post='876090']
The Justification for this war has been moving around like a pig in slop ...

First we had to stop them they had WMDs, False (spare me the mustard gas stuff)

Then we had to fight them over there so we didnt have to fight them over here (a justification that I have seen you still use)....fight who? Who in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? Which conspirator was even Iraqi?...None

Now the justification for you is simply that he did not comply by the terms of surrender. Well what if the terms of surrender are bullshit? Sanctions on the people are not good for the people and you cant sanction just him. I could argue that the "terms of surrender" placed on Germany after the first WW heavenly contributed to the 2nd WW.

The bottom line is we had no business there. Like I said, Ahab wanted his whale.
[/quote]



He wanted us to believe he had WMDs. He wasn't transparent about it like
he was supposed to be. He jerked the weapons inspectors around.
So how else where we supposed to know he didn't have them? Take his word
for it? Wait until he used them?

Also, it has been noted he had every intention of starting weapons
programs back up "when the coast was clear".

And I have been saying the same shit since we went there. Don't act like
I changed my stance one bit. Because I haven't.

Like I said, he should have been taken out in 1991.
It was a mistake not to. He could have avoided this past war.
He choose not to.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='08 April 2010 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1270747363' post='876094']
Oh good,[i] this[/i] conversation again!



[/quote]


For some reason he thinks that I will back down and give him the last and wrong word.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='08 April 2010 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1270747363' post='876094']
Oh good,[i] this[/i] conversation again!


[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/default/thwack1.gif[/img]
[/quote]



No Bung. I responded to CT about something. But Jamie had to be an ass.

I am done. Like I said. Everyone thinks what they want to think.
No sense in re-hasing it all again.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='08 April 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1270747447' post='876096']
He wanted us to believe he had WMDs. He wasn't transparent about it like
he was supposed to be. He jerked the weapons inspectors around.
So how else where we supposed to know he didn't have them? Take his word
for it? Wait until he used them?

Also, it has been noted he had every intention of starting weapons
programs back up "when the coast was clear".

And I have been saying the same shit since we went there. Don't act like
I changed my stance one bit. Because I haven't.

Like I said, he should have been taken out in 1991.
It was a mistake not to. He could have avoided this past war.
He choose not to.
[/quote]



[url="http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml"]"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix[/url]

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='sois' date='08 April 2010 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1270746492' post='876080']
It's justified. They have something we want. It's pretty simple. All of this other stuff is just spin to make it look more noble. This is what wars are. Stronger countries taking over weaker ones. We have the power to take their resources. That is the business we have over there.
[/quote]

So exactly when do I get my free oil?

When does the U.S. profit from this?

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='08 April 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1270747617' post='876100']
[url="http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml"]"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix[/url]
[/quote]

Wasn't Hans Blix name on a report saying Iran was not developing Nuclear Weapons?

[|Bunghole|]

You guys are both right. Saddam [i]had[/i] WMD's, and then...he didn't. See how easy that was? Now off to the Principal's office with the both of you!

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju_3XI4YMfw[/media]

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='08 April 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1270747929' post='876105']
So exactly when do I get my free oil?

When does the U.S. profit from this?



Wasn't Hans Blix name on a report saying Iran was not developing Nuclear Weapons?
[/quote]

Yeah, I recall some questions being raised about Blix's credibility/impartiality.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

In good faith, I want everyone here to ask themselves and answer this question....


If you just witnessed men being gunned down violently, would you drive your van with your children in it into the area it happened just minutes after it happened to pick up a wounded man?

Personally, I would not even think about it.......

If I felt compelled to save the man I would first make sure my children were safe.....taking your children into an area where fighting just occurred is completely irresponsible as a parent and an adult.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='08 April 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1270747929' post='876105']
So exactly when do I get my free oil?

When does the U.S. profit from this?



Wasn't Hans Blix name on a report saying Iran was not developing Nuclear Weapons?
[/quote]


[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801616.html"]It wasnt just Blix[/url]

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='08 April 2010 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1270748384' post='876111']
[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801616.html"]It wasnt just Blix[/url]
[/quote]

I seem to remember a report coming out a couple years ago saying Iran was not developing weapons....then a month later was found to be completely inaccurate......


Didn't they say work had been suspended in 2003 and then the IAEA found that to be false and that they never suspended work?

Bottom line is Iran wants a Nuclear weapon.....and if something is not done they will get it.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='08 April 2010 - 01:41 PM' timestamp='1270748462' post='876112']
I seem to remember a report coming out a couple years ago saying Iran was not developing weapons....[color="#FF0000"]then a month later was found to be completely inaccurate......[/color]
[/quote]


Show me

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='08 April 2010 - 01:41 PM' timestamp='1270748462' post='876112']
I seem to remember a report coming out a couple years ago saying Iran was not developing weapons....then a month later was found to be completely inaccurate......


Didn't they say work had been suspended in 2003 and then the IAEA found that to be false and that they never suspended work?

[color="#FF0000"]Bottom line is Iran wants a Nuclear weapon.....and if something is not done they will get it.[/color]
[/quote]


Maybe, but I also think there is a certain element that wants us to believe that too.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='08 April 2010 - 01:46 PM' timestamp='1270748770' post='876116']
Maybe, but I also think there is a certain element that wants us to believe that too.
[/quote]

Anyone that believes Iran is not trying to buy time is voluntarily blind....

[sois]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='08 April 2010 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1270747929' post='876105']
So exactly when do I get my free oil?

When does the U.S. profit from this?
[/quote]

You're crazy. Consumers are way down the list. Private companies will get their hands on it first. Those that are in bed with the govt anyway. It will still cost the same down here. Maybe .0000000001 cents cheaper.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='sois' date='08 April 2010 - 08:33 AM' timestamp='1270740803' post='876050']
Does "not give us free oil" = doing something to us?
[/quote]


Or "gets in the way of cheap oil".

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='sois' date='08 April 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1270748935' post='876118']
You're crazy. Consumers are way down the list. Private companies will get their hands on it first. Those that are in bed with the govt anyway. It will still cost the same down here. Maybe .0000000001 cents cheaper.
[/quote]

Not being an ass hole....

Can you supply unbiased proof?

[sois]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='08 April 2010 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1270749003' post='876120']
Not being an ass hole....

Can you supply unbiased proof?
[/quote]

Absolutely not.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='08 April 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1270748882' post='876117']
Anyone that believes Iran is not trying to buy time is voluntarily blind....
[/quote]


And anyone that believes that we dont want control over the straights of hormuz is even more so

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='08 April 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1270749478' post='876122']
And anyone that believes that we dont want control over the straights of hormuz is even more so
[/quote]

That is an added bonus....

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='08 April 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1270747617' post='876100']
[url="http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml"]"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix[/url]
[/quote]


From your own link . . .

[quote]As he explained Wednesday night, part of the problem was that he himself had believed the weapons probably existed. "I'm not here to have gut feelings," he said. "But yes, in December 2002 I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction."



Amanpour asked why, if those weapons had been destroyed, would Saddam have continued to let the world believe he still possessed them at the risk of losing his country? Blix surmised that the bluffing was a cheap and effective deterrent. "[The Iraqis] didn't mind the suspicion from the neighbors - it was like hanging a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the dog' when you don't have a dog," he speculated.


Blix did not rule out that even if inspections had been allowed to continue, military intervention in Iraq might still have been necessary.[/quote]



He himself thought they had them in December. They didn't resume inspections until November 29th 2002.
And even in December 2002, he still thought he had them. This was 3 months before we invaded.

He himself admits that Saddam wanted the World to think he had them.

He himself says that military intervention might have still been neccessary.

And they did find 550 tons of yellowcake uranium. They found over 500 munitiions shells of chemical weapons.
The #2 official in Saddam's Air Force said WMDs were moved to Syria. Countless of other defectees said he had
them. But hey, after 10 years some thumb nosing and not much complying, we had no business going there. Right? [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/default/29.gif[/img]