New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yes or No.

post #1 of 24
3/7/03 at 11:52am
Thread Starter 
Do you think Hussein's Iraq should have to disarm?
Do you think Hussein's Iraq supports terrorism against The United States of America?
Reply
post #2 of 24
3/7/03 at 11:54am
Yes

Yes
Reply
post #3 of 24
3/7/03 at 12:09pm
Yes

Yes
Reply
post #4 of 24
3/7/03 at 12:17pm
Yes

Yes
Reply
post #5 of 24
3/7/03 at 12:38pm
The first isn't a yes or no question. Lots of factions controlling different areas of Iraq, and they all have their own armories. I'm for any of them being diarmed AS LONG AS we go on to disarm every other rogue nation and dictator right afterward.

The second is easy: Not until a decent shred of proof is manufactured, which it hasn't been as of yet.
Reply
post #6 of 24
3/7/03 at 12:46pm
Yes
Yes

If we're going to be a World of Nations(ie: UN) then Saddam must comply. Otherewise...
Reply
post #7 of 24
3/7/03 at 12:47pm
Quote:
mikah912:
The second is easy: Not until a decent shred of proof is manufactured, which it hasn't been as of yet.
Don't you mean "found"? I'm sure they could manufacture all the evidence they want.
Reply
post #8 of 24
3/7/03 at 12:47pm
Ooo...bad spelling... eek!
Reply
post #9 of 24
3/7/03 at 12:53pm
Actually, "produced" would be better. You're correct. The attempts to manufacture the evidence so far have been laughably inept. I mean, I literally laughed at the "proof."
Reply
post #10 of 24
3/7/03 at 3:40pm
1. I can´t answer that question with a no/yes answer.

2. No. There is no evidence.
Reply
post #11 of 24
3/8/03 at 4:45am
1. I don't know.

2. I don't know.

And neither do you.
Reply
post #12 of 24
3/8/03 at 5:46am
Think? Yes and yes.
Reply
post #13 of 24
3/8/03 at 5:51am
Quote:
Gandalf´s Father:
1. I can´t answer that question with a no/yes answer.

2. No. There is no evidence.
1. You've got to be kidding. Saddam is a wierd dictator. Of course he should be disarmed.

2. No evidence, but, I mean fuck, Bin Laden didn't hit it off with Iran, so....
Reply
post #14 of 24
3/8/03 at 6:21am
1. Not enough info. Does not compute.
2. NO. If you are basing it on all the so called evidence thus far presented.

I do think, however, that the U.S. should invade Luxembourg because of all the shitty movies filmed there.
Reply
post #15 of 24
3/8/03 at 6:34am
Hey, you don't have to like Bush here.

Saddam is a nuttter. He SHOULD be disarmed. Furtermore, thinking Saddam doesn't support bin Laden is like thinking Reagan didn't fund the Contras.
Reply
post #16 of 24
3/8/03 at 1:49pm
Quote:
Adam Warren:
Hey, you don't have to like Bush here.

Saddam is a nuttter. He SHOULD be disarmed. Furtermore, thinking Saddam doesn't support bin Laden is like thinking Reagan didn't fund the Contras.
So you're saying Saddam does fund Bin Laden?

Because Ronaldus Magnus did fund the Contras. Sure, he might have been kept in the dark about that little aspect by Oliver North, but his Administration was responsible for funding the Contras...and so what? Anyway...that said...

I love it when people make this sort of equivocation. It just goes to show how the left is fighting against anything the Administration does simply on principle. Because scratch the surface of any leftist and ask them if they believe Saddam has funded Bin Laden, if they believe Saddam has provided aid and comfort to Al Qaeda, if they believe Saddam has probably provided Al Qaeda with some sort of weapons of really bad nastiness, and you'll probably be rewarded with a resounding "yes".

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know...there's no *PROOF* on BetaSP.
Reply
post #17 of 24
3/8/03 at 1:55pm
Quote:
Adam Warren:
Quote:
Gandalf´s Father:
1. I can´t answer that question with a no/yes answer.

2. No. There is no evidence.
1. You've got to be kidding. Saddam is a wierd dictator. Of course he should be disarmed.

2. No evidence, but, I mean fuck, Bin Laden didn't hit it off with Iran, so....
Saddam has been disarmed mostly according to former inspector Scott Ritter. Iraq destroyed 98 % of their weapons by 1995. They probably have some left but I can´t see the danger with Saddam. In my opinion USA and Britain are just looking for a fight. There is no need for this war at this point. And yes there is no evidence Saddam works with terrorists. You speak as it is a sure thing. I don´t know why you think so, just because Saddam is a dictator doesn´t mean he support terrorists.
Reply
post #18 of 24
3/8/03 at 2:41pm
DON'T refer to Scott Ritter.

Just don't. He's been completely discredited.
Reply
post #19 of 24
3/8/03 at 3:07pm
Quote:
Edison Kronos:
DON'T refer to Scott Ritter.

Just don't. He's been completely discredited.
Okay but still no need for this war.
Reply
post #20 of 24
3/8/03 at 10:33pm
See, I don't know how many "WMD" Saddam still has that he has to get rid of. Therefore I can't say with any certainty whether disarmament of Iraq is a feasible or necessary goal.

But if disarmament and inspections are part of genuine effort towards de-fanging a potential danger, aimed at maintaining peace and stability in the region, then sure, I think it sounds like a great idea.

However, if this is merely a prelude, a sham of diplomacy to be played out before an inevitable attack on Iraq, then no, I don't believe they should be forced to disarm.
Reply
post #21 of 24
3/8/03 at 10:37pm
Quote:
Edison Kronos:
Because Ronaldus Magnus did fund the Contras. Sure, he might have been kept in the dark about that little aspect by Oliver North, but his Administration was responsible for funding the Contras...and so what?
Yeah, because terrorism is pretty cool when it comes from our side.

Quote:
I love it when people make this sort of equivocation. It just goes to show how the left is fighting against anything the Administration does simply on principle. Because scratch the surface of any leftist and ask them if they believe Saddam has funded Bin Laden, if they believe Saddam has provided aid and comfort to Al Qaeda, if they believe Saddam has probably provided Al Qaeda with some sort of weapons of really bad nastiness, and you'll probably be rewarded with a resounding "yes".

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know...there's no *PROOF* on BetaSP.
Fortunately, some people still believe facts and evidence outweigh the usually uninformed vagaries of public opinion.
Reply
post #22 of 24
3/8/03 at 10:37pm
Quote:
Edison Kronos:
DON'T refer to Scott Ritter.

Just don't. He's been completely discredited.
Why? Because Bill O'Reilly said so?
Reply
post #23 of 24
3/8/03 at 11:46pm
Quote:
Englebert:
Quote:
Edison Kronos:
DON'T refer to Scott Ritter.

Just don't. He's been completely discredited.
Why? Because Bill O'Reilly said so?
I don't watch O'Reilly so I wouldn't know.
Reply
post #24 of 24
3/10/03 at 12:04pm
Quote:
Englebert:
Quote:
Edison Kronos:
DON'T refer to Scott Ritter.

Just don't. He's been completely discredited.
Why? Because Bill O'Reilly said so?
Not because of O'Reilly. I don't know if he's been on The Factor, but his comments in the public domain seem to discredit him plenty. When he left UNSCOM in 1998, he was saying Saddam hadn't disarmed. In 2003, after he made a movie funded by the Iraqi government, now he says Saddam has disarmed.

Can we say conflict of interest?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse