lolwmd roflmaoiraq lol hahahah rofl

[stonedpimp69]

This beats the thing with the BBC. JEsus christ:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61949-2004Jan29.html

So let's see.
The Scientiscts, officials, were scared of Hussein, and lied to him that the WMD were progressing. They staged massive caravans of "WMD" to please Hussein, so he would not torture and execute them, the HUssein, beeing sure Iraq has WMD, when it didn't went and said it didn't?????
I can imagine the faces of these scientists and officials, when they found out the US was gonna go to war over theWMD. They must have laugehd harder than i'm laughing right now......

HAHAH ROFLMAOLOLROFLLOL HAHAHLOLOLOLLMAOLMAOROFL

Once again. This is unexpressibly funny

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/30/04 05:06 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: Once again. This is unexpressibly funny

And, I believe that it says the War on Iraq was COMPLETELY unjustified. Doesn't it?

[stonedpimp69]

First:
At the time, we were sure there were WMD, so it was backed up.
Second:
Hussein is no longer in power, taht justifies the war right there

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/30/04 05:24 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: Second:
Hussein is no longer in power, taht justifies the war right there

Not for us [Brits]. The reason we went to war was that Saddam had WMD.

[Reverend-Kyle]

If you're like me, you were probably confused when Iraq was mentioned by President Bush. I really don't see how the connection was drawn to Saddam. But from what I remember, the connection was soley based on 'weapons of mass destruction', so the fact that Saddam has been removed doesn't justify anything.

The end does not justify the means.

[D2Kvirus]

At 1/30/04 05:06 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: This beats the thing with the BBC. JEsus christ:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61949-2004Jan29.html

Dude, that was NOT funny in the slightest. The only "beating" should involve the faces of Blair, Campbell, Scarlett and Hoon. In that order.

Still pissed off.

I can imagine the faces of these scientists and officials, when they found out the US was gonna go to war over theWMD. They must have laugehd harder than i'm laughing right now......

Not really -they were probably white with shock at the realisation their opinion only matters when it suits the Government.

Once again. This is unexpressibly funny

Not if you were Shocked and Awed for no reason.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/30/04 07:59 PM, Kyle_22 wrote: The end does not justify the means.

I hate this saying. The end sometimes justifies the means, but not in every case.

[Reverend-Kyle]

I know, I know. I should have been more specific. Using lies to get an 'evil' person removed from power doesn't justify the use of lies. But it is subjective, I guess.

[mrpopenfresh]

At 1/30/04 05:24 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: First:
At the time, we were sure there were WMD, so it was backed up.

So if I say your'e a complete idiot who tries and copulate with his dog, am I right just because i say so?

Second:
Hussein is no longer in power, taht justifies the war right there

But that wasn't why the war was started! Sure the tyrant is gone, but that wasn't the reason for going there in the first place! Stop trying to focus on Husseina and face the fact that the whole WMD thing was a crock of bull.

[lapslf]

At 1/30/04 05:24 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: First:
At the time, we were sure there were WMD, so it was backed up.

Well, I guess you weren't 100% sure, since there are no weapons of mass destruction. Did it ever occured to you that your candonowrong government had lied about it?

Second:
Hussein is no longer in power, taht justifies the war right there

Why? The circumstances for the Iraqi people are now a lot worse than before the war.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/31/04 11:04 AM, Kyle_22 wrote: I know, I know. I should have been more specific. Using lies to get an 'evil' person removed from power doesn't justify the use of lies. But it is subjective, I guess.

No, I think lying to remove an evil person from power, when your only motivation was to remove that person for power would justify the use of lies.

Using lies when you were only interested in [for instance, in a completely hypothetical situation], going into a country and stealing all their oil, that would NOT justify the lies, even if you removed the dictator.

You know what's even funnier? When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. roflmalol and so forth.

[RedSkunk]

stoneddrunk69 or whatever was pwnd in this topic. Enough said.

[stonedpimp69]

It alwasy amaze me how one can read an article, and yet only take in the part taht suits you.
I admit it there were no WMD, however the article(may I mention the Washington Post is extremely liberal?) clearly states, that having the intelligence, which we then had, it was reasonable to be close to positive, that Hussein had WMD, therefore, your whole thing about lies is utter bullshit.
And bum, how is the thing with the BBC not funny? they invent some bullshit story, against Blair, and get proven wrong sounds funny to me, and whoever mentioned PEarl Harbor
*the police runs in to restrain me from beating the shit out of him repeatedly and then shooting him*
*they drag me out as I scream things along the lines of FUCK YOU*
(i'm just to lazy to write out ALL the goddamn reasons why this is different from pearl harbour, and how much i hate that poster etc. long flame is inserted here)

[stonedpimp69]

At 1/31/04 03:30 PM, red_skunk wrote: stoneddrunk69 or whatever was pwnd in this topic. Enough said.

I think not?

[RedSkunk]

how could they be sure that Iraq had WMD's with no credible evidence? Remember, credible every intelligence agency in the US said there wasn't any real evidence (see: CIA).

[GooieGreen]

At 2/1/04 08:48 PM, red_skunk wrote: how could they be sure that Iraq had WMD's with no credible evidence? Remember, credible every intelligence agency in the US said there wasn't any real evidence (see: CIA).

This is kinda (not in the same scale of) like WWII. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? We said that they were a huge training ground and weapons depot... whatever, they weren't. I'd hope that the intelligence problem would be fixed by now, but I guess we have a few more screw ups to go.

[stonedpimp69]

I don't believe Hiroshima/Nagasaki were screw ups. I honestly belive they were just looking to fieldtest the nukes, and who can blame them, nobody REALLY knew just how powerfull a weapon it would end up beeing.
Anyway. Iraq WAS a screw up, and no evidence? What about convoys regularly moving through the desert(satellite images) and the gasing of the kurds(we did NOT know he destroyed those weapons)

[Reverend-Kyle]

At 1/31/04 09:31 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: (may I mention the Washington Post is extremely liberal?)

Unless I'm thinking of a different Newspaper, isn't the Washington Post owned by some higher-ups of the "Moonies"-- a Korean religious cult-- and extremely conservative?

[JudgeDredd]

At 2/1/04 08:48 PM, red_skunk wrote: how could they be sure that Iraq had WMD's with no credible evidence? Remember, every intelligence agency in the US said there wasn't any REAL evidence (see: CIA).

they obvisously had many testimonies of expat-Iraqis who both feared Saddam and wanted to return to an Iraq both without leadership or sanctions. Specifically, those signing oil contracts in leu of fronting the opposition "Iraqi council".

This does now explain why all Iraqi scientists refused to leave Iraq to testify such "programs" were actually being implemented ..i mean, how could you lie to the science community inspectors as easily as lying to Saddam?

But it also go further towards a hierachy of deception on both sides. US agencies also were under pressure the following 9-11 oversight, so a winnable war with a demonized enemy secures their rightful existance at a time when the Bush administration was keen to see full unfettered co-operation (possibly amalgamation) of the numerous intelligence agencies. I'd go so far as to say that jobs and money was the motive for deception or embellishment on both sides ..which led to the stand-off situation ..and we all know that in a stand-off situation the US doesn't backdown.

Gawd-bless.

[bumcheekcity]

At 1/31/04 09:31 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: It alwasy amaze me how one can read an article, and yet only take in the part taht suits you.

Like you did, you mean?

I admit it there were no WMD, however the article(may I mention the Washington Post is extremely liberal?) clearly states, that having the intelligence, which we then had, it was reasonable to be close to positive, that Hussein had WMD, therefore, your whole thing about lies is utter bullshit.

So, your intelligence bullshitted and lied to us, saying Iraq had WMD, when it didn't?

And bum, how is the thing with the BBC not funny? they invent some bullshit story, against Blair, and get proven wrong sounds funny to me, and whoever mentioned PEarl Harbor

Not funny if you live here. And if, like me, you wanted Blair out.

[GooieGreen]

At 2/2/04 05:54 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: I don't believe Hiroshima/Nagasaki were screw ups.

Oh, I never said they were screw ups, and if I did, sorry. Fact of the matter is someone along the line embelished or lied so they happened.