Dr.Worthless

Required reading to participate in discussion. The following is a short version of the article above. Please read the whole thing, but some of these paragraphs quoted are the meat of the article. As late as 1991, he was confirmed to have WMD's.. interesting. Self Explanitory. Huh? Am I reading this right? 6 years ago congress voted to allow BILL CLINTON to forcably remove Saddam from power? He was openly against UN resolutions? WOW this is a good one. Not only did the UN agree that Saddam was in flagrant violation of the orders, and the use of force granted, but Clinton was ready to kick some -*BAD WORD*-. OH SNAP wait a second, Clinton figured out that it would be PR murder to go into Iraq. Save face, or do what needed to be done. He obviously picked save face. Speaks for itself. Please pay special attention to this quote, its got some major points in it. ************************************************************ ********** Clinton ready to remove Saddam in 1998 This is the first instance that the United States is ready to forcibly remove Saddam from power due to WMD's. Key points: Clinton admin believed Saddam had WMD's, so did the UN. Unanimous vote for action against Iraq by UN. Everyone believes he has WMD's. Again, take the time to read the whole article. Clintons administration sure seemed to believe that he not only had WMD's, but he would sure as -*BAD WORD*- use them, just like he did in the past. Mabye the Bush Administration hasn't flown off their nob. So wait a second, 6 years ago we had 15-0 support to do this. Which means france, and chirac, were behind us. What has happened in those 6 years? As we read in the last article, Saddam has been virtually unchecked since the last threats. No solid proof provided that he's destroyed the weapons THAT EVERYONE WAS SURE HE HAD IN 1998. Can you say politics? Huh, I'm slightly confused, we're giving Saddam yet ANOTHER chance, even though he's constantly told the US and the UN to shove it? *boggle*. Atleast he vows to be strong THE NEXT TIME this happens. WOAH NELLY. So by President Clintons mouth, he states that the UN itself said ALL WORK DONE BY INSPECTORS IS A SHAM, because of Saddams tricks. Simply amazing, if I read the second point correctly, it sounds as if Bill Clinton is making a plee to the internation community (read UN) to put some bite behind its bark. If not, Saddam will truely believe we're nothing. Heh, anyone else know the meaning of Irony? Please read the whole speech, its full of wonderful stuff. Now with that over, lets get down to the logical. The last unanimous international opinion that Saddam had WMD's was in 1998, 6 years ago. In those 4 of those 6 years, Inspector access to Iraq was completely denied, no UN inspector was allowed into Iraq from 1998-2002. In 2002, a UN inspection team led by Hanz Blix was allowed in, but given restricted access. Hanz Blix reports he can find no evidence of WMD's or ability to produce them, in the 4 months that he's allowed access, facing mixed Iraq cooperation. Source on Hanz Blix, also will be used below HuH? Now lets disect this piece by piece. Resolution 1441 information can be found in provided link. Basically says "Last chance, any minor mess up and the games over" Don't use force, there's no evidence that Saddam has possesses WMD's, Even though we know he had them in 1998, a 4 year inspection hiatus insued, then in a 4 month invesigation of the country, Hanz decides there's no WMD's. Again I emphasize 4 MONTHS. Previous investigation teams spent years in the country. So wait, I'm confused. Saddam is supposed to disarm the weapons he doesn't have? Somethings alittle wrong with the picture. SO, !@#$%^&*uming Hanz was right, there was no evidence of WMD's in the country (which we can only assume is correct, as the US occupation force has yet to find any signifigant stockpilings of WMD's.) Where did the weapons go? Did they go anywhere? France and Russia seems to think there's no proof that he had them, but he's got to disarm. Disarm what? They just got done saying there's no proof that he has ANYTHING to disarm. The last major inspections done in Iraq were in 1998, followed by a 4 year hiatus till 2002, in which a 4 month inspection was conducted, and the inspection determined that Iraq no longer had wmd's. Furthermore keep in mind, Saddam provided no solid proof that he had ever destroyed the WMD's that he claimed he had, in the time between 1998 and 2002. In 1998 UN opinion was UNANIMOUS that Saddam had WMD's and needed to be removed from power. 4 years later, a 4 month investigation changes Russia's and France's mind on the possesion. 4 months of investigation was all that was needed to convince France and Russia that Saddam had gotten rid of the WMD's that he possessed 4 years prior. Why were the two countries minds changed so quickly? Why, after over a decade of investigation and chances, were the two countries so quick to give Saddam and Iraq yet ANOTHER chance, when 4 years prior they all agreed he needed to be removed. *MAJOR POINTS OF THE WHOLE POST* 1) Saddam has weapons in 1998, provides no proof of destruction between 1998-2002, 4 month investigation finds that Iraq has no weapons left in 2002. Where did the weapons go? 2.) A convinced UN votes unanimously for invasion in 1998. 4 years later a 4 month investigation changes the minds of 2 countries. Why the sudden change of opinion? 3.) Before invasion, Russia and France make a plee against force, stating there is no proof that Iraq has WMD's, yet in the SAME memorandum states that Inspections cannot continue forever and that Saddam must disarm. Disarm what, the weapons he doesn't have? All Interesting questions, I know its a lengthy post, and I know i'll get some off the wall replies, but attempt to stay on target and provide responses to the questions provided.

I don't doubt the occurance. I do know you cannot speculate on intentions, because speculation is hearsay. Another thing I do know is, Saddam was not put into power during the Bush Administration. So how can the Bush Administrations actions be disputed/justified by something he had nothing to do with? You cannot make the arguemant that Bush was wrong for invading Iraq because the US was responsible for him being there, simply because Bush had no part in Saddam being put into power.

/agree. I am in no way an advocate of the majority of the US's actions in being buddy buddy with Israel. Keep in mind though that neither faction over there is going to rest until the other is completely gone. Giving up % of whatever to the palestinians may buy temporary peace, but the palestinians want all the land. Same on the flip side, palestinians giving % of whatever to the israelies may provide temporary peace, but israel wants it all to. Bad situation over there, Really bad. I should make a new thread about the Iraq thing, and while the whole "America is responsible for Saddam" thing is agreeable, its slightly off topic of what I was attempting to create discussion about. If the Clinton administration was ready to attack Saddam and remove him from power due to WMD's. And we know that past 1998, no major UN inspector presence was seen in Iraq, and we also know that Saddam provided no proof that he had destroyed his weapons, where did they go? The whole issue of bush being wrong is that "Iraq obviously had no weapons since we didnt find any, saddam wasnt a threat" . If he was a threat 6 years ago, with no action to prevent him from being a threat from 1998 (still threat) to 2002-3 (invasion prep-invasion) , what makes him not a threat in 2003? Do you believe he disarmed under his own orders?

I'll use one of your own quotes, it fits well.

You cannot know or claim that the US "knew that saddam would commit war crimes against Iran" Unless of course you have a crystal ball, in which case I've got some ?? I need to ask you Mr. Shultz, a former secretary of state, is a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Ins!@#$%^&*ution, Stanford University. This is adapted from his Kissinger Lecture, given recently at the Library of Congress. I believe his credentials speak for themselves. I doubt he purpously ignored anything. Yes, there is no doubt Saddam was put into power by the United States. Yes, there is no question that it was a -*BAD WORD*-up. Please stay on topic, or state how you equate that situation with the one that the world was dealing with during the Clinton Administration/Bush administration. Please dont tell me you have some messed up conspiracy theory for THAT too.

Oh no, I'm not finished yet! =) President Bill Clinton, speaking of his decision to attack Iraq during 1998. Clinton speaks with CNN Clintons administration sure seemed to believe that he not only had WMD's, but he would sure as -*BAD WORD*- use them, just like he did in the past. Mabye the Bush Administration hasn't flown off their nob. So wait a second, 6 years ago we had 15-0 support to do this. Which means france, and chirac, were behind us. What has happened in those 6 years? As we read in the last article, Saddam has been virtually unchecked since the last threats. No solid proof provided that he's destroyed the weapons THAT EVERYONE WAS SURE HE HAD IN 1998. Can you say politics? Huh, I'm slightly confused, we're giving Saddam yet ANOTHER chance, even though he's constantly told the US and the UN to shove it? *boggle*. Atleast he vows to be strong THE NEXT TIME this happens. WOAH NELLY. So by President Clintons mouth, he states that the UN itself said ALL WORK DONE BY INSPECTORS IS A SHAM, because of Saddams tricks. Simply amazing, if I read the second point correctly, it sounds as if Bill Clinton is making a plee to the internation community (read UN) to put some bite behind its bark. If not, Saddam will truely believe we're nothing. Heh, anyone else know the meaning of Irony? Please read the whole speech, its full of wonderful stuff.

Point taken. I never claimed that the UN was failing. Its interesting to see what people *really* think, cause it always comes out when they jump to conclusions. Anyway, I simply stated that the UN isn't serious about stoping terrorism. If they were interested, this battle against them would have started along time ago. I'm basing my opinion on all the terrorism that Europe has went through, for a far longer time than the United States has. The United States is wrong for wanting to attack those that attacked us? Consipracy theories aside, 3000 people did die on September 11'th, 2001. I think the majority of Americans forget how everyone felt that day. They are effective in removing the terrorist cells power source, that is their $$. I know, I know, reports say that there is no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, I don't buy it. I do know that Saddam hated the United States, and I do know that alot of middle eastern countries hate the "west" in general, for many different reasons. I also know that terrorism is a very effective weapon against developed countries. If folks can cook up conspiracy theories about bush planning 9/11 so he can make $$ from oil, and his buddies make $$ to rebuild the country, I sure as -*BAD WORD*- can cook up alittle less far-fetched theory about Saddam providing alittle under-the-table funds to groups willing to fight his battles for him. Heh, I do agree, a league of nations with like ideals all working toward a common goal would be the most effective way to stop terrorism. Unfortunatly, the UN is all bark and no bite. ALL the UN does is p!@#$%^&* resolution after resolution, and doesn't see that it is carried through with. Example: Read Topic ^^^^^^^^ If Israel refuses to carry out the order, do you think the UN will do anything about it? Doubtful. Did they ever do anything to Saddam when he refused to comply with countless UN orders?? Here's a wonderful article on Saddam's failure to comply with the UN, and the history of the US/Saddam relation in terms of war. I KNOW 90% of you will not read this article, so I'm going to copy/paste things here that will make this post rather lengthy, but in vain I will hope that you read it. **************************BEGINING OF ARTICLE************************* Saddam/US relations through 2 administrations As late as 1991, he was confirmed to have WMD's.. interesting. Self Explanitory. They found alot of weapons, yeah we all remember that. We *should* all remember how he then began to give the first round of inspectors the run-around. Denying access to palaces, regulating when the inspectors could perform their jobs, etc. Huh? Am I reading this right? 6 years ago congress voted to allow BILL CLINTON to forcably remove Saddam from power? He was openly against UN resolutions? WOW this is a good one. Not only did the UN agree that Saddam was in flagrant violation of the orders, and the use of force granted, but Clinton was ready to kick some -*BAD WORD*-. OH SNAP wait a second, Clinton figured out that it would be PR murder to go into Iraq. Save face, or do what needed to be done. He obviously picked save face. Speaks for itself. All I can say is WOW, please take the time read the full article.

Huh? Here is where I would make fun of your english, but I'm waitin on my 2k.

Not all palestinians are muslim, fool.

How do you know? Praise Allah

I'm muslim too, help a brother out.

Rofl, Paypal me 1.01 and i'll gladly disappear

Donate 2000 to the pay worthless through college fund. Worthless is alot cooler than those palestinians anyway.

Unfortunatly, it seems we're the only nation willing to spend major $$ and send massive number of troops to the cause. The UN isn't serious about stopping terrorism. If they were the "war against terror" would have started a LONG time ago, see'ing that europe has been dealing with terrorism far longer than North America (on a grand scale.)

Ah, if only I could justify m!@#$%^&* genocide of people I didn't like in the name of purging spies. My life would be 10000% cooler.

Yeah I know, can you believe it? What business did america have removing Saddam. He was practically jesus encarnate.

UN's a joke.

Your political comp!@#$%^&* Economic Left/Right: 0.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56 Any suprise? Nah, I knew I was centristic. As far left as some of you Euro's/canadians are, you folks should move to hollywood, you'd fit in perfect. Lord, No wonder I can't believe some of the views on this forum

Heh dude, you've gone off the deep end, enjoy the thread. <3 Worthless.

I have yet to see you cite any quotes used. Point them out to me if I'm just blind. The above is me quoting myself. When a discussion gets to the point where the others involved are dillusional enough to state beliefs that are contratry to what i've stated, I know its time to bow out. Wow, yet you somehow muster enough attention to reply to everything I have to say. Yeah, If i've heard it once, I've heard it 1000 times. Ok yeah, Nothing to say about that. Let me show you another quote of yours. Yeah, the key words being "Conquer Europe (again)" which is what my comments were about. Sorry, the Holy Roman Empire never conquered Europe. If you were somehow speaking of religious oppression, then yes. I only reply to what I read, unlike you I dont make !@#$%^&*umptions on what people are trying to say, because !@#$%^&*umptions are usually always wrong. ROFL, Oh they are eh? Please site your gallop poll as proof, rofl. I'm sure everyone here thinks of you in the highest regards. Do you wake up in the mornings and say "Holy -*BAD WORD*- you are one fine sleeps with mothers, everyone in the world agrees with me too!" to the mirror? So wait, you're saying that my arguement that every species is born with the instinct to reproduce is an !@#$%^&*umption? Heh, on the contrary, throughout all of your responses you have convieniently ignored my arguement. I'll state it for you again. If it is essential for an organism to have intercourse in order for the species to survive, then why would the organism be born with the orientation to have intercourse with something it cannot procreate with? Heh, All I can say is wow. The only problem with your above statement, I believe you ment "Is a bad strategy". As in "Trying to compare -*BAD WORD*- sizes with me instead of addressing the issues at hand IS a bad strategy when your intellect can't keep up." Don't you just hate it when you try to be cool, but -*BAD WORD*-up like that? <3 I eagerly await your counter-arguement on instinctual procreation. If you try and say that procreation isn't an instict, I'll wont be replying to the thread. Edited *** Ah -*BAD WORD*- it, beer #7 instructs me to leave the thread alone. Wouldn't want to go against what daddy coors says.

Perhaps you can explain to me with the government in all sorts of debt, how we can afford to retain all of these programs? Instead of calling it radical, which is just dismissing something you don't like to hear. Speaking of something you don't like to hear, please prove your Moore !@#$%^&*ertation, because you'd think Bush could have sued him for Libel if it was true. (See, we CAN tie John Edwards into this somehow ) At the current rate, we won't be able to afford all these programs, partly due to the current war, mostly due to the massive influx of people into the said programs (read baby boomers.) What I found radical is jumping from money shortage straight to cancelation of every social program. Last estimates were roughly 2/1, with baby boomers being the 2, contributing workers being 1. The simpliest answer would be to increase taxes double. Obviously that would cause huge upheaval. Stopping frivilous lawsuits would be another start. There's TONS of solutions, many of which neither a democratic nor republican candidate will do. Bush is evil, Kerry sounds like a savior, but rest !@#$%^&*ured no matter who's in office, the little guys (us) is gonna get -*BAD WORD*-ed. My !@#$%^&*ertion of Bush's comment being out of context? I'll have to see if the full speech is up someplace. Somehow I doubt Bush flat out said what he said with the contexted meaning that you all are trying to pin it as. That is the context of "HAHAHA -*BAD WORD*- YOU GUYS THE RICH ROCK YOU GUYS ARE GONNA KEEP ME IN POWER HAHAHA -*BAD WORD*- THE POOR" BTW please watch the film at the link I provided, It fits the feelings of this forum to a T, you'll get a laugh out of it like I did.

Here's something to lighten the mood alittle bit. I could watch this over and over. There's a reason its typical.. When I present a logical arguement for something, it is in hopes that you address the arguement, not byp!@#$%^&* it. Instead of saying "Typical argument", reply to the given argument for my views. Rather, Individualism has always existed. The foundation of the christian faith (as I believe in it) states that god gave humans free will. On the contrary, Non-Believers always get mixed up with the "church's" will and "gods" will, and yes, they can be and often times are different. Wow, is there something in the water today?. Sorry, you're getting alittle radical. Moore did take bush's words out of context. That being said its never been a secret that republican administrations tend to be friendly to big business.

Rofl, I find it terribly simplistic to believe that there isnt a higher power. Look around at everything you see, to believe what we have is simply a matter of chance is being ignorant and egotistical. Lets use the classic watch analogy. Lets pretend for a second that you are an alien who has never seen a watch before. If you happened up an abandoned watch, in the middle of a field, you would naturally start examining it. You would see the nice leather straps, the gl!@#$%^&* on the top, the gears that run the hands, etc. Natural reasoning would have to lead you to believe that what you're holding isnt natural, someone with knowledge of how this works had to have made it, it's just simply to complex to occur by pure chance. Now, Take the same analogy, and lets apply it to say, a human eye. You get the idea. I really enjoy when people assume things, when they were never said. See.. !@#$%^&*umptions are subjective, so you can't really use them in a conversation against someone. I've never said christianity is better suited to the welfare of the human race, though I do believe as a species we need some form of higher power that dictates moral responsibilities. The fact that you would compare me to an extremist muslim is at most quite entertaining. Denying the power of religion is just as ignorant as denying the power of "education". Oh, and incase you haven't noticed, GOD CAN'T DIE, he will exist as long as people believe in him.

As a Christian I believe that God speaks through everyone who would let him do it. Sorry guys, as much as you try and paint Bush as a claimed divine right despote, you'll never reach far enough.

Um, ROFL? No way dude, I just looked up plenty of stuff!!! Its you're turn!! Dude, You haven't posted any of your proof, you can't look stuff up and then state it in an arguement without posting the proof that you read. Case in point. People like to have sex with things they can procreate with. So again I state the arguement against born sexual orientation. If the most basic instinct of a species is to procreate, why would a species be born with the preference to have sex with something it cannot procreate with? Sorry, No where in the quote did i break out any "freedom" arguement in defense of anything. The point I'm trying to make is, if you want to be a part of the catholic church, you have to abide by its laws. If the pope says -*BAD WORD*-ing other men in the -*BAD WORD*- is wrong, guess what.. if you want to be catholic, you cant -*BAD WORD*- other men. Huh? The Holy Roman Empire officially dissolved in the early 1800's. I don't believe they ever completely held Europe either. None the less, are you -*BAD WORD*-ing insane? (BTW, I don't believe there is a heaven, if you'd like to discuss the possibility, make a thread. ) I never claimed to have a complete knowledge of how the government works either, unlike you. Since you were so free to share the fact that you know so much, that was simply an invitation for you to share it with us. Please, take your arguementive "better than though" -*BAD WORD*- back to your mommy. She may praise your antics, but here they make you seem like a 14 year old -*BAD WORD*- that thinks he's billy bad!@#$%^&* cause he's on the internet.