That'll keep happening so long as most of the world subscribes to either capitalism or a religion that came out of the Middle East. Or both.
 
-----------------------
Ramon Stonefish

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/ED d- s:+ a-- C++++ UL P+ L++@ E---- W+@ N+ !o w--- PS PE t+ 5++ X-- R++ tv+ b+++ !DI D++ G e>++ h! r-- z-
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

I've always considered the possibility.

Bush did try to get the UN to support us for a few months and basicly let Iraq know we were coming for them.

Between the facts that cehmical(biological weapons may veary) weapons don't have to have friends or go insane, eat, breath, *other biological functions,  see the light of day, and that we gave them a lot of time to hide or ship out said weapons, I do not find it suprising that we hadn't found that much in the way of WMDs(some canisters of mustard gas and the sarin gas attack).

I also heard that US forces had come across evidence the France, Germany, and Russia had violated treaties and sent Iraq things they shouldn't have since the 1991 Gulf Skirmish(it was no war).  Guess who the biggest opposition in the UN was to invading Iraq.
 
-----------------------
Kuroishi Wraith VEA
Daishi Raptor VEN
Assistant Writer Why Project Copyright Infringment
Ich bin hessliche amerikaner.
Nehmen mir zu dein frauen von vernunftig preis tugendhafte.
"And the sound of many heads hitting many solid objects was heard throughout the land." me

France selling weapons? Ho, you jest sir!

We should just have told the French that baghdad was a nuclear test free zone

 
-----------------------
+ Advance Recon Commandos {ARC} +
PC:A/SGM/Raziel/1PLT/1COMP/1BAT/1RGT/Tadath/VEA/ {EW1} {WoS} {VP} {IG} {CDS} {BoA}
Assistant Squad Leader - Squad4 Wraiths
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989.
CM/DJK Raziel/lion 1-5/Krath/VEDJ/VE

So according to your stance if there was a guy reaching for a gun and another person who already had a gun, you would shoot the guy going for the gun and leve the guy with the gun alone.

That's what it sounds like you are saying to me, or do you support the notion of an invasion of North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, most of the world's nations?

A lot of countries already have WMDs, just no real way to deliver them.  It is very easy to make biological WMDs.

The only viable reason that Bush could have had without setting a double standard for invading Iraq was to finish what his father could not.

Double standards may work in the short term but eventually it will cause strife and more misery then they are worth.


 
-----------------------
Kuroishi Wraith VEA
Daishi Raptor VEN
Assistant Writer Why Project Copyright Infringment
Ich bin hessliche amerikaner.
Nehmen mir zu dein frauen von vernunftig preis tugendhafte.
"And the sound of many heads hitting many solid objects was heard throughout the land." me

Sorry that was a bit of an outburst and impolite of me.

I just don't want to live in a world where everything is decided by one thing: whether it could threaten the US. You just can't decide who's right, when and where it suits your own interests.
When Iraq winning is in your best interests you support them, when Bush Snr wants to make up for his daddies failings and distract everyone, it's time to invade them. The world shouldn't revolve around one countries "best interests"

I just don't want to end up in a place where the US starts seeing knives everywhere.
Just because you have the gun. Doesn't mean you get to decide whats right and wrong. That is the attitude that everyone else in the world is getting, you fear everyone else, push people around, they dont like it.

And by the way one homemade bomb, from a binary chemical shell from the 80's doesnt make up a chemical arsenal. The chemicals didnt even mix, they only work when launched. It just suggests that there may well be more.

 
-----------------------
+ Advance Recon Commandos {ARC} +
PC:A/SGM/Raziel/1PLT/1COMP/1BAT/1RGT/Tadath/VEA/ {EW1} {WoS} {VP} {IG} {CDS} {BoA}
Assistant Squad Leader - Squad4 Wraiths
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989.
CM/DJK Raziel/lion 1-5/Krath/VEDJ/VE

      "Its has made the world ten times worse." Direct quote, right Rema? Well did you know that 53 Iraqi mass graves were confirmed in January, and that the genocide Saddam was sponserring was surpassed only by the Rowandans, Pol Pot, and the Nazis? Tell me, is it really worse in Iraq now that we've ended the genocide?
 
-----------------------
(hits golf ball through the stargate) "So, how far away is Edura?"
"Several million light years, O'Niel."
"That's gotta be a record." (gets ready to swing golf club)
"Colonel O'Niel, what in God's name do you think you're doing?!"
"IN THE MIDDLE OF MY BACKSWING?!"

"People like you are the reason people like me take medication."  -Cool T-shirt

bah, must restrain my self from beating you all with a gigantic stick. I love reading you guys argue and get all political on each other. Its funny. If you take a step back, this war doesnt really affect 95+% of us. If it has directly affected you, then take that last statement as null and void. But for the rest of us, if this war doesnt affect you going to work,school, the store, a soccer game, or another common activity, then i think we should all just shut the hell up. We can say something is good or bad, like invading Iraq, but we dont really have anything but oppinions to base these sentiments on. So my suggestion to you, do like me. If it doesnt slap me in the face, if i dont step on it going to school, if it doesnt blow up my house, or if it doesnt kill someone i know, then just dont worry about it.

Well thats my two cents on all this BS, so have a good day, and before you flame me, actually take at least 1 minute, just 60 seconds, turn your pride down to 0, and think about this. A lot of people will automatically  go to their own defense with out thinking about what i just said because of pride, in thinking that what they have already said is the "right thing". So please please just take 1 minute, and analize what i have said from an objective point of view.
 
-----------------------
TRP/LCP Mandor/3SQD/2PLT/1COMP/1BAT/1RGT/VEA/VE [LoR][BoA]

Im in 100% support of the war, and i support our soldiers 100% as well (My brother is currently serving in Iraq). Im just saying, im not going to get on this board and start arguing with people about wether or not we should be there./shrug
 
-----------------------
TRP/LCP Mandor/3SQD/2PLT/1COMP/1BAT/1RGT/VEA/VE [LoR][BoA]

I have been avoiding this topic for a long time but I think Ill put in my two cents in response to chipmunk's statement about sarin gas being used against US troops.

A very quick reality check here.

1. That is the first WMD found.  Ironically, the US went into Iraq claiming it knew where "millions of litres of anthrax", stockpiles of "chemicals and chemical weapons", and "vast quantities" of various nerve gasses.  However now in Iraq, the only WMD they have found was an artillery shell with a small quantity of sarin in it that was used in a road side bomb.

2. Prove that shell was ever made in Iraq.  With the number of foreign fighters who have entered Iraq since the US took over, there is distinct possibility that that weapon was smuggled in.
 
-----------------------
+ Advance Recon Commandos {ARC} +
ASL/GSG_Afyon/Dark Dragoon Squad/2PLT/1COM/1BAT/1RGT/VEA/VE/[LoC][IH][CoH][SoA]

People are dying over there on both sides.  The least we can do is make sure that we know why.

I post about politics for two reasons.  First off, I like debating politics and religion, it is what I do.  Secondly, while I might not always agree with who I am debating with, it is always good to get the other side of an issue.  I've learned a lot on here that I would not have had I not debated.

I can't prove that the serin was made in Iraq, but even if it wasn't, it makes the case that much stronger that they were there.  If they managed to smugle it over when we didn't want them to, how easy would it have been to get rid of them with all of the warning that we gave?

And BTW:  That small amount was enough to kill a few thousand people if it had been dispersed correctly.
 
-----------------------
LCM_ JMac/(=A=)(=SA=)(=MA)(=FOCE=)(MC1)(VC)

Viva el gato mojado!!!!

Yes, I am on extended leave, but that doesn't mean I can't bother people with the few spare seconds I have to get online.

You know, I'm still fuzzy on why the sarin nerve gas thing is such a big deal.  It would take you a grand total of ten minutes on the internet (trust me, I tried it), a maximum of two months waiting (shipping times you know...), and about $130 to create 280 grams of sarin nerve gas.  To put that in perspective, the when the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan attacked a Tokyo subway, they only used 1000 grams, and it killed five (I think...) and injured thousands.

Let's see, added to that, I could probably make a decent EMP device for about 20 bucks and two hours worth of work, I could probably whip up some C4, and if you were willing to pay about $1 million and wait a month or two, you could probably wind up with a rather nice Hiroshima sized nuclear weapon.

The point I'm trying to make here is that weapons of mass destruction aren't something you're going to stop from spreading.  They aren't particularly difficult to make, they just require knowing what you're doing.  Now that Pandora's box is open, we're making ourselves look like idiots trying to close it.

Anyways, in response to Mandor, I can honestly say that I disagree completely.  It's been about five minutes since I read what he wrote, and it still doesn't seem any more right.  If we let the government do things just because they don't come up and slap us in the face, sooner or later they will come slap us in the face and we won't be able to do anything about it.

Also, I'm one of those wierdos who enjoys arguing.  As JMac said, even if I disagree with everything the person said, I'm still learning something.  And if I agree, then it's a darn good thing I listened to that person 

Anyways, that's my rant for today, enjoy.
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
Sergeant Major/Senior Writer, VE Today
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
Fallen Angel and Proud of It!
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung

    The point I'm trying to make is that terrorism is not a conflict in a military sense. Yes, the war in Afghanistan did hurt the terrorist movement, and Iraq did not make life for terrorists easier. But these two wars did not by any means stop the terrorist movement. Literally the only military way to end terrorism is to kill all those who are terrorists and all those who could become terrorists. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have increased anti-U.S. sentiment throughout the world. An example: you say that the people of Iraq love us. They do not. War is never good for anyone. Would you want a war in your front yard? Even if you had relatives tortured by Saddam? What if you did not? What if your parents or relatives had been killed or hurt by collateral from a U.S. bomb? Would you care that there is a new school down the block? Would you be resentfull of the U.S? These are the questions some, not all, Iraqis have to ask themselves. The answers are the reasons why they become terrorists.
    The war on tettorism is a war of ideas. This war of ideas cannot be won with bombs and missiles and guns. You cannot just put steel on target, because you often don't know who the target is. Unless you are willing to kill millions, that strategy will not work.
    Terrorists are cowardly. They hide behind civilians, wear civilian clothes, and will kill anything they don't like. But attempting to kill them through war only makes the people caught in the crossfire more angry. Just like in Vietnam, for every terrorist you kill through battle, you may enrage several others who may then become terrorists. The U.S. approach to the war was wrong. Just as the original Iraqi war enraged bin Laden to become a terrorist, this new war, with less obvious goals, will breed a new generation of terrorists. These terrorists, much like animals, will evolve and move further underground, using more deadly means of attack to hurt the United States.
 
-----------------------
+ Advance Recon Commandos {ARC} +
"Only Trust your Allies as much as you can Predict your Enemies."
"Do you expect me to talk?" "No Mr. Bond, i expect you to die."
"Luke, I am your Fasha."
To Nom Anor, a truly superior Yuuzhan Vong.
TRP/ASL/CPL Rema/2SQD/1PLT/1COM/1BAT/1RGT/VEA/VE [LoR][OPE] [AM-B][AM-S][AM-P][IH][SoA]

What I hear from my friend who had been serving over there we are not loved.  It is not as bad as the news reports but his brother is starting to think the Iraqis deserved Saddam from what he has heard.

Also we can't forget a dutch team that found canisters that had been used to store mustard gas.

And I'm glad at least one person is willing to agree with my point that with all the warning we gave Iraq that they could have easily exported all thier WMDs.

The SCUDs were banned and were supposed to be demolished by UN charter but obviously they were not.

Should we have invaded Iraq?

I think we didn't have that much of a reason.  If we use the rouge nation with WMDs we'll have little choice but to go around and start busting heads in the majority of the world's nations.  For various social, political, and military reasons the US is not very well liked by the majority of the world.  It's just that 99.9% or so aren't going to commit acts of terrorism to do something about it.

From what I know most fundamentalist militant islam terrorist groups rather dislike secular nations, but that deos not mean they won't take thier money.

If we really want to put a hurt on terrorists take public transportation, ride a bike, carpool, walk, basicly do anything you can to turn those oil fields into worthless pits of black ooze.  I know it's not always easy but every little bit of reduction in our ussage of gasoline makes it harder for terrorists to get money.
 
-----------------------
Kuroishi Wraith VEA
Daishi Raptor VEN
Assistant Writer Why Project Copyright Infringment
Ich bin hessliche amerikaner.
Nehmen mir zu dein frauen von vernunftig preis tugendhafte.
"And the sound of many heads hitting many solid objects was heard throughout the land." me

JMac.. this is for you :

Why al-Qaeda Thrives

President Bush says Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, but security experts say Iraq is the reason Bin Laden's movement is growing

By TONY KARON

Whether or not a decent outcome is eventually achieved, Iraq won't present President Bush with the triumphant centerpiece of a successful reelection campaign. Still, Americans' fear of terror remains a rich seam of political support for the president ? indeed, recent polls indicate that while more Americans believe his presumptive challenger, Senator John Kerry, would do a better job handling Iraq, Bush has a significant lead when the question is who would do a better job of fighting terrorism. Not surprisingly, then, the president's handlers have sought to make terrorism the prism through which the Bush presidency must be viewed ? even when the conversation turns to Iraq.

President Bush framed his Monday keynote address on Iraq around the idea that the country is now "the central front in the war on terror." He implied that the invasion of Iraq was a choice forced on the U.S. by the Sept. 11 attacks and that the enemy facing the U.S. there shares al-Qaeda's goal of establishing "Taliban-type"; rule. In all, he used the words "terror" or "terrorist/terrorism" 19 times. But the president's characterization will hardly have resonated with his Iraqi audience, who see al-Qaeda as a problem brought into their country by the U.S. invasion rather than by Saddam Hussein. Even the U.S. intelligence community has long maintained that Saddam's regime had no connection with the 9/11 attacks, while U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq say that foreign terrorists constitute only a small fraction of the insurgency facing Coalition troops there.

If, indeed, there is a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, it may not be the kind the Bush campaign is likely to dwell on. The same day the President spoke, the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies released its annual survey that found, among other things, that far from dealing a blow to al-Qaeda and making the U.S. and its allies safer, the Iraq invasion has in fact substantially strengthened bin Laden's network and increased the danger of attacks in the West. And the London-based IISS is not some Bush-bashing antiwar think tank; it hosted the president's keynote address during his embattled visit to the British late last year.

The IISS reported that al-Qaeda's recruitment and fundraising efforts had been given a major boost by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It estimated that bin Laden's network today commands some 18,000 men, of which about 1,000 are currently inside Iraq. After almost three years of President Bush's war on terror, the IISS offered the following assessment of the movement's prospects: "Although half of al-Qaeda's 30 senior leaders and perhaps 2,000 rank-and-file members have been killed or captured, a rump leadership is still intact and more than 18,000 potential terrorists are still at large, with recruitment accelerating on account of Iraq." The continuing danger of an al-Qaeda strike inside the U.S. as it moves into election season was underscored Wednesday by Attorney General John Ashcroft, who warned that intelligence tips suggest that the movement plans to attack inside the U.S. some time in the coming months. It was a non-specific warning, of course, and the color-coded terror alert level was not raised as a result. But the announcement affirmed for Americans the fact that they remain vulnerable to al-Qaeda attack, if better prepared and forewarned than three years ago.

So why is al-Qaeda continuing to grow and prosper despite the loss of its Afghan sanctuaries and so many of its personnel, and the fact that it has been relentlessly hounded by security services across Europe, the Middle East and Southeast Asia? The consensus among security analysts is that the key to eliminating al-Qaeda as a threat is to transform the permissive political environment in which it operates in the Muslim world. Instead, the opposite has occurred ? Muslim anger at the U.S. has reached an all-time high and continues to grow, driven by outrage at U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by Israel's actions against the Palestinians. The precipitous decline in support or sympathy for the U.S. in the Muslim world after 9/11 has meant fertile ground for al-Qaeda recruiters.

Authoritative voices from the IISS to former U.S. commander for the Mideast and Bush administration envoy to the region General Anthony Zinni to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies have lately warned that the achievement of U.S. goals in the Middle East depends on its ability to revive and complete the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The administration's approach has been to leave that issue on the back burner while pursuing Iraq on the assumption that ousting Saddam's regime would facilitate peace between Israel and the Palestinians ? an argument dismissed as spurious by Zinni, Cordesman and others. Instead, the Iraq occupation and the ongoing conflict in the West Bank and Gaza has burnished al-Qaeda's appeal in relation to the pro-U.S. Arab regimes it hopes to supplant, because these regimes appear powerless to affect the plight of the Palestinians and Iraqis. With seemingly no Arab leaders capable of protecting Arab interests, bin Laden paints himself and his politics of suicidal jihad as the path to redeeming Islam's lost honor.

While al-Qaeda's appeal in the Arab and Muslim world has grown in the years since 9/11, the group has not mounted a single attack in the U.S. in the same period. Bin Laden's goals are to rally Muslims to the cause of jihad, in order to drive the U.S. and its influence out of the Islamic world and restore the Islamic empire of the Middle Ages. And the antagonism provoked by U.S. actions such as invading Iraq have been more effective even than the terror of 9/11 in building support for the movement. Still, al-Qaeda continues to seek to mount mass-casualty terror attacks in the U.S. It has been hampered by the U.S.-led crackdown on its organizational structures, and by the domestic security efforts that have made operations across such great distances more difficult. Al-Qaeda will necessarily have had to put new leadership and communication protocols in place, and its decentralization and dispersion may have changed the very nature of its operations. It has continued to strike in Europe and Asia, and of course Iraq. But now the Bush administration is warning that it plans to attack in the U.S. too, in time to have an impact on the election.

The last al-Qaeda terror strike on U.S. soil rallied the overwhelming majority of Americans strongly behind President Bush. Whether and how a new terror strike on U.S. soil three years later might do the same remains to be seen. But whereas the 9/11 attack shocked and horrified much of the international community, including the Arab and Muslim world, and drew them initially closer to Washington, it's unlikely that a new attack would do much to reverse the deep polarization of the international community brought on by the war in Iraq.

These intelligence sources also claimed Iraq had millions of litres of anthrax and stockpiles of deadly chemicals and nerve gases.  Let's do another reality check here.

1. Saddam Hussein ran a Stalinist secular regime

2. Al Qaeda is on record as wanting to overthrow the corrupt monarchs and secular regimes in the Islamic world in order to create Islamic theocracies.

3. Any logic would tell you that it wouldn't make any sense for such polarised opposites to be in league with each other.  If you examine recent evidence that has come out (ie. not administration influenced intelligence statements prior to the Iraq war and during the first year of it) it is becoming apparent that indeed there aren't connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorists.  It just doesn't make sense for there to be such a connection.

I recommend a book.  Its called Ignorant Armies and it is written by Gwyenne Dyer, an independent journalist and military historian.  He is considered a key source in these issues and has extensive knowledge to bring to the table.  I attended a speech he gave that laid out his thesis in that book and I strongly recommend it to everyone.  It is a well done and objective book and brings in a new perspective about Sept 11th.  I believe that he makes an excellent point worthy of consideration and agree with him on many fronts.  It is also intriguing as he brings in possibilities that havent really been considered to date in anything mainstream and yet his ideas almost make more sense.


 
-----------------------
+ Advance Recon Commandos {ARC} +
ASL/GSG_Afyon/Dark Dragoon Squad/2PLT/1COM/1BAT/1RGT/VEA/VE/[LoC][IH][CoH][SoA]