Now, all you spelling teachers out there. Don't mind my spelling. I'll be sacrificing correct spelling, for typing speed.

This is a very long read too.

WMD'S Did Sodom have em? I dunno....More on this later.

Did he need to be taken down? Yep! Anyman who launches chem/bio weapons into mid sized towns within his own country wiping out close to a total of 72,000 civillians of all ages, names himself a prophet of Allah, writes a Qur'An in his own blood, needs to be put down like a rabbid dog, Nuff said.

We went to war for oil....Ok, so WHAT if we did? War's have been started throughout history for much less.... And some of the same politico's complaining in this matter are the same one's who allowed our military oil reserves to be sold......more on this later

Sodom's state of theart Russian Fighter sqaudrons..
In Aug of this past year, coalition troops found 5 total squadrons of Russian Made Sukhoi Fighters litterally buried out in the desert....Hmmm He buried them.......

Guess it has'nt crossed anyone's mind that he mave have buried WMD's
Or better yet, turned em over to one of the countries, that agreed to give his family Asylum, like Syria, or Iran. Those ARE the last places we'd look for em right? In the hands of his enemy.

He continually murdered his top nuclear and bio/chem weapons scientists every few years, then would replace them, gee why would anyone do that? Maybe the same reason our Govt uses multiple Artisans when designing new paper money?...So no one man has too much knowledge?

He repeadely violated UN policies, and continually refused to allow UN's Nuke techs acess to his facilities, throughout the years...Gee, why would anyone who DOES'NT have wmd's do that?

When acess was granted, it would they would notify weeks in adavance, or if it came down to a dead line, he would'nt allow full access. When full acess was allowed, our Sats would pic up large multi ton trucks departing the inspection targeted facilities and driving to facilities or in some cases, his palaces and offloading large amounts of equipment. That, once the inspectors left, would be returned to said facilities....gee why would anyone do that?

Now, I'm not to proficient on International Law, I'm getting there though, and my courses on that start next year.

We go to war, claiming he has WMD's. If he hides them from us, 1 he makes us look stupid. Two, legally, the war, as far as Hague is concerned was illegal. Hence no Hague trial for Sodom....Meaning he can possibly claim asylum.......ohhhhhhhh In the even his own people put him on trial.

It's public knowledge that France helped Sodoms regime on many issues, Military tactics, French Military advisors, D-A weapons techs...oo wait, D-A weapon techs......gee that would include Nuke Techs now would'nt it?
A French military convoy with French Diplomats staioned in Turkey is chased out of Iraq, their trucks carrying large equipment? Under tarps, with the French Dip-Im symbols on them, so they could not be inspected..... Hmmm, I wonder what that was all about.

Allies let talk about allies..Now what would happen, if we found out, that the French Govt was actively helping Sodom pursue Nuke Weapons, and Chem/Bio weapons?... Oww What very influential American politicians would also fall because of this? Hmmm.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck...then what?

Let's talk about our allies. In WW2 our so called allies knew the Japs were going to hit pearl harbor. Why did'nt they tell us? Because then they'd have to admit to spying on us. Do I need to point on where this fits in with Sodom, and WOT?

Intell, since WW2 and afterwords, there have been occasions we have purposly, allowed our leaders, both mil and civillian to look incompetant, to accomplish a larger goal,..Cold War anyone?

Tired of Reading yet???? I hope Not.

Now, here is just a theory of mine. One that I think is true, whether it is or is not, I guess we'll never know.

Sodom was a scapegoat. We needed a scapegoat. He was the perfect scapegoat too, look at his behavior. I don't belive it was really about freeing the Iraqi people, I'm not saying it was'nt on our list of priorities, but we needed an edge, we needed the Iraqi's to support us, because quite frankly, we screwed em over last time.
Sodom never thought we'd actually invade Iraq, when we did, he thought oh sh*t, gotta get rid of those WMD's.

Why we needed a scapegoat.

As they used to say in Roman times, all roads lead to Rome. Except this time, all money, terror support, Muslim terrorists-->(outside of Israel) The sect of Wahabism, all leads to who? Not Rome. Not Iraq....They lead to Saudi Arabia. All the Islamic extremists who are our enemies, are Wahabis. Al Queda, etc. Wahabism is the state religious sect of Saudi Arabia, that is the only allowable sect of Islam over there And it is that particular sect that has been responsible for 99% of our trouble in Islamic states, within the ME. Osama is Wahabi, Taliban are Wahabi, Al Quaeda is Wahabi, Al Furqa is wahabi, etc.

Islamic schools in Paksitan, A-stan, America, South America, Japan, China, are funded by charities run and supported by leading Saudi figures.
It just so happens these schools, preach what form of Islam? Not Sunni, Not Shiite, not Bedouin, but you guessed it! Wahabism.

But we can't attack the Sauds now can we? They are our 'allies'

yea with allies like those, we don't need any enemies.

We have oil dependency on Saudi oil. The Saudis have grown to be way to influential in American politics, both domestic, and foreign.
We have even more of an oild dependancy since, it looks like Venezuela is going Commie, Kuwaits fields will be dry in 30 years and they are limiting their exports to us, we can'nt fully develope our own oil resources thanks to those enviro-whackjobs. Canada is being greedy with their oil. And our mil reserves were sold off.
We can't get oil from Iraq, because they are our enemy. We can't attack the Sauds because they are our allies, and we'll lose our main oil supplier.
So were does that leave us? Up acreek without a paddle. Till someone says.

My theory::::

Hey, let's go after Sodom. We boot him, install a friendly US regime, develope oil contracts with them. (Think HaliBurton)
By developing oil contracts with a nation that has the world's largest oil fields, will leave us less dependent on the Sauds. We close our bases in Saudia Arabia (which is being done as we speak) pull our forces out, that takes away Osama's excuse for attacking us, the Saudi's without our money, find it harder to fund terrorism, abroad, and find it harder to hold onto the religious monopoly they have in their own nation. They begin to weaken. A suceesful Western style Govt in Iraq and A-stan weakens them further. Iran finds themselves with two western style pro US nations on each side of their border. They begin to lose their hold, on their populace (Which is happening as we speak) A few years down the line, it's ok for our politicians to publicly name Saudi Arabia as the Founders of, Financial, and Spritual sponsors of religious terrorism. And guess what happens next?

Now, this is just a theory of mine, I'm not saying it's true. But with the cards on the table as they are now, that's how I see it. People wrongly name that region as the M.E. I guess that's true, but a more accurate term for that region would be, The Saudi Bloc. Like The Old Soviet Bloc of the Cold War era.

So, are the lies in this phase of Iraq justifiable? To me they are, as long as it means we'll be dealing with the Sauds sometime down the line.

My theory, as of, Nov 2003 is Copyright.

Now, as for those who say that this admin got us into another un-winnable war. Lemme say this.

1: I don't like either political party. The each screw us (Americans) over.
However, look back throughout our history, and during every "unwinnable" war, it was who that was in control??? Democrats, Liberals....Hmm Cant wait till they try to hisoricaly revise that.

2: You may say, well, those who oppose this war are from every political spectrum...Are they? Take a closer look.

The Enemy of My enemy is my friend...and that's true, even within American politics.

We are a Super Power. The problem with being on top, is everyone below you, want's to be where your at. And they will do anything to get there, and that includes misleading Americans into opposing anything, military, ecconomically, that will keep us on top, and or make us stronger.

Millions of People in this nation have fallen victim to Gramscian Communism, and they're to stupid to realise it.

__________________
"Outside of the battlefield, your enemy can be your friend"...Kojiiro.

Evil unchecked grows. Evil Tolerated, poisens the entire system.

Two wrongs do not make one right!

Likw those trucks that were mobile bio labs that turned out to be used for weather baloons. What about all the information that was coming from our own intelligence that pointed to flawed intel? Our own agencies were not convinced.
http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/...MD-THENNOW.PDF

So did we in the 80's under Reagan including chem/bio supplies.

I agree that Saddam shifted focus...but let's be frank...the war was never sold as a liberation war but as a WMD war. Only after if became clear that WMDs were not going to be found the story shifted from a WMD war to an Iraq liberation war.

Exactly... :clapping: ...So why are we not putting more pressure on the Saudi's? How much longer and how much more blood will need to be spilled before we get out priorities straight?

There is a lot of truth in your post CW. However, I still have a major problem with a war that's presented as something that it's most definitely not. People are not sacrificing their lives for some vague posibility of getting at the real bad guys at some point in the future. They think they are fighting for all sorts of lofty intangibles now and that's the reason the war has any support at all. Maybe it's selfish, but I have to ask, is this something I want to orphan my children for? I come up with a big fat NO on this one.

all this global politics is a bunch of poop. you send poor and middle class sons and daughters to die for power and glory of the rich and powerful. that is how it's always been done and that is how it is done now. this is no different. there is no proof that saddam ever had an intent of attack ing th eUS. no proof he had any substantive links with al quaeda. liek his father, this bush will be thrown out for incompetency and hopefully the power structure behind him will be replaced with a new republican party. Bush could still run as a whig since his policies seem to be taken form their book. countries get rich by trading not by declaring war. evenif it was for oil, the savings goten by the oil will never justify the costs of war 9even in pure monetary terms.) the benficiaries will be halliburton and the like while the taxpayer gets stiffed.

Good one...:lol:

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editoria...sFile=jp040211

Because we wanted to stick it to Iran in retaliation for the hostage crisis, not out of any love for Saddam. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." — Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Whether or not that's justifiable is another question, but clearly that was our motivation. After the Iran-Iraq war ended, we had no more use for Saddam.

the CIA backed his rise to power providing him with intel and otehr support after he was involved in a failed coup. he was our man from the late 1960's on.

Oh. I suppose you're right. Sounds like typical CIA shenanigans.

Well, here's something for you to chew while I write a response to this thread.

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998



"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998



"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998



"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov.10, 1999



"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001



"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002



"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

AI Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

AI Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and

developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002



"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, VW), Oct. 3, 2002



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002



"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002



"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10,2002



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002



"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002



"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

__________________
"Outside of the battlefield, your enemy can be your friend"...Kojiiro.

Evil unchecked grows. Evil Tolerated, poisens the entire system.

chrispm1, why did'nt we attack the Saud's? The answer is there. Think about the oil situation, and their allies within our Govt, our educational system, and the "Arab" street itself. Saudi Arabia is the holiest of muslim lands, home to mecca......think about that. Think about that if we attacked them right now.

What's going to be needed is more democratically minded Muslims throughout that region, once there is, attacking them will be easier..not in a military sense, but in a reprucussion sense.

__________________
"Outside of the battlefield, your enemy can be your friend"...Kojiiro.

Evil unchecked grows. Evil Tolerated, poisens the entire system.