Why We Attacked Iraq

Why America invaded Iraq has been a major discussion all over the world. Some believe it was necessary while others think it was a crime. Now let me explain to you why we did it.

Nukes are not something you can\'t screw around with. If held by the wrong people, devastating attacks could occur. But what if Sadam didnt have them? That is not a reasonable argument.

Heres an analogy. You are a police officer patrolling the highway. You turn out on the highway and get behind a car. Once you realize the tags are out of date, you decide to pull him over, just as a normal traffic stop. You turn on your police lights, and all of a sudden the guy just takes off. He speeds off, trying to avoid you. Now here we have a problem. You were just gonna give the guy a ticket, but he is obviously hiding something, be it drugs, a fugitive, or guns. Why else would he avoid you? Anway, you chase him down the busy highway. All the chasing causes you to crash, which kills innocent civilians. The guy gets away without any proof of illegal activity.

The same happened in Iraq. Sadam was hiding something. It didnt necessarily have to be nukes (maybe chemical weapons or torture chambers). Why else would he refuse to let UN inspectors into certain bunkers? So you see, that is why we had to take actions. Because we didnt know what he was hiding, we had to expect the worst. When crazy dictators hide stuff you have to take action.

Wether Sadam had actual nuclear bombs, i do not know. All i know is that he had uranium. It doesnt matter if it is depleted or not. Reinrichment of uranium or plutonium is a fairly easy process, and it doesnt really take that much time.

So, all in all, we had to attack because of the probability of nukes. As i said, you dont fuck with nukes.

I hope this clears things up a little bit. But there are still those on this site that will bring up some insignificant technicality about our nations foreign intelligence. None of that matters......but i will leave it up to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

Why America invaded Iraq has been a major discussion all over the world. Some believe it was necessary while others think it was a crime. Now let me explain to you why we did it.

Nukes are not something you can\'t screw around with. If held by the wrong people, devastating attacks could occur. But what if Sadam didnt have them? That is not a reasonable argument.

Heres an analogy. You are a police officer patrolling the highway. You turn out on the highway and get behind a car. Once you realize the tags are out of date, you decide to pull him over, just as a normal traffic stop. You turn on your police lights, and all of a sudden the guy just takes off. He speeds off, trying to avoid you. Now here we have a problem. You were just gonna give the guy a ticket, but he is obviously hiding something, be it drugs, a fugitive, or guns. Why else would he avoid you? Anway, you chase him down the busy highway. All the chasing causes you to crash, which kills innocent civilians. The guy gets away without any proof of illegal activity.

The same happened in Iraq. Sadam was hiding something. It didnt necessarily have to be nukes (maybe chemical weapons or torture chambers). Why else would he refuse to let UN inspectors into certain bunkers? So you see, that is why we had to take actions. Because we didnt know what he was hiding, we had to expect the worst. When crazy dictators hide stuff you have to take action.

Wether Sadam had actual nuclear bombs, i do not know. All i know is that he had uranium. It doesnt matter if it is depleted or not. Reinrichment of uranium or plutonium is a fairly easy process, and it doesnt really take that much time.

So, all in all, we had to attack because of the probability of nukes. As i said, you dont fuck with nukes.

I hope this clears things up a little bit. But there are still those on this site that will bring up some insignificant technicality about our nations foreign intelligence. None of that matters......but i will leave it up to you.
[/b]

---

There weren't any 'nukes', they knew there weren't any. And what right has America to dictate to any country whether they can own them? America is the only country that has actually used them. America is NOT the world's policeman! America under Bush is a damn sight more dangerous than any other country on this planet! :shock:

There is nothing to clear up man .. primary the status of the dollar, secondly the oil ..

Firstly, why would you make another thread. There were/are 10 of them with the same contents.
Secondly, I totaly agree with love apple. I don't know why you feel the need to make up excuses when everything is so obvious. The world is ruled by rich (=powerfull) people. They decide that a war is good for business. And that is all, do you really think that anyone had "best intentions" for Iraq. All they saw in Iraq was money obviously. Why still make up excuses, I mean it's not your fault! I mean these threads should end sooner or later, they serve no real purpose than making people argue over what's right or wrong, but then it's also a discussion forum.

Are you Bush? Are you a government official? I dont think so. How dare you say that they KNEW there were no nukes. That is just your opinion, and you have no facts to back it up. Please dont spew that kind of stuff here, and stay on topic.

Also, you need to quit bringing up Hiroshima and Nagaski. Nuclear bombs had been invented only a few months before we used them. We did not know how much of a problem they would become. Plus, the entire FUCKING world was at war. Every country was exausted, and we were looking to end the war fast. It was 60 years ago, and no country, including America, is the same. Using that analogy is useless.

Why should we tell Sadam he couldnt have nukes? Easy, hes a freggin maniac!!! He used bio weapons on his own people just because of their sect of religion. If he had nukes, he would probably use them in his own country. By your logic, Osama bin laden should have nukes. Imagine 9/11 X 1000. America, as well as the other nuclear holders, are allowed to have them because they will not use them unprovoked. As i said earlier, nukes are used as a deterant these days. A country would not dare openly nuke us for fear of a nuclear holocaust.

I will also add that nukes will never disappear. The methods and secrets will ALWAYS be known, so people will always build them. They are just too big a resouce to just forget about. In fact, i could probably build a nuclear bomb. The physics are actually pretty easy, and all you need is the materials. Give me sufficient uranium or plutonium, casing, sufficient C4 (or other conventional explosives), wiring, 100 pounds of lithium deutride, and a detonator. This is all you need to make a hydrogen bomb. All you have to do is slam a lot of uranium into eachother using a lot of C4. The intense heat (100 million degrees C) will cause the lithium atoms to slam into hydrogen atoms in the air. There. A nuclear bomb big enough to level metropolitan New York. I know it\'s really not that easy, but it can be done if you have all the materials.

................my bad...i didnt mean to spoil nuclear secrets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

Why America invaded Iraq has been a major discussion all over the world. Some believe it was necessary while others think it was a crime. Now let me explain to you why we did it.

Nukes are not something you can\'t screw around with. If held by the wrong people, devastating attacks could occur. But what if Sadam didnt have them? That is not a reasonable argument.

Heres an analogy. You are a police officer patrolling the highway. You turn out on the highway and get behind a car. Once you realize the tags are out of date, you decide to pull him over, just as a normal traffic stop. You turn on your police lights, and all of a sudden the guy just takes off. He speeds off, trying to avoid you. Now here we have a problem. You were just gonna give the guy a ticket, but he is obviously hiding something, be it drugs, a fugitive, or guns. Why else would he avoid you? Anway, you chase him down the busy highway. All the chasing causes you to crash, which kills innocent civilians. The guy gets away without any proof of illegal activity.

The same happened in Iraq. Sadam was hiding something. It didnt necessarily have to be nukes (maybe chemical weapons or torture chambers). Why else would he refuse to let UN inspectors into certain bunkers? So you see, that is why we had to take actions. Because we didnt know what he was hiding, we had to expect the worst. When crazy dictators hide stuff you have to take action.

Wether Sadam had actual nuclear bombs, i do not know. All i know is that he had uranium. It doesnt matter if it is depleted or not. Reinrichment of uranium or plutonium is a fairly easy process, and it doesnt really take that much time.

So, all in all, we had to attack because of the probability of nukes. As i said, you dont fuck with nukes.

I hope this clears things up a little bit. But there are still those on this site that will bring up some insignificant technicality about our nations foreign intelligence. None of that matters......but i will leave it up to you.
[/b]

---

Chasing after a suspected criminal compared to invading another country is slightly reductionist...

look if you guys arent going to contribue then go elsewhere. I really dont want to hear all your nonsense.

bonsay, the war is costing the US 2 BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK. Oh yea, we\'re rakin in the cash.

Wolfee, thats why they call it AN ANALOGY. Do you even know what that is? If you did, you would see the significance. The point is, if Sadam had nothing, then he had nothing to hide. But he was hiding something. There was that simple enough for you?

About the bombs... you really can't say they didn't know how much a problem they are. I mean how can you not know after so many tests. Japan was about to surrender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

bonsay, the war is costing the US 2 BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK. Oh yea, we\'re rakin in the cash.
[/b]

---

Not buisnessmen who sell oil and weapons. I mean do you really think that bush is doing this for safety of the world and things like that. I find it hard to believe, a much more realistic view and probably the right one is money.

There were NO WMD's, most of them are owned by the USA. Bush is mentally challenged and supposedly claimed that God directed him to invade Iraq! God and Bush should both be on trial for war crimes if that is the case!

America has made a complete and utter mess of Iraq, but no doubt someone is making a fortune out of the situation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

look if you guys arent going to contribue then go elsewhere. I really dont want to hear all your nonsense.

bonsay, the war is costing the US 2 BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK. Oh yea, we\'re rakin in the cash.

Wolfee, thats why they call it AN ANALOGY. Do you even know what that is? If you did, you would see the significance. The point is, if Sadam had nothing, then he had nothing to hide. But he was hiding something. There was that simple enough for you?
[/b]

---

But it was a bad analogy. If you were talking about a black man racing off in his car, and the police were going to have to kill civilians as they chased after him, it would be a good analogy.

Amazing......none of you have answered directly. Let me be a little more clear...

IF SADDAM DIDNT HAVE NUKES, THEN WHY WAS HE HIDING BUNKERS???????????? Its a fairly simple question. I think all of you are stumped because you dont have an answer. I do. He had WMDs

Forget all this bullshit about money. Bush is rich, and he doesnt need to get any richer. You see, i told you this would happen.

GET BACK ON TOPIC.

Why, just tell me why Sadam was hiding something. JUST ONE TIME. tell me


i predict........huuummmm.....huummmmm.......nobody will answer. Lets see if my fortune telling abilities are any good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

Amazing......none of you have answered directly. Let me be a little more clear...

IF SADDAM DIDNT HAVE NUKES, THEN WHY WAS HE HIDING BUNKERS???????????? Its a fairly simple question. I think all of you are stumped because you dont have an answer. I do. He had WMDs

Forget all this bullshit about money. Bush is rich, and he doesnt need to get any richer. You see, i told you this would happen.

GET BACK ON TOPIC.

Why, just tell me why Sadam was hiding something. JUST ONE TIME. tell me
i predict........huuummmm.....huummmmm.......nobody will answer. Lets see if my fortune telling abilities are any good.
[/b]

---

No, he obviously didnt. Even the richest people make more money, just look at Bill Gates, he keeps striving to expand his monopoly. Bush has so many possible motives, it's stupid. By your logic we could use the same subjective 'evidence' to claim that Bush was trying to take over the world by denying the existance of global warming.

YES!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!

i am a fortune teller!!! I just had this instinct that you wouldnt answer my question.


Bush trying to take over the world? You see, in America, you can only reign for 8 years. Hardly enough time to take over the world, especially by means of denying global warming.

So, will somebody answer my question? I need intelligent people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

Amazing......none of you have answered directly. Let me be a little more clear...

IF SADDAM DIDNT HAVE NUKES, THEN WHY WAS HE HIDING BUNKERS???????????? Its a fairly simple question. I think all of you are stumped because you dont have an answer. I do. He had WMDs

Forget all this bullshit about money. Bush is rich, and he doesnt need to get any richer. You see, i told you this would happen.

GET BACK ON TOPIC.

Why, just tell me why Sadam was hiding something. JUST ONE TIME. tell me
i predict........huuummmm.....huummmmm.......nobody will answer. Lets see if my fortune telling abilities are any good.
[/b]

---

Why is america hiding the tapes of the 9/11 pentagon "attack"? Are they hiding something?
Again you didn't attack Iraq for freedom. It was because god told bush, because there were hidden nucler weapons, because Hussein was evil and Iraq needed to taste freedom and democracy.
And besides if you found weapons of mass destruction in the hidden bunkers'o'sadam it would be all over the news the moment they were found, since Bush needed some excuses badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

YES!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!

i am a fortune teller!!! I just had this instinct that you wouldnt answer my question.
Bush trying to take over the world? You see, in America, you can only reign for 8 years. Hardly enough time to take over the world, especially by means of denying global warming.

So, will somebody answer my question? I need intelligent people.
[/b]

---

There's nothing to answer!!! If your country was about to be attacked because you were telling everyone you had WMDs, but the weapon inspectors said you had none, making you completely defenceless, wouldnt you?

are all of you illerate? Stop redirecting everything back to bush and America. Just answer the question. Why was he hiding bunkers?

Yes. So what? The USA hides special planes and stuff all the time...

Hard As Nails: Listen up.

During your short time on these forums, you have not posted a SINGLE post outside off-topic, and have not shown any interest whatsoever in lucid dreaming. Regardless of whether or not I agree with what you say in your off-topic posts, you are frequently abusive, inane and puerile towards other members. Your purpose here on DV appears to be just to argue and stir up shit and vent your own opinion.

Now, though I don't know whether you are Hominus Feralis in disguise or just his similarly troublesome friend (The second is more likely... an "idiots of a feather" idea), you are being a pain in the ass and not contributing to the community at ALL in a positive way.

I don't know what's happening with the mods and admins, or whether they've even noticed you, but, I guarantee you that if continue acting the way you do, something bad will probably happen. Dreamviews is a forum about DREAMS and DREAMING (especially lucid). These off-topic forums are so that members of the community can talk about other stuff. Now, a few members don't post much or at all on the dfreaming forums, but still hand around in the lounge and contiunue to be generally friendly and sociable. But, if you post exclusively in off-topic and don't contribute anything positive and merely hang around and piss people off... well, I can't speak for everybody else, but that's not what I want.

Shape up, or ship out, for the luv. PLEASE.

the retards strike again....

who cares if America hides stuff? If you listen closely, you can hear the sound of NOBODY CARING if America hides stuff. The UN thought Sadam needed to be investigated. We dont use chemical WMDs on our own people. Stop comparing a genocidal dictator to Bush. Your arguments are hollow and worthless.

answer the damn question...if you can

Blue Meanie, dont question my interest in lucid dreaming. I spend atleast twice as much time in the dreaming forums than i do here. I am currently in a dry spell, and i have been looking for new methods (most of which seem a little outlandish to me). I\'m sorry, but when i see people spread these unproven lies on the internet without incedent, i have to respond. Out of principle. If find that making comments on other people techniques is boring and useless. I would rather just READ until i find something i like. Until then, i will dissprove lies.

From what hominis told me, he was banned for his excessive cursing and \"flaming\". Have i done anything wrong? If not, then stop bothering me about it. Just because i have SIMILAR views as the person you know as hominis feralis doesnt mean i am him. In fact, our similar views have had a lot to do with us becoming friends. Truely, in real life, he is nothing like the posts i have read. He is just a quiet, pot smoking philosopher, who only talks when he has something good to say.

....or maybe i am just hominis\' alternate personality......

Please keep this civil. :nono:

and when have i abused anybody? Please, quote me on an example. The only time i did name calling was 2 posts ago when i called all these people retards because they wont answer my question.

Is this why he got banned. Mild name calling? From what i have seen so far, people have been 10X as rude to other members as myself. The blue meanine, i have seen YOU do worse. So where do you get off telling me i\'m a pain in the ass? Leave the reprimanding to seeker or icedog, and stay out of it. If i have done something wrong, then they will tell me, and i will correct it. But if i get singled out for the MILD rudeness that i have exhibited, then this site is full of hyprorits. If you want i will go throughout the site and bring up examples of when other members have \"flamed\". I have done NO flaming

Anway, you do not run this site, so i dont need somebody like you telling me how to express myself. You are not my parent, so your opinion is not my problem. Keep it to yourself, or complain to one of the administrators.

Look man, i dont want to make enemies. The way my topics (so far) have gone is i make a perfectly reasonable argument, and the others counter with lies and misconceptions, ALWAYS about bush or America.

burns, will you PLEASE answer my question in this topic. Why was Sadam hiding bunkers if he had nothing to hide? You, as a moderator, are obviously a civil person. I would just like ONE answer.

From now on, nobody go off topic. Just answer the question, and we will see where the topic goes from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

....or maybe i am just hominis\' alternate personality......
[/b]

---

Believe me when I say, you don't have to worry about that. So far, I'm not seing much "alternate" about your personality compared to Hominus'.

Hominus got banned for being generally abusive, a troublemaker, and for hanging around the forums mainly to cause trouble.

You may be aware that there was a big controversy surrounding Leo Volont and the decision to ban him. The trouble with Leo, is that despite his offensive outbursts and troublemaking, he was also highly intelligent, liked by some members, and occaisionally made useful contributions to discussions both in off-topic and in the dreaming section of the forums.

With you, however, I do not foresee similar difficulties arising.

leo got banned? I knew he was a \"high profile\" member, but i didnt know he was a trouble maker (although many of his posts dont make any sense) I read something a couple days ago about him being a pedophile, but thats all i know.

ok. I must have misunderstood the purpose of these forums. It\'ll get more \"civil\"

but why is that a crime anyway? Just hanging out here shouldnt be a problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

Blue Meanie, dont question my interest in lucid dreaming. I spend atleast twice as much time in the dreaming forums than i do here. I am currently in a dry spell, and i have been looking for new methods (most of which seem a little outlandish to me).
[/b]

---

IILD = Iraq Induced Lucid Dream :bigteeth:
I've had three since Hominus Feralis.
Sorry I couldn't resist... :doh:

Isn't it all speculative from are vantage point?
Unless you are a senior official in the White House then you are not going to know the true facts. At least not for some time.
So why argue back and forth on the same freaking topic when it is all just your opinions?
Educated guesses, media reports, gut feelings, suggestions, oppositional opinions or otherwise. Are these the facts you have to bring to the table?

It is not worth the time. :roll: