From heros to zeros!

[Ineluke]

Originally posted by tygerwilde
nothing like that, I\'m saying that a project as extensive as the government believed was going on in Iraq would have involved literally hundreds of people, and when you have that many people involved, you are guaranteed to have someone with loose lips. there would have been a trail to follow to the weapons.

Well the threat of death for you and your family if you tell anyone is enough to tighten any loose lips...

[SaintNuclear]

Originally posted by Ineluke
The Omega Agency?
I really hope that you are joking. I read the article that was linked to on this thread somwhere and um.... No.
This was an article posted on a conspiracy website from an unnamed author with no real supporting evidence.
Often when people read article on these conspiracy sites they fail to take the articles with the same amount of sketicism as the sites themselves ask people to take with other publishings. If you can provide more proof than that one article then I would be very interested to see it.

Conspiracy is like religion. You got no evidence that it\'s true, and you got no evidence that it\'s false. What you do have is people that believe it, from whatever reasons.

[Ineluke]

So I take it you were joking then ok...
lol Omega Agency lol

[SaintNuclear]

No, I wasn\'t joking.
I am skeptic about it\'s existance, but I\'m a follower nonetheless

[kbilik]

Originally posted by tygerwilde
The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, said it was possible the shell was an old relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s.

Same thing that Blix said. But both Blix and Kay make assumptions , do they provide any real evidence like say - records of the destruction of WMD, where they were dispensed, effeciency of the process (making sure the job was done completely and Saddam didn\'t lie), etc? The problem is that they did not provide any such evidence, just possiblities. Is this any better than the supposed intelligence that Powell provided before the UN regarding WMD in Iraq? Nope.

It took what.. 12 years of inspections and thats the best that they can come up with - assumptions? Sad isn\'t it?

I still haven\'t seen anyone provide any info on where post-war Iraq oil revenues are going. If the US uses the oil revenue to rebuild Iraq and leave it in Iraq\'s hands after they pull out, then the whole \"oil war\" crap will prove to be false.

[Ineluke]

Originally posted by SaintNuclear
No, I wasn\'t joking.
I am skeptic about it\'s existance, but I\'m a follower nonetheless

Then maybe you could post links to a few more articles so that I can examine this myself.
No offense but it seems a bit silly to me to believe in anything transient without a shred of evidence. Even religeons have a little evidence to support basing your life around it.
I might as well say that I\'m really the queen of england and you would, because you have no evidence against it, beleive me?
Simply believing something like this baised on an article from an anonymous writer is very simple minded.
I am not intending to be offensive but I would like to know your reasoning behind beleiving something like this.
Please post some links so I research it a little.

[SaintNuclear]

Religions don\'t really have any strong evidences.
And when you say you\'re the queen of england you don\'t give even a false evidence.

That article says things that could mean that the Agency exists, but could be just bad speech writers (the \"new world order\" thing, for example). It\'s alot more than you give to prove you\'re the queen of england.



And as I said (and you even quoted):

I am skeptic about it\'s existance

You want me to give evidences that affirm the existance of the Agency while I\'m skeptic about it\'s existance? If I\'d have these evidences I wouldn\'t be skeptic about it\'s existance.

[Ineluke]

But you said you beleive it exists nontheless so which is it? I\'m confused.

[SaintNuclear]

No, I said I\'m a follower of it.
What I mean is that I think that the world should become like what the Agency (if it exists) tries to make it.

[TheTaintedSoul]

Originally posted by Ineluke
We went to war because we felt threatened by Saddam, not because we wanted oil, not to free the people of Iraq (though that is a positive side effect) and not because of the Omega Agency.

I do believe Saddam had weapons of mass distruction.
As far as why they were not found, ask yourself this:
If I were a hated and public dictator and I knew that the most powerful country in the world was about to Invade because they knew I had WMD\'s what would I do?

I sell the WMD\'s Then when USA arrives we have no WMD\'s and the president looks like an ass.

Personally that whole incident made me think \"at least we have an honest president\"
How easy would it have been for bush to arrange for WMD\'s to be \"found\" in Iraq thus saving himself from much time and trouble.

Anyway thats my take on the reason we\'re im Iraq.

If anyone also has problems with my english please say so. Its not my native language and i do want to accurately post my opinion on these matters.
And Monketh, you haven\'t responded to my response. Does this mean you agree with that post?

Ineluke, don\'t you think that is ridiculous? That the US by far the most powerfull nation feels threatened by a backward country like Iraq?
Ties between Saddam and Osama bin laden were very unlikely (they more likely could drink each others blood).
And i very much doubt the existence of WMDs in Iraq, Saddam knew that if they were found he would get in a very bad situation.
The only two prossible reasons for him to have wmds is defence (attacking a neigbour country failed before i don\'t think saddam is so stupid to try again knowing US responds) and revenge on the US. As a coward Saddam i don\'t think hed take the risk.
I admit there was a possibility Saddam wanted to have WMD\'s but for reasons listed above i doubt it.

Secondly, most of the \'proof\' the US provided for the existense of WMD\'s has later turned out to be incorrect or exegerated. The speech given before the UN was a laughter (sorry if that sounds rude but it was). In one document a sentence like \"Iraq might be able to deploy wmd\'s for defensive purpose\" was altered by changing defensive into aggresive. a 100% turn of meaning.

Considering the amount of people and work involved i doubt the watchfull eye of the US on Iraq hadn\'t noticed any shipments or gathered proof thereof. Actually the argumen the wmd\'s are in a different country seems to me as a very weak one. Its used to not having to admit the US was wrong and started the war based on at least one wrong assumption.
And placing wmds in Iraq is i think so obvious even the most naive would understand they were placed there. And aren\'t american wmds easily to pick out from those of other countries?

Okay finally (this text is becoming too long) lets assume there were wmds. You as a dictator would sell them. I if i was Saddam would place most of them in the area of baghdad (or a region easily defendable with many people) then threaten the US that any invasion means that the wmds are used on the iraqees. The US might have get their on time, however if they wouldn\'t THAT really reflects negative to Bush. If the population might revolt because of it, make the threat at the latest moment.

Well those are my two cents for now.

Edit: Its strange though, when US showed prove of missiles on Cuba at a UN convention it was accepted as such. While with Iraq some had doubts (me as well) and others believe(d) it.

Another thing, in short im saying the US should lighten up, there is no real danger to its existence. Terrorism might take some lives in the US and Europe however its nothing compared with death tolls by crime. Terrorists also might not need a country to provide wmds, aren\'t there mobile nuclear weapons (in suitcases) missing?

[Ineluke]

If anyone also has problems with my english please say so. Its not my native language and i do want to accurately post my opinion on these matters.

Your english is fine.

Ineluke, don\'t you think that is ridiculous? That the US by far the most powerfull nation feels threatened by a backward country like Iraq?

This is a joke right? Any country with WMD\'s is a monsterous threat to any country in the world. No matter how small that country may be.

Ties between Saddam and Osama bin laden were very unlikely (they more likely could drink each others blood).

This is besides the point since we didn\'t go in because of Bin Laden

And i very much doubt the existence of WMDs in Iraq, Saddam knew that if they were found he would get in a very bad situation.

Which is the very reason that he would have gotten rid of them in the first place

The only two prossible reasons for him to have wmds is defence (attacking a neigbour country failed before i don\'t think saddam is so stupid to try again knowing US responds) and revenge on the US. As a coward Saddam i don\'t think hed take the risk.
I admit there was a possibility Saddam wanted to have WMD\'s but for reasons listed above i doubt it.

You are making some very broad assumptions here.
1) Saddam is a coward
You can\'t possible know if he is a coward or not.
2)He could only have WMD\'s for defence.
Why could he only have them for defence? Even if he knows how the US responds that doesn\'t mean he won\'t do it anyway. Or that he even cares about the respose of the US.

Secondly, most of the \'proof\' the US provided for the existense of WMD\'s has later turned out to be incorrect or exegerated. The speech given before the UN was a laughter (sorry if that sounds rude but it was). In one document a sentence like \"Iraq might be able to deploy wmd\'s for defensive purpose\" was altered by changing defensive into aggresive. a 100% turn of meaning.

\"A sentence like\"? Don\'t put itin quotations if you are unsure whether or not it is the exact sentence. Also I am not aware of this document if you could provide a link...

Considering the amount of people and work involved i doubt the watchfull eye of the US on Iraq hadn\'t noticed any shipments or gathered proof thereof. Actually the argumen the wmd\'s are in a different country seems to me as a very weak one.

You have to realize that we were busy with the war on terrorism (which by the way was near Iraq relativly but had nothing real to do with it). We had our resources occupied by that situation and you also have to realize that Saddam had the resources of an entire nation with no one to answer to in order to cover it up.

 Its used to not having to admit the US was wrong and started the war based on at least one wrong assumption.

Do you honestly think that we are so corrupt that we cover every mistake we make up? I really cant comment more on this until I see this document you speak of.
 

And placing wmds in Iraq is i think so obvious even the most naive would understand they were placed there. And aren\'t american wmds easily to pick out from those of other countries?

Again we aren\'t talking about Joe Shmoe from the street. this is the president of the USA. With the resources of the US it would have been no problem whatsoever. We could have made a bunch of crappy nukes to put there.

Okay finally (this text is becoming too long) lets assume there were wmds. You as a dictator would sell them. I if i was Saddam would place most of them in the area of baghdad (or a region easily defendable with many people) then threaten the US that any invasion means that the wmds are used on the iraqees. The US might have get their on time, however if they wouldn\'t THAT really reflects negative to Bush. If the population might revolt because of it, make the threat at the latest moment.

Um yeah but whos gonna detonate somthing like that knowing they will die? And if he did it remotly how long do you think he would last? He wouldn\'t have a country anymore and the remaining people would kill him.

Another thing, in short im saying the US should lighten up, there is no real danger to its existence. Terrorism might take some lives in the US and Europe however its nothing compared with death tolls by crime. Terrorists also might not need a country to provide wmds, aren\'t there mobile nuclear weapons (in suitcases) missing?

See my first response.
Also we didn\'t go into Iraq because we thought that they were giving them to terrorists we went in because we thought they may use them on us.
As far as the crime rate comment goes so what are we just supposed to let the terrorists kill americans because \"America will not cease to exist\" That seems a bit simple minded.

I do appreciate your post and am enjoying this discussion. i look forward to your reply.

[DepthBlade]

I just want it to end, right now! No more Iraqs killing Americans, Americans killing Iraqs...for that matter how about all the violence in the middle east just STOPS!! I know this is impossible to accomplish considering these people have been fighting for years upon years, if not against Americans against their neighbors and themselves! What would this world be like if the wars stopped? the terrorism stopped? The THREATS stopped? Do you think it would be a better place?..Ofcourse it would for awhile but its just in us as humans to fight no matter what the nationality! Always a few  naturally angry or war mongers born to rally the rest!

[Monketh]

Originally posted by DepthBlade
I just want it to end, right now! No more Iraqs killing Americans, Americans killing Iraqs...for that matter how about all the violence in the middle east just STOPS!! I know this is impossible to accomplish considering these people have been fighting for years upon years, if not against Americans against their neighbors and themselves! What would this world be like if the wars stopped? the terrorism stopped? The THREATS stopped? Do you think it would be a better place?..Ofcourse it would for awhile but its just in us as humans to fight no matter what the nationality! Always a few  naturally angry or war mongers born to rally the rest!

Humans are not capable of entirely agreeing within a group.

Oh, and with Middle-East peace, what do ya think we\'ve been trying to do for years, eh?  They seem to be getting closer, not to mention the Israeli justification of the fence is good.  Suicide bombing rates have actually decreased.


Hm, I propose a more logical answer to US presence in Iraq.
It was done to increase US presence in the mid-east.
Not Oil, not fame, not contracts, not the Omega Agency, a little terrorism and a pinch of liberation.
What do you think?

Edit: Now that I found that post again Taintedsoul, I can respond.

US vs Teh World Economics:
Yup, we need you, but overall my point was to support my theory that the US could survive well on it\'s own.  The only reason I continued as such is that some people were challenging that theory.
Also, it supports my statement that a coup in the US (not happenin\' folks : P) would launch a global depression.

Edit#2: Oh yes, DB, the disclaimer exists for a reason.  I have never used the word \"freedom\" to describe the physically limiting food called \"fries\", except when joking, and I am taking french.

A man from Nebraska who is building a Nuclear weapon is probably conservative.  Now, being a conservative and mildly insane, where would his target be?  I used Europe in the Example becuase it\'s close to home for a lot of people.  It was meant to enhance the meaning of the message.  Now, back to why I chose La Belle France, this ultra-conservative would seek to destroy the most liberal country in Europe.  Considering he lives \'States side, he would see that France seemed to have the biggest outpouring of anti-war sentiment (as shown by the US media), he would take this into account and deem that the symbolism of a nuclear attack on \"weak, pathetic\"* France would \"Toughen \'em up\"* (make them more conservative).  The symbolism would also be the show of force as an attempt to terrorize the rest of Europe to \"shut up & take it like men!\"*.  Of course, he may or may not take into account that the attack could be blamed on the US government, as I\'m sure you would all blame for it, could such a thing occur.  Thusly, I chose France as the target nation for the example.  Understand all that ranting?
If you don\'t, I hope you aren\'t proposing a Liberal or Moderate would build a Weapon of Mass Destruction.  

*The quotes are meant to convey the underlying thought patterns of the theoretical Nebraskan man in question.

[DepthBlade]

Sorry the oil is always a issue, maybe not the main one but like I have said so many times..protecting their investments..Your country is big and industrialized YOU NEED OIL as do most of us The supply in Canada is plentiful along with the natural resources but not so secure anymore..as of late its been alittle bouncy..there are US companies that own canadian oil companies but the government might be in the motion to change that after our next election..plans to either grasp those companies back or start putting extremely high tariffs on..and yes this is all about getting back at closing boarders to our beef lol! Most of the people going to be elected are promising such actions taken if their party gets put into government, I don\'t care who takes power as long as something is done!

[kbilik]

Originally posted by DepthBlade
I just want it to end, right now! No more Iraqs killing Americans, Americans killing Iraqs...for that matter how about all the violence in the middle east just STOPS!! I know this is impossible to accomplish considering these people have been fighting for years upon years, if not against Americans against their neighbors and themselves! What would this world be like if the wars stopped? the terrorism stopped? The THREATS stopped? Do you think it would be a better place?..Ofcourse it would for awhile but its just in us as humans to fight no matter what the nationality! Always a few  naturally angry or war mongers born to rally the rest!

I see a lot of rhetoric, and no effort to try and give a solution. What would the world be like without wars - ask yourself what would the world be without crime. Such a goal is impossible as Monketh pointed out.

It only takes two people to disagree to start a conflict which can grow into a fight. The world has about 6.5 billion people and the population is still rising. As long as there is conflict in interest, there will be conflict period.