Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: War with Iraq  (Read 26240 times)


  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2002, 01:36:57 pm »

In todays paper

Iraq's weapons could include:

-The nerve agent VX, regarded as the most toxic of chemical weapons.

-The nerve agent sarin, a liquid or gas that causes a choking, thrashing death.

-Mustard gas, a blistering agent that can dissolve flesh on contact and severely damage the eyes and lungs.

-Anthrax, the deadly bacteria used in the mail attacks on government and the news media last year.

-Botulinum toxin, a substance produced by bacteria that causes paralysis and death.

-Aflatoxin, a poison produced by a grain-eating fungus.

Inspectors say Saddam probably has made more such weapons in the four years since the U.N. teams left Iraq.

THis info was from a U.N. Inspector ... not a U.S. Inspector

anyone want to have this hit their house ... i dont ...


  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • I'm supposed to be witty here, right?
    • Eternal Vigilance
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2002, 05:17:05 pm »

Again, I have to ask, do we know this for sure? The only word we have to go on is that of people who get paid to stir up trouble. Please don't get me wrong, I am not siding with mindless terrorsim, but have you ever read Orwell? One minute, Oceania is at war with country X, the next they are at war with country Y and friends with country X. At one time, Iraq was our ally. Why is this no longer the case? Saddam isn't a fool, he knows he could never win a war with us. I just thnk that if we refuse to question and DEMAND the Truth, we will have this problem for a long time to come.
"The future doesn't belong to the faint-hearted.  It belongs to the brave." -- Ronald Reagan


  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2002, 07:13:53 pm »

i have a couple of questions ????

did iraq gas people in their own country as seen by photos
taken on the ground

are the people of iraq starving even thought millions
of dollars are pouring in from the sale of oil ... even though
their are new palaces being built ...

has not iraq called us the great evil...

if all of the above are wrong then i say wait ...
if any of them are correct then pls tell me what
you would like to do

let them come take care of your families for you

??? ??? ???

if i remember right ... and i was not around back then
did ppl not say them ... oh hitler is not doing anything to
anyone ??? leave him alone and he will go away ...

how many people died then ... if we had taken hitler out
early many people would not have died ...

people who do not learn from the past will relive the past
over and over ... and it sound like you all are ready to
relive the past


  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
  • I'm still thinking.
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2002, 10:18:02 pm »


Using the scenario you put to Jason,
if i told you i hate you with all my heart and soul
and that i am going to get u or ur family ...

and then u saw me going to the gun store down town and
but the means to hurt u and ur family ...

and then i come walking down the walk of your house

at what point will you try to stop me ... will you wait til
i pull the weapon and shot u or ur family ...

or while i am walking down the walk ...

exactly when would you say it is not worth any further
risk ... and take the person out ...
, according to the laws in this country, the answer would be, when you kill someone. Citizens aren't allowed any kind of preemptive strikes to protect themselves other than a court-ordered restraining order. Hey, that's what we should do, get the International Criminal Court to get one against Saddam. ;D

I don't agree with preemtive strikes unless there was an imminent, measurable threat directly against the US. If we say we are within our rights to attack Iraq, based on what the American public knows, then we must also acknowledge and accept the Sep 11 attacks on us as equally valid. After all, war is war, and all is fair.
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."
- Samuel Adams

percy, aka tntsmum

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2002, 06:22:31 am »

Wow, this is really getting wild. So you guys are saying that we cant trust the news sources, the U.N. sources or the government sources for information? Who do we trust? The National Inquirer?
In instances where I can not physically go and verify facts myself, I have to decide if there are reliable or even somewhat reliable sources of information on a particular subject. I have, from experience determined that, of the three, the news media is the most reliable; then U.S. info; and finally (with a big laugh) U.N. info at 'not at all reliable' (only when shoved up against a wall will they break down and mutter the truth under their breath.) But one can, with deliberate comparing of reports, come to some conclusion as to what the truth of a matter is most often.
I guess now you'll tell me we didn't land on the moon either?
I can't imagine what it must be like to live in your world.
Re: Iraq. There is more than one principle at play here. #1 - Saddam is breaking every agreement that was brokered when we ceased hostilities over there. That would make the agreement to cease hostilities null and void. #2 While you obviously disagree my interpretation of the facts,  the information from U.N. Sources, our own intelligence, the center for nonproliferation and multiple news sources indicate that Saddam is a clear threat. #3 He is a clear threat to our allies. Unlike others in this forum, I feel this is a threat to us. Remember the old saw about those who say nothing when the enemy goes after their neighbors... when the enemy comes after them there is noone left to help them because he did not prevent his allies from being swallowed up. #4 The opposition to Saddams regime is and has been begging for our help. If I recall we had a little help from the French during our fight against tyranny. I would like to think that if things started to get a little dicey for us and we asked for assitance, other nations would assist.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2002, 11:25:43 am by tntsmum »


  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2002, 06:57:03 am »

tnt ... u put it nicely ... i would like to know what sources
mouse uses that tell him everyone is lying except his sources

do i trust the government ... hell i work for the dod ... no
i dont trust them ...

however, if there was a known child rapes ... and he was
standing across the street watching my house and my kids

do i have to wait til he rapes or murders my kids before i
do something ... in mouses world that would be a yes

let me take your kids and rape and murder them ... or
get him as far away from your family as possible ...

would i do it because he/she lived near me ... no ... but
if they are scoping out my family ... many would no of my
fears ...

it looks like mouse like to quote hitler ... and we know
from hitler how hitler told everyone ... oh it is ok ... i
am not really killing/gassing/murdering anyone ... that is all
lies ...

mouse we have us wait til ny/dc ... name your city ... or
thousands of americans living over seas are taken out before
he might admit that iraq is bad ... notice i said might ...
then again all the bodies may have been faked ... or even killed by bush ...

do i wish that we could go to a pre world war ii way of thinking
where we did not stick our noses into the business of every country
in the world ... yes i wish that  and if iraq want to gas their own ppl ... let them ... do the south africans use aparthy ... let them ... it is none of our business

we should take care of ours and let every other petty murderer around the world kill their own ppl ... let them do as they will

if the ppl get tired of it ... then sale them arms and teach them how to use them ... but dont send our young men and women to die for a country of sheep that will not defend it self.

the signers of the declaration put their lives where their mouths
were ... but mouse would have us believe that everything they believed was probably made up too..or at least lies made up by bush  :)
man does he have a lot of power    :o

mouse ... pls share these great sources you have ... so that
we all can find out truely how every source we believe is lying
and that the only honest source is yours

bbc always tells the truth about how bad america is and how
great the eu is ...
hitler told us he was not doing anything and mouse likes to
quote hitler ...

so pls share your sources so we can check them out

« Last Edit: September 08, 2002, 07:08:39 am by wolf_tracker »


  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #21 on: September 08, 2002, 08:48:37 am »


your comment on scott ritter was just asked of colin powell on
fox news ...

mr powell's comment was something on the line of
mr ritter did a good job when he was involved but he
currently has no knowledge of the state of intelligence
information that we have within the state of iraq ...

you say you read 600 news sources ... which one that
you read is the correct one ... hmmm ... you read them on
and then figure out which one you believe ... what is that
the truth ... you have your ideas of what you want to believe
we have our ideas of what we want to believe ...

i believe in protecting me and mine ...

to hell with the rest ...

i believe iraq is a threat if you do not then that is
your right ... but if your right threatens my right to
life and limb ... should i just sit back and let you
dictate my rights ... the idea behind fsp is that we stand
up for our own rights ... not let them be dictate by the state

with the intel i have seen and the info i have read ...
i say take iraq out


  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2002, 10:15:59 am »

mouse you have made a couple of statements ...

Would you kill 1000's because you think they have a gun? Is this what you suggest? If so, to your above statement:

In the US you have a right to use deadly force if three things
are in effect:
the person must have the ability to do harm
the person must have the opportunity to do harm
the person must feel they are in jeopardy

if these three thing are truely in place you have the right
to use self defense.

I did not say I would kill the child molestor I said I would
make sure everyone knows, ie call the cops and say the perp
is scoping out the facts ... I did say they could live in my
neigborhood but I would be willing to protect mine if push comes to shove ...  

you seem to want to read into things as you want to read them
not as they are stated

tnt made the statement about never having landed on the moon and you say play nice ... but you make a statement that
the pictures of the gassed dead bodies may have been
doctored pictures ... when would you be willing to face the
truth ... only after it hits you in the face ... or the bodies
fall around you ...

if there is a free state and lets say the u.s. government moves
troops to surround all the borders of the free state and makes a statement that you can not do what you are doing and we are here to stop you ... when would you be willing to get ready for any attack ... only after the attack starts ... you would never be in the ballgame ...

you have to prepare before the attack ...

in all situations you need to know from where the attack
could come and have a counter in place before the attack starts
not after the attack.

we will agree to disagree, but i dont believe i would want
you as a backup in any kind of dangerous situation

i would probably end up dead before you decide to act


percy, aka tntsmum

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2002, 12:14:49 pm »

They tried to set up a system, based on systems previously used, with a few interesting twists thrown in, to see how it would work out. It didn't work because it depended on an informed and reasonably educated population. Currently we have neither.

In this grain, there are those who cannot understand, and there are those who will not understand. The first type are able to learn... the second type aren't, and will refute all arguments to the contrary. A third category exists of those who have systematically been misinformed. I've seen many of your posts. You are a smart person, and certainly not in the first category.

You see... it was not a question of if but a question of when the government they established would degenerate. The only thing which would likely startle our Founding Fathers today would be the technology.

Ex-U.N. Inspector Visits Iraq to 'Prevent a War'
Sun Sep 8, 4:56 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Scott Ritter.....

We are again back to shooting someone because they might have a gun, and they might indend us ill will. If someone draws a gun on me, I can shoot them. But I cannot do so simply because I think they have a gun, and because I think they intend me ill will.
Ok.... first, Mouseborg - you are a challenging debate opponent - I hope you are enjoying this as much as I. :D
Now, as for the informed and reasonably educated population.... ikes, yes I agree with you that we do not have this. I also agree that this has given those in government and the media enormous leeway for twisting and turning things to their own ends. It appears we only disagree as to the direction it's being twisted, and which "facts" stand up to cold, hard scrutiny.
I believe that leads to our other point of contention... precisely how much of a "threat" Saddam is. In your words "If someone draws a gun on me, I can shoot them. But I cannot do so simply because I think they have a gun, and because I think they intend me ill will."
After sifting through news sources, and judging them based on history and what I feel is verifiable, I have reached the conclusion that the gun is already out of the holster and is pointed at our collective head. True, the trigger has not been pulled, but I do not want to wait for that.
Am I correct in assuming that you either feel Saddam does not own a gun or that he has no bullets? I'm not sure that we can resolve our difference of opinion on this matter as I am just as convinced that my interpretation of available info is correct as you are of your interpretation.
It is my hope, however, that after this you still consider me to only be misguided and not an idiot. ;D
We apparently also have differing opinions on Scott Ritter and his credibility.
Anyway Mouseborg, it's been a pleasure. You were kind and encouraging to me once before when I needed a kind word and I am happy knowing that you will be one of my neighbors in the Free State.
Oh, hey! Your world sounds much more enjoyable than mine.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2002, 01:48:45 pm by percy, aka tntsmum »


  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2002, 01:21:53 pm »

Part of our problem in wartime is that the evidence that _we_ need to determine whether war is a good idea is still classified.  I am sure that Bush has some intel that makes him confident that Saddam is nearing the capacity to own WMD (which breaks the ceasefire, and regardless of anything else, is thus actionable).  At some point we must trust someone, otherwise we cannot live in the modern world.  I _don't_ trust Ashcroft, but I do trust Bush to some extent, I definitely trust a panel of Appeals judges, although they _will_ make mistakes occasionally.  I also trust congress to act in their own best interest, which requires them to act in our collective best interest as far as is able.  This is not necessarily a good thing, but it should protect us from most of the injustices we would face otherwise.

Regarding the incentive of oil for attacking, we do not need to dominate Iraq to have access to their oil.  We are not dependent on their oil for survival, but rather only for low prices.  It has been shown many times in the past that taking someone as a colony for their resources is no longer ecnomically feasible.  As such, if it was merely a matter of who controlled the oil, there are easier, cheaper, and less deadly ways to handle the problem.

Mega Joule

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2002, 11:23:57 pm »

I'm getting into this late in the thread so let me see if I have the jist of what is being said.

What I'm hearing is that a nation that fits a certain threat profile should be preemptively targeted for the safety and protection of the citizens.  Is this correct so far?

Some of those criteria are as follows:
1)   A nation that has openly expressed hatred
2)   A nation that has attacked or threatened to attack
3)   A nation that either possesses or may in some future time possess weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear) and has expressed a willingness to use them.

Are these the things that indicate the threat level of a foreign nation?  Are these the criteria that should be used to determine whether or not a nation should be warred against?  If so should these criteria be applied equally to all nations?  

If you answered yes to these questions, first apply them to us, then tell me whether you still agree with these criteria for declaring war.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”  Luke 6:41

"One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support.  And one certain proof that a goverment is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will."  (Lysander Spooner, 1867)


  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2002, 12:01:40 am »

I absolutely apply this to us.  I fully expect a pre-emptive strike against the US by Iraq.

As soon as we declared our intentions, we opened the gate.  If Iraq _were_ to attack us without declaring war, the international community would not view it as unprovoked anymore.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't attack, but I think we would have been better served to decide to declare war and put the vote before congress in one day.  By doing so, no matter where the vote went, we would either maintain the advantage of surprise or be able to smooth over the event with the Iraqis.

In the event of war or imminent war, secrecy is a tactical necessity.  Part of the problem of our congressional system is that the congressmen cannot seem to keep their mouths shut about important secrets.  If they could, then a proper coalition could be built without revealing our hand until we _started_ the war.  (On the other hand, state secrets should not have as long of a lifetime as they currently have)

The one thing that should not happen is that war should not affect freedom in any unoccupied part of the US (assuming anyone could ever come close to occupying us, we would need to purge enemies in occupied areas as they are recovered).  This is not an easy task, of course.

I have laid things out as they should be (in my view), but I don't necessarily know how to make sure that war is not abused.  As such, I welcome challenges to the idea, but realize that it is not a complete political theory, so I reserve the right to change my mind :)


  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2002, 11:43:50 am »

I believe I now see what mouse is talking about

if several ppl walk into a room all wearing guns ...
you do not have the right to shot any of them ...

i agree that if you are armed and not threating ...
there is not right to shot

however, if several ppl walk into a room with guns waiving and
pointing at different ppl and saying we are going to kill all of
you ... then i have a right to self defense ....

will you agree with this mouse???

in the above example i believe mouse does not see the
ppl walking into the room as armed where
i see the ppl walking into the room with guns drawn,
waiving around and threating the people i love ...

when mouse reviews his news sources he reads them
differently then i read my news sources ...

he sees unarmed ppl and i see armed and dangerous ppl

so i guess when it comes to what we see we are both right

now in about 5 years we will see which one of us was reviewing
and seeing the right thing ... my thought is i will see the danger and
prepare for it att ... while mouse will continue to wait and watch ...
i just pray that you dont wait to long to see the danger ...

and i pray that you are the correct person in this senerio

however in the training i have had i was trained to
know from where the threat is coming and have the
counter in place ... if the counter is taking out iraq ... now
then so be it ...

i dont see iraq putting the gun back in the holster ... which would
mean a no shot period ... i see iraq trying to get a bigger gun
so they can make a bigger bang ...

i will have the counter in place
« Last Edit: September 09, 2002, 11:55:13 am by wolf_tracker »


  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2002, 02:02:19 pm »

Part of our problem in wartime is that the evidence that _we_ need to determine whether war is a good idea is still classified.

Quite right... during time of war. Thats part of the problem. The gov is walking the middle line, as it has done for some time now, so that it can selectively apply war or non war rules, or absolutely no rules, as it chooses. Basically a rabid dog.

As you noticed above I suggested that war should be declared, even if it is after a sneak attack (there's absolutely nothing unethical about a sneak attack, either) as quickly as possible after the decision has been made to fight a war.  That decision _should_ be made by congress (It's arguable that this is an extension of an uncompleted Gulf War by the letter of the law, but that's a separate issue) but should be made quickly and the prosecution of the war should be given over to the President.  The problem is that Congress must be convinced to declare war, and to be convinced, they need evidence regardless of state secret status.  On the other hand, Congress has proven itself incompetent to keep state secrets.  These secrets, revealed, might destroy entire networks of espionage and intelligence operations, and as such, they must be kept from Congress.

This makes it very difficult for Bush to persuade congress, the people, and the world that war is a good thing, even if he has 100% solid proof that Saddam is 5 minutes from completion of an ICBM with a 150 megaton warhead.

The only solution I can consider is that Congress appoints a small panel of non/bi partisan federal appellate judges to judge the evidence and provide an analysis with political detachment without giving away the evidence.  If you can't trust your judges, the whole system of government is dead, and we might as well go back to warlords and peasants.


  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2002, 10:07:51 am »

This is so far from truth it is not even funny.

We are not talking about Bill Clinton blowing up asprin factories.

We are talking about a mad man and a terriost, who is out to kill
his neighbors as well as Americans.

I guess this is the difference between hawks and sheep

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Up