Author Topic: Iraqis take the UN to task (Read 2625 times)

Creamo · « **Reply #60 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:22:46 PM »

Brutal.

Sandman · « **Reply #61 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:24:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rino
Maybe you should ask the Kurds if Saddam had any WMD.

That was 1988. I believe the term was "imminent threat".

Sandman · « **Reply #62 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:26:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Well, at least we know that with war coming, SH had all the MiG-25's polished up and loaded out for combat with the imperialist Yanquis.

Didn't try to hide or bury those mighty weapons, no siree.. war coming, you want your fast interceptor ready to go.

Right?

Wouldn't want to hide or bury those babies.

Sure he would. U.S. dominance of the air had long been established. The MiG-25 aircraft were worthless, and Hussein knew it.

Toad · « **Reply #63 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:29:01 PM »

And dominance of the US in WMD?

He wasn't aware of that?

His WMD wouldn't have affected the final outcome of the war in the least either.

His "first use", however, would have most likely made him anathema to almost every Middle Eastern muslim country, let alone the rest of the civilized world.

AKIron · « **Reply #64 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:39:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I can't believe your this stupid. There is no dominance in WMD, that's what makes them so powerful. As long as you have them in any significant quantity you can cause so much destruction on an invading force and/or enemy population that any invasion would be suicidal. The US would not have invaded Iraq if they actually had battlefield ready WMD, at the very least it would be political suicide for a first-term president.

Are you saying that Iraq had no WMD ready when the US invaded in '91? Who's being stupid here?

Toad · « **Reply #65 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:43:48 PM »

You're calling me stupid?

Would that be ad hominem?

I win. Thanks for the easy victory.

Your proposal that use of WMD on the battlefield has "no winners" is simply..... uninformed.

He could have used Sarin, VX, mustard, anthrax, whatever. We'd still have won, the tactics would have just been different and it would have taken more time.

Casualties higher, of course; looks like you're one of those folks that think the US won't take casualties to win. I think those folks don't really understand us in the least.

I'd suggest that once we decide to go, we're going and we're going to win. Our use of brutal force would probably escalate if casualties escalate. Generally, we fight in a pretty conservative "lowest possible destruction" mode. But that doesn't mean we won't use maximum violence if we feel it necessary.

Further, if we had so chosen, we could have replied in kind to an infinitely greater degree than he could possibly have imagined.

Sandman · « **Reply #66 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:45:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
His WMD wouldn't have affected the final outcome of the war in the least either.

And yet, it somehow posed an imminent threat to the U.S.

Okay...

Toad · « **Reply #67 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:48:27 PM »

Why Sand.......

If you accept that those WMD could/would have become available to groups like A-Q, then their existence/use takes on a somewhat different aspect, n'est pas?

A VX arty shell going off near troops in CNB gear would have a different result if it went off in Times Square at midnight on New Year's wouldn't it?

Of course, there can be no possible link, nor could there ever have been, between SH and anti-American terrorist groups. I forgot. My mistake.

Rude · « **Reply #68 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:00:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I predict that generations down the road will see this as the abyssmal failure that it is.

...but I'm a pessimist.

You're also a Raiders fan, which explains everything:)

Toad · « **Reply #69 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:05:20 PM »

The support and respect of the rest of Middle East.

As well as earning a place in history next to the likes of Hitler.

And he had to know he was going to lose, use them or not.

So, no benefit whatsoever from using them.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #70 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:13:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Yeah, thousands did ... in a country of millions. I think you're missing the point, how can a nation with a conscript army be so oppressed that they cannot rebel against a tyrannical ruler? Why couldn't the Iraqi majority rebel like the French against their monarchy and the Russians against the military coup attempt? ...

Reminds me of something I saw about East Germany. I think 1/3 of the population was in some way connected to their secret police. It was easier to be an informant than it was to be insurgent.

Comparing Iraq to the French or Russian revolution isn’t a good comparison. Neither had near the type of hold on the people that Saddam had.

Why didn’t Kampuchea’s, or was it still Cambodia, civil population revolt with Pol Pot. There were more of them, right? Hmmm, must have been because he and his people would kill you for breathing wrong.

Rude · « **Reply #71 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:15:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Jesus Christ, what did he have to lose? If Iraq was invaded by the US (which it was) Hussein knew he couldn't win, at least it would be readily evident after a short time. WHAT DID HE HAVE TO LOSE? Nothing. If he had WMD at his disposal he would have used them.

Just what exactly causes you to behave like you do....you unhappy about how the US conducts it's foreign policy?

Like someone said above....this is only the beginning...Bush get's four more years, hold on to your hat.

It's about time we were proactive in dealing with these issues. Politics should play no role in conducting foreign policy...if you don't like it, just learn to accept the brutal fact that you don't have jack to say about it....you'll be a happier person.

Rude · « **Reply #72 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:17:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
"The support and respect" LOL! You've got to be trolling. HE ALREADY USED THEM AGAINST IRAN YOU TWIT! He knew that if he lost the war he would be a dead man, life imprisonment at best. He had nothing to lose, he was ruthless enough to use WMD against Iraq, he WOULD have used WMD if he had them and the US would not have invaded if they believed he actually had WMD.

You're kidding yourself....again.

Toad · « **Reply #73 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:17:53 PM »

Iraq vs Iran plays quite differently than Iraq vs the Great Satan, don't you think?

If he lost there was always the possibility of asylum. Syria, for example, where the rest of his family is right now. No Arab nation would touch him, however, if he used WMD. They couldn't because they'd know we'd be coming for him, regardless. I'm sure he managed to figure that out too.

As to the US, talk to some of your US service friends. US preparations for this one pretty much assumed he WOULD use them. Yet we prepared and went anyway.

Ponder that a while.

AKIron · « **Reply #74 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:19:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
You. Iraq was not invaded in 1991, Kuwait was liberated. To think that Hussein would risk a WMD exchange over Kuwait IS stupid.

Didn't invade Iraq in '91? Were you not glued to the TV when CNN covered that spectacular attack in Baghdad? Do you think our troops stopped short of the Iraq/Kuwait border? What're you smoking?