Author Topic: Iraqis take the UN to task (Read 2670 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #90 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:04:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I believe the word you're looking for is "incursion". Invasion was what the Germans did to us back in 1940, and what you did to Iraq in 2003 (no other comparison).

Invasion was we did to Iraq to liberate Kuwait and what we did in Germany to liberate Norway and others.

Zippatuh · « **Reply #91 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:08:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
No, the coalition would have been divided on such an invasion. Bush knew this, and the operation was a UN operation with a mandate to liberate Kuwait, nothing more.

That’s true, that is why we stopped where we did. We thought about it though, maybe not long, but I’d wager good money that it was a consideration.

The timing of our “withdraw” from positions in Iraq after the showing of the highway of death were pretty peculiar.

**Edit**

Breaks over, back to work

.

Rude · « **Reply #92 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:14:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Might be useful for fighting someone else other than the U.S.

So, your saying Saddam planned on survival....to fight another day.

Perhaps this might be why he chose not to use the WMD's, that according to some, never existed. Had he used them, our response most certainly would have been extreme to say the least....not to mention, all of our freinds in Europe would have certainly stood along side of us, don't ya think?

Rude · « **Reply #93 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:18:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
LOL! No you're right of course ... you are totally useless

am not

Hortlund · « **Reply #94 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:20:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Ok if you want to get anal about it.

The US did not invade Iraq in 1991, it launched an incursion i.e. a temporary invasion.

Btw. you did not liberate Norway in WWII, but you played a huge role in the German surrender.

Dont mind me, Im just saving this for future use. Keep rambling...please.

AKIron · « **Reply #95 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:24:14 PM »

OK, have it your way. What we have here in Iraq in 2003 is by your reasoning an incursion. Have a nice day.

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Ok if you want to get anal about it.

\In*va"sion\, n. [L. invasio: cf. F. invasion. See
{Invade}.]
1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the
rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.

2. A warlike or hostile entrance into the possessions or
domains of another; the incursion of an army for conquest
or plunder.

3. The incoming or first attack of anything hurtful or
pernicious; as, the invasion of a disease.

Syn: {Invasion}, {Irruption}, {Inroad}.

\In*cur"sion\, n. [L. incursio: cf. F. incursion. See
{Incur}.]
1. A running into; hence, an entering into a territory with
hostile intention; a temporary invasion; a predatory or
harassing inroad; a raid.

The Scythian, whose incursions wild Have wasted
Sogdiana. --Milton.

The incursions of the Goths disordered the affairs
of the Roman Empire. --Arbuthnot.

2. Attack; occurrence. [Obs.]

The US did not invade Iraq in 1991, it launched an incursion i.e. a temporary invasion.

Btw. you did not liberate Norway in WWII, but you played a huge role in the German surrender.

Sandman · « **Reply #96 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:40:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rude
So, your saying Saddam planned on survival....to fight another day.

Perhaps this might be why he chose not to use the WMD's, that according to some, never existed. Had he used them, our response most certainly would have been extreme to say the least....not to mention, all of our freinds in Europe would have certainly stood along side of us, don't ya think?

I'm saying that fighter aircraft are worthless against the U.S. and Hussein knew it.

WMD can be an effective deterrent. There's a reason Iran and North Korea have ratcheted up their programs. They have to know that they can't possibly win, but they can make the cost of victory exceedingly high.

I don't believe Hussein had any WMD. It's more believable than thinking he had them in the numbers that Powell testified and yet managed to spirit them away undetected. Assuming that they did exist and they were somehow stashed away, it's beyond belief that everyone involved is keeping their mouth shut about it.

Hortlund · « **Reply #97 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:41:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I could not help noticing that you conceded the argument on Halabja

Not even remotely close.

Shuckins · « **Reply #98 on:** December 17, 2003, 03:58:33 PM »

Wow. It's awe-inspiring to trace the Gordian knots some of you people are tieing with your arguments denouncing the invasion of Iraq.

The estimates of the numbers of Iraqis slaughtered by Hussein's regime range from a "low" of 300,000 to as high as one million. A massacre committed on that scale would quench the courage of anyone contemplating resistance. Sorry Schultz, I don't believe they "deserved" what they got.

On another note, all Iraqis were NOT armed to the teeth. The Baathists had a considerable edge over their Sunni neighbors, who made up the bulk of those that perished in this Middle Eastern "holocaust." Their leaders controlled the military and all sources for weapons and munitions. The weapons which the Sunnis possessed were purchased illicitly. The majority of the damage done to Iraq's infrastructure was committed by Saddam's forces in the southern part of the country as they withdrew before the American onslaught. The destruction of water and power lines and stations affected the Sunni populations almost exclusively.

I don't really give a rat's arse whether or not the Allied forces find any weapons of mass destruction or not. The invasion of Iraq is justified on humanitarian grounds alone. Period.

To paraphrase another poster, I wish you would stand on the streets of Basrah and repeat some of your statements condemning the invasion and the lack of courage of Saddam's enemies.

Shuckins

Hortlund · « **Reply #99 on:** December 17, 2003, 04:17:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -tronski-
So I can safely assume you'd be overjoyed if a sabotage team from Iran destroyed the Isreali nuclear weapon stockpile then?

Nope.

Vulcan · « **Reply #100 on:** December 17, 2003, 04:26:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
What would be the difference for Hussein? Dead either way. And I don't think the US would have nuked Baghdad if he used WMD on your forces. Let's just say that would be very unpopular with the population you were about to conquer, and the world in general.

Quite correct. Declassified info shows the US discreetly threatened to level Tikrit if he did.

GS you really need some help. I sense the same twisted bitterness in your posts that we get from Miko from time to time. When your screaming at everyone in defence a genocidal dictator its time to re-evaluate yourself.

Toad · « **Reply #101 on:** December 17, 2003, 04:39:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
One thing though. Arguing like we do here makes you appreciate why nations uses trained diplomats. We would have been at war by page two.

No way. Not everyone gets so out of control that they have to resort to ad hominem arguments.

But, had it gone to war, the US faction would have easily beat you.

straffo · « **Reply #102 on:** December 17, 2003, 05:07:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zippatuh
Being sadistic or cruel as a leader does not mean you have a hold on the people. That’s not exactly right… you may have a grip on the people but not a strangle hold. They had room to move so they did.

The way I see it, the Iraqi people had very little room to move being constantly under watch by someone. Maybe under different technology the French monarch may have been able to do something about his demise and rule with even greater influence.

I find it highly unlikely, even improbable, that the Iraqi people could have done much about the Saddam regime without outside intervention. They tried to revolt after 1991, most of them were publicly executed.

They tried but didn’t have the ability to follow through.

In fact they just get ride of the kind because he was not a god boy.

My god ... so much ignorance.

People were dying of hunger all around France when the king was spending is time f**king, eating and going to war from time to time for his own pleasure

Notice that don't make the revolutionnary like Robespierre or Napoléon better ...

Toad · « **Reply #103 on:** December 17, 2003, 05:24:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I would make sure I got you first

Well, you most certainly could make sure and try to get me first.

But everybody knows you Blue Helmet types only wear the slung rifles for "show" as a costume accessory and fashion statement.

Shuckins · « **Reply #104 on:** December 17, 2003, 05:40:35 PM »

Hey Toad,

My Ruger M-77 in 6.5x55 Swedish will put three 129 grain Hornady Light Magnum rounds inside a half inch at 100 yards. What have you got and what will it do? Just curious.

Regards, Shuckins