Author Topic: Vets speak out about Kerry (Read 4498 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #90 on:** July 06, 2004, 08:23:45 PM »

Quote

You are still evading the essential truth. THESE 17 rockets were EMPTY and only two showed TRACE of sarin. Iraqi sarin had a low shelf life. This "cache" find is completely insignificant. Can you not recognize that?

Evading the Truth? Their is no denying Saddam had WMD and used them. There is no denying he had motive, opportunity, and TIME to hide them in similar caches. Hopefully, as I said in previous post's, YOU ARE RIGHT.

How do you think we "find" things like this? While in Afghanistan my unit bought at least 5 shoulder fired SAM's. We find this stuff when the locals tell us where it is hidden or other intelligence sources lead us to it. Very rarely we stumble upon it in the course of other operations.

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #91 on:** July 06, 2004, 08:26:47 PM »

How do you think we should handle this then regarding "The Third Jihad"?

I would like to hear your strategy.

Crumpp

Nash · « **Reply #92 on:** July 06, 2004, 08:30:21 PM »

Bad form Crumpp.

You're talking about WMD. You say there's something to it, Gscholz says there isn't.

What to do about the "The Third Jihad" has been debated a bunch, can be debated more, but is not relevant to this.

I can't speak for anyone but me, but saying "Oh yeah? What would you do?" about a completely different issue has become way too tired.

Crumpp · « **Reply #93 on:** July 06, 2004, 08:48:40 PM »

No I don't agree that this find is insignificant.

Just taken at face value, it IS a pile of junk with no significance in and of itself.

However the implications of the FACT that several caches have been found during the course of this conflict are enormous. What if we have just found a few buried in haste at the beginning? Saddam had years to prepare and hide his weapons. The Iraqi desert is immense.

What are the chances that the Iraqi's improved their cache techniques and did manage to preserve more durable CW's? 2 of these shells had traces of Cyclosarin and rest were empty. However they were Chemical weapons PURPOSELY hidden by the Saddam. Cylosarin is not the only chemical brew out there NOR the only one Saddam had access too. At one time Saddam had a large stockpile of Chemical Weapons. Where are they now? If you believe he destroyed them IAW the UN mandates I've got some land over here you would interested in...

These are legitimate questions that the coalition must be ever vigilant for the answer's too. This find is far from insignificant.

Crumpp

Nash · « **Reply #94 on:** July 06, 2004, 08:53:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Just taken at face value, it IS a pile of junk with no significance in and of itself.

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
This find is far from insignificant.

Everything you've said that elevates this from "insignificant" to "significant" is complete speculation. You have to admit.

Shuckins · « **Reply #95 on:** July 06, 2004, 08:57:59 PM »

Can anyone recall why the U.S. government established a "no-fly" zone over northern Iraq for most of the 1990's?

Could it be because Saddam's government had already gassed tens of thousands of Kurds to death with chemical agens dispensed from helicopters?

Could it be because the first Bush administration and later the Clinton administration were convinced that Saddam STILL HAD such agents within his possession and was willing to use them?

Is that why Iraqi helicopters were routinely shot down when they violated that "no-fly" zone?

Or is his previous use of wmd's conveniently forgotten in the heat of the current political debate and epidemic of collective amnesia?

Crumpp · « **Reply #96 on:** July 06, 2004, 09:02:25 PM »

Quote

By not playing into their hate game. By not weakening the secular regimes in the Middle East (no matter how undemocratic they may be) by aggravating their populations. By treating Al Quada as the criminals they are and not associate them with any form of war, holy or not, and definitively not associate them with Islam in general.

We are definately doing that. However, Saddam was a huge wild-card that possed WMD and was wholeheartily supporting Islamic Extremist. AQ's reminant's were attempting to reconstitute on the Iran-Iraqi border. Saddam whether by choice or he was unable to stop them was allowing this to happen.

The hardest thing is bringing reform to those secular regimes WITHOUT weakening their positions. We are doing this slowly and carefully. This is the number one reason we have not entered the tribal regions on the Pakistani border. Unilateral action would destabilize one of our staunchest allies.

This is definately NOT a war on Islam. 99.9 percent of the Muslim's out there are good folks who want the same things out of life we do. Some of my closest friends are Muslim. Men whom I have been under fire with and would welcome them at my side fighting these evil criminals again.

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #97 on:** July 06, 2004, 09:05:18 PM »

How do you know they were not purposely hidden?

I don't think we can afford to make that assumption.

Crumpp

Shuckins · « **Reply #98 on:** July 06, 2004, 09:08:33 PM »

Well Gee...G-Scholz, what part did you not understand?

I wasn't speaking of the junk artillery shells currently popping up but of the perceived threat of Saddam's wmd's during the 1990's, and how the previous two administrations took that threat VERY seriously indeed. The current administration DID NOT invent that perception. There was more than adequate reason to believe, given Saddam's known penchant for gassing the Kurds, that he could not be trusted to either admit he still had them or to turn them over to the U.N inspectors.

Why would any SANE person trust him to do so?

Did that clear it up any for ya?

NUKE · « **Reply #99 on:** July 06, 2004, 09:09:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
And in 1991 Hussein DID have chemical weapons. However according to Hans Blix, and the UN inspectors they were most likely destroyed by 1995.

I guess Saddam should have simply fully cooperated with the UN inspection teams....maybe he would still be in power today if he had.

Crumpp · « **Reply #100 on:** July 06, 2004, 09:16:41 PM »

Most likely destroyed is NOT definatley destroyed. Saddam played Hans Blix like well worn fiddle. The entire UN weapons inspection program was just as bankrupt as the Bosenian UN "Safe Zones".

Do you know the details of those inspection "trips". I would have loved to been a UN weapons inspector. If they ever do that gig again SIGN ME UP!

Come to Iraq, stay in a luxury hotel, make a few trips to some sites the Iraqi's lead you around too closely supervised, party a little, then go home and write a glowing report. Super effective inspection technique that would discover the state secrets of any country.

It took them almost 11 years to even attempt to go places their Iraqi handlers did not want them to go. Come ON!!

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #101 on:** July 06, 2004, 09:22:05 PM »

Quote

Make that assumption? Why hide EMPTY scrap? The burden of proof in on you, until you dig up functional battlefield ready WMD, and TONS of it like you claimed, I still regard this invasion as illegal and the US criminal in its actions.

What are the chances it was not empty scrap when it was buried?
Thank God you don't make US Policy.

Crumpp

NUKE · « **Reply #102 on:** July 06, 2004, 09:25:19 PM »

Saddam always wanted to comply. That's why it took the US military on the ground over there to get the inspectors back in after being kicked out .

The UN wasn't doing a thing and where not capable of doing anything in response to the inspectors being kicked out.

Saddam was given every chance in the world to comply, but he didn't.

Shuckins · « **Reply #103 on:** July 06, 2004, 09:26:29 PM »

I've got some questions for ya G-Scholtz...

In light of the crimes Saddam committed against his own people, do you believe that he deserved to remain in power?

In your answer is no, he did not deserve to stay in power, what problem do you have with the United States enforcing a U.N resolution threatening military action against him?

Do you have a problem with unilateral action against this evil, murderous thug when no other type was possible? (Actually, after further thought, there was no unilateral action after all...the actions taken were multilateral.)

Do you have sources backing up your claim that 99.5 of the Muslim population sees U.S. military action in Iraq as being something other than action taken against Al Queda or Hussein? (What am I thinking...of COURSE you do!)

NUKE · « **Reply #104 on:** July 06, 2004, 09:29:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
It was not Hussein who told the inspectors to leave in 2003.

I don't remember anyone telling them they couldn't stay if they wanted to.

Of course, we know that Saddam did not let inpsectors back into Iraq until the US military arrived at his backyard again. The UN had nothing to do with it.