Needs to be said about Bush & Iraq

[Toad]

You totally missed Rude's point, I think.

[Udie]

Did you hear the wooshing noise that point made when it flew by?

[Udie]

Originally posted by GScholz
Perhaps, please enlighten me.

Btw. nice touch on the Lawyer Daggett comment. For some reason I assumed that people actually read about what they are discussing, I was obviously mistaken. Reading the UNSC resolutions isn't that much work, and they might give you some insight in how and what must be found in Iraq to justify this war.

 Dude,  you do realize you're talking to Toad right?   He's probably better read than most on this board.....

[Toad]

I think we all know what must be found.

You choose to push Saddam through the 150 KM loophole based on one of the many resolutions passed by the SC regarding weapons and Iraq.

I could read every single one and see if a later resolution said anything about cruise missiles but it's certainly not worth my time. It might be there, it might not. If it was, I'd probably read "well it was only two missiles.. they were aimed at Kuwait, not the US.. etc, etc."

You want to believe that Iraq was complying with every UN/SC resolution, go ahead.

It's immaterial because, had Iraq dumped a ton of VX on Kuwait the day before the invasion, the apologists would have still been out in full force.

If we find a few tons of VX, the apologists will find some exonerating excuse.

BTW, the point Rude was making, I believe, is that it's pretty tough to define "imminent danger" anymore. A few guys can grab an airliner on a no-notice terrorism ride and put a country and it's economy.. and most of the world's economy, into recession.

A few guys releasing VX in various busy airport lobbies.... before they get to the security screeners.. on heavy traffic holidays could easily accomplish the same.

So, when are you SURE you're in imminent danger? How long do you wait to decide? After they hit the WTC or after they release the VX?

I believe that was what he was saying.

[mrblack]

Originally posted by k2cok
From your second link Krusher:



Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?



I guess this kid is right based on that articles logic?

After all, the Bush family has ties to bin Laden going back 25 years.

This Kid needs to worry more about things he can control.
like his complextion and getting his hand up some girls shirt for the first time.

[Toad]

They will need to find significant quantities of chem, bio or nuke weapons. Not one artillery shell, an amount that shows Iraq had a credible threat using these weapons. And this isn't new for me.. go back and read the various wager threads.

Yes, I imagine the UN/SC specifically thought they'd be using them as coastal defense missiles, too... not modified land attack missiles. Have YOU checked all the resolutions? Each one? I haven't and I'm not going to do so. Your theory is the loophole excuse.

Well, the UN only prohibited ballistic missiles from having range >150. It said nothing at all about an anti-ship missile modified to do the same job as a ballistic missile and upgrading it's range to >150. So.. it's all legal.

Yeah, technically I suppose it is. But it clearly violates intent. But, hey, any excuse will do.

I'm not apologizing for the US invasion of Iraq. WMD or not, I think it was, is and will be a good thing for the world and the region.

HOWEVER.. it's also my firmly held opinion that you don't send the sons and daughters of this country to war and then just say "oops! we were wrong!" The invasion was justified on the basis of WMD. The man ultimately responsible for send our greatest treasure into combat has to be held responsible and accountable if he was wrong. He should also get all the credit and accolades if it turns out he was right. Pretty simple. And, as I've also said before... and as KAY clearly points out... it's too early to make that judgement.

I think you're being naieve about attacks on the US. Rude's point is clear. Was their any way we could have prevented 9/11? Was their "imminent danger?" Not realistically; we didn't know we were in a war.

Assuming Iraq did have WMD, was there anyway we could have prevented SH from equipping a terror team with same and releasing the agent at a huge gathering? Superbowl? Airports during Christmas? It's pretty clear SH wasn't too happy with the US after GW1 and the no-fly zones. In fact, the no-fly zones were actually places of open combat between Iraqi Air Defense and US pilots.

9/11 doesn't make sense either.. except to a few nutbags.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by k2cok
From your second link Krusher:



Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE


I guess this kid is right based on that articles logic?

again you seem to be hard pressed to stick to the point.
You claim there is no evidence and then when you see evidence you change the subject.. wtg..

[Toad]

It doesn't matter how old or how capable the HY-2 is. That is what I find so frustrating and gives rise to the "apologist" remark.

The buggers had NO respect for UN/SC resolutions. Kay's report pretty much says that outright.

Yet here we go.. "well, it really isn't a good missile". Hey.. they're NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT STUFF! Doesn't matter how well or poorly.. they're not supposed to be doing that.

"Only two of them".. well, ONE would have been plenty with WMD on it, right? If it hit the target? It's not a question of "only a little bit pregnant".

"Limited threat"? The idea is NO THREAT, as in NONE.

As for "ballistic missile" they were modding SA-2's to act as a ballistic missile. It would have been a crappy one. Should they get to do that because the SA-2 would make a crappy ballistic missile?

Again, it's not how successful they were in their attempts. It's the fact that they're not even supposed to be trying.

Personally, I DO view this as a "with us or against us" situation vis--vis the Muslim nations. Unquestionably, the current world-wide terrorist situation centers around ideological hard-line Muslim people. Chechnya, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Phillippines.. all places where fundamentalist Muslims are responsible for ongoing terrorist activities. Bottom line, those governments can help in the fight... or be considered my enemy. That's about all the "linkage" I need in today's world. Iraq was clearly in the "not helping" category.

And for those who think "ah, they're only mad at the US"... you need to get more knowledgable about fundamentalists of any sort. They're against everyone that isn't just like them. Your turns will come if they beat us into submission.

"The no-fly zones were not UN sanctioned."

The US, Britain and France set them up. The French withdrew support (probably because they don't have an Air Force budget up to the task ).

Now, show me where the UN/SC told the US & Britain that they had to stop doing that? Looks to me like the failure of the SC to clear this up speaks volumes.

[Vulcan]

Saddam was an evil cruel man, as was his regeim.

Saddam attacked a 'sovereign' country on more than one occasion.

Kay has found hard evidence of his continuing illegal arms program.

Saddam has had no problem is using bio/chem weapons in the past.

There is no doubt if the US had not had intervened at some point in the near future these weapons programs would have been revived to full functionality.

Now, it has stopped, Saddam is gone. Iraq is reinventing itself.

If you defend Saddam on technicalities, on political agenda's (ie Bush's previous presidential involvements), on legal rights, etc, then IMHO you are taking the side of someone I consider as bad as Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin... and so on.

GS, Saddam is gone, by whatever means, if you don't like the way it was done, tough luck. I'm sick of people like you playing with nuances in words and 'legalities' from the safety of your PC while people like ordinary Iraqi's are starved and tortured.

Millions of Jews died in WW2 because of arguments like yours.

Millions of Cambodians died at the hands of the Khmer Rouger because of arguments like yours.

Does it make you feel good to be 'PC'?

[Toad]

Here, read this... Kay spelled it out for you:

 [/quote]
The first involved upgrades to the HY-2 coastal-defense cruise missile. ISG has developed multiple sources of testimony, which is corroborated in part by a captured document, that Iraq undertook a program aimed at increasing the HY-2's range and permitting its use as a land-attack missile. [/quote]

The modified missile is someting completely different from what the UN allowed. Ten were completed, two were used. Credible threat? Armed with WMD, it da n sure is. But stick to your loophole. The UN didn't envision the mods, so it's "o-tay".

The modded SA-2's were a violation and they were in production, IIRC. They just didn't get them done. Well, there ya go.. they didn't get them done. Use that loophole. It's "o-tay".

We don't have to invade. Nor do we have to aid or assist them in any manner. That'd be my first step.

I think you need to review the Islamic fundamentalists record of tolerance of others. Or lack of same.


to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with achieving the objectives of the resolution,

There's where your argument falls down. And the UN/SC never said a word about it. The US and Britain took the view that the no-flys were consistent with achieving the objectives of the resolution.

Defend Iraq all you like; to me, you merely illustrate the reason why the UN will never be a truly effective force for world peace.

[Toad]

Allowed = not banned?
Banned = not allowed?

Thanks, Lawyer J. Noble Daggett. You continue to make my point.

ISG has gathered testimony from missile designers at Al Kindi State Company that Iraq has reinitiated work on converting SA-2 Surface-to-Air Missiles into ballistic missiles with a range goal of about 250km.

Engineering work was reportedly underway in early 2003, despite the presence of UNMOVIC. This program was not declared to the UN. ISG is presently seeking additional confirmation and details on this project. A second cooperative source has stated that the program actually began in 2001, but that it received added impetus in the run-up to OIF, and that missiles from this project were transferred to a facility north of Baghdad. This source also provided documentary evidence of instructions to convert SA-2s into surface-to-surface missiles.

You tell me, Daggett.


Ah, the old "you supported him, nah, nah, na, nah, nah!" Yep we did. You do what you have to do based on the situation, information and capability at the time. Sort of like we did with Stalin.

Oh yeah.."you supported HIM too, nah, nah, na, nah, nah!"

But then sometimes, you have to do different things later. This is known as "times change" to a lot of folks.  

Bet you had a gun when you were dealing with the fundamentalists.

Obviously, GB & the US didn't think that "Iraq had fully complied with 660 and 678 when the no-fly zones were still going on."

And the UN/SC never did a dang thing about the no-flys. So they must not have had a real problem with it either.

After all... they're the ~UN~ and they would've done something, right?

[Gunslinger]

I would also like to point out that the current president did not institute the no fly zones.

Also prior to the invasion this current president gave Sadam MANY MANY MANY MANY chances to clean up his act or face consequences.

The weapons labs alone are evidence that he was not in complience.  The diplomatic way was done, force was then necsesary.

Its funny how people forget....or just use selective memory

[Gunslinger]

I never said the invasion was sactioned.....we had proof at the time...the UN did not listen and every effort was blocked by the french or somone esle.  With diplomatic failure we took action.

the war was justified on the premise that Iraq's WMD was a threat to the USA.

not true...it was justified that iraq was a threat to the WORLD!
I think sadams track record speaks for itself

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Toad
Thanks, Lawyer J. Noble Daggett. You continue to make my point.

Bet you're not nearly as cute as Kim Darby... LOL...

[Toad]

Yeah, and friends have, can and always will change to enemies in less time than the lifespan of a goldfish.

Well, maybe I ramble when lawyers loophole.

Yep, US troops aren't trained in peacekeeping much. Mainly in the air/land battle combat stuff. You may have noticed how they performed recently. We probably need to train a lot more military cops and peacemakers though.


The "perp"? Nicely done, lawyer. The "perp" was on the other side of the fence.

Funny the UN didn't even TRY though, isn't it? Are you aware of any SC resolutions offered with the purpose of stopping the no-flys? Russian and China condemned the no-flys, but that's about the maximum protest I can find.

Curious, don't you think? I mean if it really was a hot-button issue, wouldn't the SC have at least TRIED to go on record as standing for "the right thing"?

Guess not.