Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on December 16, 2003, 07:54:15 PM
-
I hope they keep it up and embarrass Annan and the rest of the appeasers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/international/middleeast/16CND-NATION.html?ex=1072242000&en=2aedd578f1c193c5&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Taking a harsh view of the inability of quarreling members of the Security Council to endorse military action in Iraq, Mr. Zebari said, "One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable.
"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."
He declared, "The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again."
It was not immediately clear how the accusatory tone of Mr. Zebari's speech affected the closed-door discussion over the United Nations' role in Iraq that followed, but Secretary General Kofi Annan, the first to emerge from the hall, appeared taken aback.
"Now is not the time to pin blame and point fingers," he told reporters. Saying that Mr. Zebari was "obviously entitled to his opinion," Mr. Annan said that the United Nations had done as much for Iraq as it could under the circumstances and was prepared to do more.
-
:eek: :aok
-
:confused:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If you don't stand up and fight for your own freedom you're not worthy of freedom.
Thousands did and look what it got them. I think you may have missed the point here.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Most people lived a good life and didn't CARE what happened to those with enough backbone to protest.
You make him sound almost benevolent. Sure, many were loyal. He kept them very comfortable and close while torturing and murdering those WITH enough backbone to oppose him. He was so loved he needed 5 or 6 look alikes so that there was enough of him to go 'round. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
A fellow NATO country has been murdering Kurds for ages with out anyone raising their voice against it.
I'm not sure here, are you complaining that we shouldn't be doing anything about it now 'cause we didn't then? It's never too late to do the right thing.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm not complaining anything, AND NEITHER DID MOST IRAQIS. That's my point. Yet they now blame non-Iraqis for not helping them.
If you're not complaining what is the point of your posts?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Are you drunk? Are you saying every post on this BBS is a complaint? Are you complaining now?
I'm expressing my opinion on the Iraqi people and their pathetic bid for freedom ... purchased with the blood of foreigners.
Call it what you like. Sounds like you are complaining, ok, expressing your opinion that they have no right to ridicule the UN for not helping them because they were too cowardly to help themselves. Is that about it?
BTW complaining isn't synonymous with whining. I'm not calling you a whiner...yet.
-
We're free in this country because our ancestors fought and died for it, not be cause we were bailed out by some benevolent empire.
The UN isn't typically in the business of toppling dictators with bad human rights records. Hell, the US isn't either.
The Iraqi people had this form of oppressive government because they allowed it to be so. Bottom line.
-
We invaded Iraq for our well being. Theirs was a bonus benefit. Don't like it? Call someone who cares.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
And your benefit how?
Generations worldwide down the road will be much safer without a terrorist spawning middle east. We're just gettin' warmed up.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ah, I see. Yes I'm sure you will be more safe from terrorism after this. I'm sure ... really.
Ah, sarcasm, and so witty too.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Generations worldwide down the road will be much safer without a terrorist spawning middle east. We're just gettin' warmed up.
I predict that generations down the road will see this as the abyssmal failure that it is.
...but I'm a pessimist. :)
-
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. :)
I guess we could just appease the terrorists like some countries have. It won't be me that tells my wife she's gonna hafta wear a burkha, I'll leave that to you.
-
You give Hussein far more credit than he deserves, IMHO.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You give Hussein far more credit than he deserves, IMHO.
Hussein is done. The question in my mind is who's next? Iran or Syria? These middle eastern hotbeds of terrorism are kinda like Lays potato chips.
-
It won't be me that tells my wife she's gonna hafta wear a burkha, I'll leave that to you.
Last time I checked, Hussein wasn't too nice to Islamic fundamentalists. Your wife could have worn what she liked in Saddam's Iraq.
Saudi Arabia however... good job we never supported that regime!
-
@Iron; I think the invasion of Iraq wont help much against terrorism. Why? I mean if u want to buy biological or chemical weapons go to russia. If u want an education in "how to be an effective terrorist" go to Somalia or to Saudi Arabia.
So IMO GScholz has a point here. The allies have to deal with many different flavours of religion and people (Kurds, Shiites, Sunnites...). Its not like Eastern Germany where u have the people speaking with ONE voice. Its more like a mixture of Afganistan and Yugoslavia.
With this in mind I believe that Iraq will never (in the next 50 years) be ONE nation.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Hussein is done. The question in my mind is who's next? Iran or Syria? These middle eastern hotbeds of terrorism are kinda like Lays potato chips.
Syria. My bet is that Israel gets to take care of the Iranian situation, while the US focuses on Syria. Latest reports have the Iraqi WMD's in Syria.
-
Latest reports have the Iraqi WMD's in Syria.
Straight from the world reknowned Swedish intelligence think tank!
Source please.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Straight from the world reknowned Swedish intelligence think tank!
Source please.
http://www.debka.com
-
Originally posted by JBA
I hope they keep it up and embarrass Annan and the rest of the appeasers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/international/middleeast/16CND-NATION.html?ex=1072242000&en=2aedd578f1c193c5&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Taking a harsh view of the inability of quarreling members of the Security Council to endorse military action in Iraq, Mr. Zebari said, "One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable.
"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."
He declared, "The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again."
It was not immediately clear how the accusatory tone of Mr. Zebari's speech affected the closed-door discussion over the United Nations' role in Iraq that followed, but Secretary General Kofi Annan, the first to emerge from the hall, appeared taken aback.
"Now is not the time to pin blame and point fingers," he told reporters. Saying that Mr. Zebari was "obviously entitled to his opinion," Mr. Annan said that the United Nations had done as much for Iraq as it could under the circumstances and was prepared to do more.
So when we going to the congo .... what is it 5 million killed in the last 3 years?
Ya that's why the US is in Iraq..... Because we felt sorry for the poor oppressed Iraqis ...
::muffles laugh::
-
DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources reveal that Washington and Dr. David Kay, senior US and coalition WMD hunter in Iraq - far from groping in the dark for Saddam’s prohibited weapons, as conventionally believed – have a very good idea of where they are hidden.
The search has narrowed down to a section of the Syrian Desert known as Dayr Az-Zawr in Syria’s 600 sq. mile Al Jazirah province, which is wedged between the Turkish and Iraqi borders. The missing weapons systems are thought to be buried somewhere under these desert sands. This area is now probably the most keenly watched area on earth – from its outer periphery. At its eastern edge, US special force units, Predator drones and reconnaissance airplanes and satellites make sure no one steps into this ultra-sensitive patch of desert. Turkish special forces, intelligence and air force units are guarding it from the northwest. The Syrians are nowhere to be seen, acting as though the target-area does not concern them.
DEBKAfile and DEBKA-Net-Weekly have consistently reported that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction were removed from the country and secretly buried in Lebanon and northern Syria with the connivance of Syrian president Bashar Assad.
But short of tearing up hundreds of miles of sand, the American hunters have reached an impasse in their searches. What can Saddam Hussein contribute to breaking the standoff?
DEBKAfile’s intelligence experts evaluate the situation thus:
If the ex-dictator continues to prevaricate instead of giving straight answers to questions, the US president has two options:
1. To bring crushing leverage to bear on the Syrian president and force him to order his engineering corps to dig up the hiding places marked on his charts and quietly hand over the wanted weapons to the Americans. For the present, Assad is tossing off any such demands with complete nonchalance.
2. To let American military and engineering units loose on the targeted miles and burrow until the weapons are found.
That course could bring American and Syrian armies into a major collision, a development that would rock the Middle East no less than the American invasion of Iraq.
But there is a third option.
It is that Saddam hand over to his American interrogators the details of the arrangements he worked out with the Syrian president for the transfer of the weapons of mass destruction to their present hiding places. He would have to name the Iraqi and Syrian officials who handled the operation. With this information in hand, President Bush could turn the heat on Assad and demand his cooperation in locating the buried items. If Assad continued to shrug the demands aside, then the evidence against the Syrian president would be laid before the UN Security Council and an international operation mounted to bring the prohibited weapons to light.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I guess we could just appease the terrorists like some countries have. It won't be me that tells my wife she's gonna hafta wear a burkha, I'll leave that to you.
The man said 35 years so you better read up on your history and go call the wifey and break the bad news to her.:aok
-
www.debka.com
Do you have lots of salt handy?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Do you have lots of salt handy?
Do you think you know more about this than they do? Do you think you have access to the same sources as they do?
-
Do you know how reliable those sources are? It's a single website on the intardnet for god's sake. Is that all you have?
BTW, do they have a astrology section?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Syria. My bet is that Israel gets to take care of the Iranian situation, while the US focuses on Syria. Latest reports have the Iraqi WMD's in Syria.
ROTFL
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Do you know how reliable those sources are? It's a single website on the intardnet for god's sake. Is that all you have?
Originally posted by Hortlund
Its kinda hard to have discussions about Iraq-Al Queida connections, when all the anti-war types react with "that is just a fabrication" to whatever source one presents.
Your reaction would be the same no matter what kind of source I presented. Why dont you put your head back into the sand little tardling, maybe the world feels like a safer place for you then.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
ROTFL
heh, just out of curiosity...
Lets see if you laugh as much if the Israelis send in some airstrike or sabotage team to that Iranian reactor. Or if you will be on these boards crying a river over teh poor Iranians and the evil Israelis.
Or lets see your reaction to the news of a US violation of the Syrian border and the subsequent conflict in Syria. My bet is you will be crying a river then too over the vile americans and the poor poor Syrian terrorists.
But hey, laugh now if it makes you feel better.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I think Hortlund is Jewish. That would explain a lot.
LOL now that quote doesnt seem racist at all now does it...
Alas, I'm not jewish, so back to the drawing board. I am half German though.
-
Your reaction would be the same no matter what kind of source I presented. Why dont you put your head back into the sand little tardling, maybe the world feels like a safer place for you then.
Personal attacks are the norm with you. It's so satisfying to get you to resort to them.
It's one source. ONE. UNO. EIN. Did you ever do history at school? Did you ever learn the definition of the word corroboration? Do you know the difference between Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources? Schoolkids could point out the holes in your argument here.
There are websites on the net that insist cold fusion was a success. Guess what? When people tried to corroborate they couldn't. Hence it's a debunked theory. Debunked - now there is a good word...
DEBKA in my eyes is little better than that Russian website some posted over here during the hostilities. Everything on it should be taken with a healthy dose of NaCl.
Do they have salt in Sweden?
-
lol gsholz
seems to fit ....
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-paley14dec14,0,2498760.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
I've seen something like that thought process ..... boggles my mind ... just seems stupid to me
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Latest reports have the Iraqi WMD's in Syria.
Let me see if I understand the sequence of events.
1. Iraq invades Kuwait.
2. The U.S. coalition defeats Iraq and drives it from Kuwait.
3. The U.S. enforces sanctions and controls the air space above Iraq for the next decade.
4. Iraq develops WMD.
5. 911
6. Bush telegraphs the punch that we're comin'.
7. Iraq gives the weapons away practically on the eve of the invasion.
Oh yeah... that makes sense.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Oh yeah... that makes sense.
Well, your time frame is totally screwed up anyway, no wonder you dont think it makes sense.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, your time frame is totally screwed up anyway, no wonder you dont think it makes sense.
That was enlightening. Thanks! :aok
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nothing wrong with being Jewish Hortlund ... Half German huh? Well, that explains a lot too. ;)
WHAT? :D
@Hortlund: ROTFL
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If you don't stand up and fight for your own freedom you're not worthy of freedom.
This for me, was the "true lesson" of VietNam. I think we learned it fairly well, but not completely.
I don't think "free the Iraqis" was the cause of this conflict, however.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Let me see if I understand the sequence of events.
1. Iraq invades Kuwait.
2. The U.S. coalition defeats Iraq and drives it from Kuwait.
3. The U.S. enforces sanctions and controls the air space above Iraq for the next decade.
4. Iraq develops WMD.
5. 911
6. Bush telegraphs the punch that we're comin'.
7. Iraq gives the weapons away practically on the eve of the invasion.
Oh yeah... that makes sense.
Here:
1. Iraq develops WMD.
2. Iraq invades Kuwait.
3. The U.S. coalition defeats Iraq and drives it from Kuwait.
4. The U.S. enforces sanctions and controls the air space above Iraq for the next decade.
5. UN passes a dozen resolutions demanding that Iraq surrender WMD's, Iraq stalls, UN puts Iraq under embargo.
6. Time passes. France calls for an end of the embargo
7. 9-11
8. Bush threatens Iraq to comply with UN resolutions "or else".
9. Iraq fails to comply with UN resolutions
10. France whines
11. Invasion
12. WMD's moved to Syria
-
That guy forgets who was siding with Saddam for a good time until the Kuwait invasion.
35 years.. wonder how many years of that Saddam was able to operate under the approval of US goverment.. not to mention how many people he was able to gas to death, since US figured to use it's veto right at UN to help Saddam over the WMD accusation.
Perhaps US gov. this time is thinking twice who they're putting in charge of Iraq, rather than supporting some tyrant and then after couple decades realise hes a bad guy.
-
From the keyboard of GScholz:
"Before 1991 the Iraqis were living a pretty good life, and although their leader was a brutal one, he was only brutal to those that opposed him. Most people didn't. Most people lived a good life and didn't CARE what happened to those with enough backbone to protest."
Heheheh...I'd like you to stand in front of an average crowd in Bahgdad today and spout those words, and see how they react. I bet you'd not get ten paces before they let you know just how "happy" they were then. Especially if there were any in the crowd who's wives, or daughters had been guests of the rape rooms.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Here:
1. Iraq develops WMD.
2. Iraq invades Kuwait.
3. The U.S. coalition defeats Iraq and drives it from Kuwait.
4. The U.S. enforces sanctions and controls the air space above Iraq for the next decade.
5. UN passes a dozen resolutions demanding that Iraq surrender WMD's, Iraq stalls, UN puts Iraq under embargo.
6. Time passes. France calls for an end of the embargo
7. 9-11
8. Bush threatens Iraq to comply with UN resolutions "or else".
9. Iraq fails to comply with UN resolutions
10. France whines
11. Invasion
12. WMD's moved to Syria
Assuming that the WMD existed, what do you think could motivate the Iraqi to leave them unused?
-
No real discussion is done here very long before name calling and hatred rein supreme, to bad there is a lot of good points and intelligent folks here.
I wonder if we were in a room talking how fast the personalizing and immaturity would clear the room.
I hate no one, agree with some, and listen to all that earn it, ignore those that stoop low.
Regards,
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Assuming that the WMD existed, what do you think could motivate the Iraqi to leave them unused?
*shrug* impossible to say really. He had no qualms about using those WMD's against his enemies (Iran) or his own people (Kurds) though. Maybe that could be taken as an indication on his motivation to leave them unused.
I dont think the combination insane dictator + wmd is a good one. Therefore Im glad Saddam is gone.
Incidentally I dont think the combination fundamental moslem nation + wmd is a good one either, which is why Im hoping that the US or Israel will take out that Iranian nuclear reactor.
-
Not sure Sand, maybe because Saddam was the type to hide in a hole and announce he was "The President of Iraq" and was so dillusional then said "I want to negotiate" while being captured by 600 US troops.
Funny how you put so much faith in how he should act to support your liberal views.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
*shrug* impossible to say really. He had no qualms about using those WMD's against his enemies (Iran) or his own people (Kurds) though. Maybe that could be taken as an indication on his motivation to leave them unused.
I dont think the combination insane dictator + wmd is a good one. Therefore Im glad Saddam is gone.
Incidentally I dont think the combination fundamental moslem nation + wmd is a good one either, which is why Im hoping that the US or Israel will take out that Iranian nuclear reactor.
So I can safely assume you'd be overjoyed if a sabotage team from Iran destroyed the Isreali nuclear weapon stockpile then?
Tronsky
-
IMO. To answer some of you, Why
Iraq was beatable. we choice a geographical and logistical location to stage a war on Terrorism and that was IRAQ.
not to mention Saddams criminal record made it expectable.
by any reasonable person.
We have fought many wars over Humanitarian reasons, in fact WWII was a war for humanitarian reasons but not for the ones you all think. The Germany holocaust was not known until after the US was involved. We fought because we were protecting the CHINESSE from Japanese rape of Manchuria. Japan responded by bombing Pearl Harbor we entered the war.
We went to Iraq for a few reasons. One was to stabilize the worlds oil reserves. Saddam invaded Kuwait and began to move into Saudi Arabia, He would have moved into the Emirates next but he was stopped.
Secondly we are there to put pressure on IRAN and Syria. We will be there forever, that’s right, 2 years with a full force and then a permanent base forever, just as we have them in Cuba, Germany, South Korea etc.
Third the ties to 9/11 and AL-Quaida will be proven. WMD's where there he used them. Do you realy think he developed them used them once then decided (that was nice now let's not make any more) and we will find evidnce of that and more in time.
US was also sending a mesage to other leaders. Stop the terroist train.
GScholz
“who looked up to Hussein and saw him as a good leader, albeit a bit "harsh".
A bit harsh? Were do I began to respond to this stupid statement?
Article Title: "Separate Realities "
Author: Section: Issues & Insights Date: 12/15/2003
Media: Thousands of Iraqis have marched to condemn terrorism and demand a halt to the violence. We're still waiting for the networks to offer their full reports.
And they're probably waiting, too. But not to report on Iraqis coming together against the loyalist insurgents who are trying to sabotage the construction of a liberated society.
They're likely waiting for a handful of Iraqis to demonstrate against the coalition or march in support of Saddam Hussein.
Now that would be real news, wouldn't it? The anti-insurgent rallies haven't gone totally unnoticed by the media. There has been some light coverage.
Otherwise we would have never known that "5,000 to 10,000 Iraqis tried to send terrorists a cease-and-desist message Wednesday from downtown Baghdad," as a Knight Ridder News Service reporter described it.
Or that 4,000 or so chanted "death to terrorists" in Baghdad on Nov. 28. The Media Research Center tells us the rallies were ignored, though, by two of the major broadcast network news shows while ABC gave it a cursory treatment.
And, as far as we can tell, not a single major daily newspaper had a march story on its front page.
However, should a subsidiary of Halliburton, the former employer of Vice President Dick Cheney, be accused of charging the U.S. government too much for its contract services in Iraq, well, then that's front-page news for The New York Times and Washington Post, and an instant obsession for the broadcast media.
(CBS News anchor Dan Rather suggested that the "overcharges" were evidence of some nasty "war profiteering.") Never mind that this alleged overcharging has nothing to do with Cheney. Forget that it's a dispute between accountants. Don't even consider that nothing criminal or illegal has transpired.
And disregard the fact that Halliburton isn't likely to profit from the "overcharges" and that they were the outcome of Halliburton paying a subcontractor too much for gasoline. Just remember when it's time to vote next fall that in some vague way, Cheney did something wrong.
Frankly, we're a little weary of having to continue to point out that the media are dwelling on the negative and largely dismissing the positive in Iraq.
Yet we understand. Focusing on death and dismemberment and looking for dirty deals while downplaying progress is an effective way to poison public opinion on the war and the Bush administration.
Oddly, the media's inconsistencies have actually been captured by a small corner of the press. In a Dec. 5 dispatch from Baghdad detailing the accomplishments of the Army's Civil Affairs soldiers and regular troops,
Tara Copp of Scripps Howard News Service writes: "What Iraq looks like on TV, and what Iraq looks like for the 130,000 troops living here, sometimes feels like two different realities."
Is there a better description than that? Copp, possibly without knowing it, summarized the entire issue in less than 25 words. But, like the progress Copp was writing about, those words, too, will be sidestepped by the mainstream media.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Not sure Sand, maybe because Saddam was the type to hide in a hole and announce he was "The President of Iraq" and was so dillusional then said "I want to negotiate" while being captured by 600 US troops.
Funny how you put so much faith in how he should act to support your liberal views.
You're probably right... it makes much more sense to go to all the trouble of developing weapons of mass destruction and then hiding them from the rest of the world only to toss them away when you're opponent appears at the door.
-
Ok, he developed WMD for defense?,
Your (http://democraticunderground.com/) feaks, now pound Bush for the fake Tukey.
edit- in case it's important- Turkey is the BOOSH Devil (http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/)
-
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? Answer: Before 1991 the Iraqis were living a pretty good life, and although their leader was a brutal one, he was only brutal to those that opposed him. Most people didn't. Most people lived a good life and didn't CARE what happened to those with enough backbone to protest. You will STILL find Iraqis who looked up to Hussein and saw him as a good leader, albeit a bit "harsh". Of course life changed after 1991 for most Iraqis when the UN sanctions took their toll on Iraqi livelihoods. Sun Szu was right; the best way to bring down a ruler is to make his people suffer. How many Iraqis complained before 1991? The Kurds maybe? The Kurds are a people whom nobody cared prior to GW1, least of all the Iraqis. A fellow NATO country has been murdering Kurds for ages with out anyone raising their voice against it.
There is nothing here that indacates your contributing this to someone eles. You clamed it for yourself and therefore own the stupid statement, and or stupidity or repeating it.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Ok, he developed WMD for defense?,
Your (http://democraticunderground.com/) feaks, now pound Bush for the fake Tukey.
edit- in case it's important- Turkey is the BOOSH Devil (http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/)
Geez! Those websites, haven't seen so much hate and ignorance since I stumbled upon an Arian Nation website... :rolleyes: :(
-
"We have fought many wars over Humanitarian reasons"
Can you name one?
-
I did. to quote me correctly this is what I said.
"We have fought many wars over Humanitarian reasons, in fact WWII was a war for humanitarian reasons but not for the ones you all think. The Germany holocaust was not known until after the US was involved. We fought because we were protecting the CHINESSE from Japanese rape of Manchuria. Japan responded by bombing Pearl Harbor we entered the war. "
WWII, Bosnia, Kosovo.
-
Kosovo comes to mind.
WWII is a bit of a stretch. There was this thing at Pearl Harbor.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You were in WWII, Bosnia and Kosovo? Wow! I was only in Bosnia.
I'll forgive your lack of English comprehension,it may be your second language.
WE is plural for more then one person. not Me, or I.
The use of We here indicates the US military and could include the rest of the Allies for that matter.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You're probably right... it makes much more sense to go to all the trouble of developing weapons of mass destruction and then hiding them from the rest of the world only to toss them away when you're opponent appears at the door.
Take a breath, the trees will still be in California.
When your opponent is at the door, you've already hid them and dug a spider hole maybe?
Why to you insist on thinking on the same plane as a coward retard like Saddam?
Oh, nevermind.
-
Excellent counter-point. :aok
-
Your welcome Mr. Sandlack. :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Assuming that the WMD existed, what do you think could motivate the Iraqi to leave them unused?
Maybe you should ask the Kurds if Saddam had any WMD.
-
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.
-
Brutal.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :p
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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:)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Sure he would. U.S. dominance of the air had long been established. The MiG-25 aircraft were worthless, and Hussein knew it.
If they were worthless, then why hide them in the first place?
-
Learn a little history GScholz. Here's a few maps to get you started.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/maps/
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Keep believing that Rude if it makes you happy. However I'm afraid you will be disappointed in the end. Why don't you and Rip join the Army ... you know, do your bit?
Do my bit....like you did in Bosnia? Sorry man...I can't cook.
-
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.
The quantity of chemical or biological weapons that need to be used for a specific area to be affective is pretty large. Someone on the board has already posted the measures.
Shoot, move, and communicate. That’s the philosophy of the military. Always be moving. An initial attack on our forces with those types of weapons would have produced casualties and possibly a good number of them. It would not have affected the outcome of the war though.
The Iraqi military using these weapons wouldn’t have been political suicide. It would have proven their existence as well as the course of action and would have probably helped in getting reelected.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ground attack on Baghdad in 1991? LOL! The coalition forces sortied out from Saudi Arabia to encircle Iraqi forces in Kuwait, but then returned to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The coalition did never have a mandate to invade Iraq?
What are you Smoking AKIron, your old socks?
Who said anything about a ground attack on Baghdad in '91? I said we invaded Iraq in '91. I didn't specify how. I mentioned the air assault on Baghdad and you start sputtering about a ground invasion of Baghdad. As I since pointed out to you though, we did invade Iraq with ground forces giving them every opportunity to use their WMD against our ground forces. They didn't. Most likely because they were afraid we would completely annihilate them if they did. a justifiable fear imo.
Your refusal to face facts has diminished your credibilty, at least with me.
-
Originally posted by Rude
If they were worthless, then why hide them in the first place?
Might be useful for fighting someone else other than the U.S.
-
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.
All those coalition troops that entered Iraq itself during the '91 Gulf War...if they weren't invading....what were they doing? Sight seeing perhaps?
-
See my above post GScholz. If I posted inaccuractly please feel free to point it out.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes the French Monarch was a benevolent ruler who didn't publicly chop off peoples heads with guillotines or send people to prisons like the Bastille to be tortured and maimed.
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.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
*shrug* impossible to say really. He had no qualms about using those WMD's against his enemies (Iran) or his own people (Kurds) though.
just technical note
if Kurds were *his* people, he would never ever have need to fight with them
Kurdish problem in Iraq is as same as in Turkey...
but killing turkey Kurds is quite ok, coz Turkey wanna be big friend of NATO..
Kurdish part of Turkey is shame of turkey... nobody likes them, nobody caers about them .... but they werent alowed to have their owen nation after WW1
The only one country, where Kurds live in piece w/o any problem is in Iran. They integrated into Persian population well and they consider themself to be Persian. They are happy that they can speak their owen language in Iran.
However iran is the only one country, whitch do not annihilate them. They may live in pakistan as well. ( dont know about pakistan)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ground attack on Baghdad in 1991? LOL! The coalition forces sortied out from Saudi Arabia to encircle Iraqi forces in Kuwait, but then returned to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The coalition did never have a mandate to invade Iraq?
What are you Smoking AKIron, your old socks?
I had friends in my old unit, 101, that were 90 miles outside of Baghdad during that “conflict”.
Honestly, if not for the public showing of the “highway of death” there may have been a strong possibility we would have went further.
-
and according to original 1st post...
try to imagine what could happen if he will say something agains american occupation.
there are a lot of voices from iraq, that occupation isnt wellcome
but there is no sutch voice from goverment.
goverment werent elected by people it were form under supervise of US (probably absolut proamerican goverment)
many iraqi from abroad already refused to work in iraq...
if i remember corectly, director of national television canceled his contract because US forced him to pass them program for *validation*
(he came to work in iraq from abroad, he already left)
iraq is not 3rd world country
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Oh, so bombing Baghdad constitutes as an invasion. So you invaded Libya as well? I see we have very different definitions of what an invasion is.
You're right, Hussein didn't use his WMD in 1991 because he didn't want to risk a WMD exchange. That's what I've been saying all along. However in 2003 his own bellybutton was on the line, he had nothing to lose, he would have used them if he had them. It's not like he's shown any restraint in past full out wars.
I think you're just being stubborn now. It's like you're saying so long as we don't invade Oslo we haven't invaded Norway. Even if the troops you sent to stop us at Hamar were decimated.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
...You're right, Hussein didn't use his WMD in 1991 because he didn't want to risk a WMD exchange. That's what I've been saying all along. However in 2003 his own bellybutton was on the line, he had nothing to lose, he would have used them if he had them. It's not like he's shown any restraint in past full out wars.
That may be correct. I distinctly remember Bush senior saying during a press conference that should Saddam use chemical or biological weapons then that would escalate the conflict to another latter that he doesn’t posses.
I took this instantly to mean, “you drop some germs, we’ll proceed in the instant construction of a glass parking lot “.
Scared the absolute crap out of me, glad it didn’t happen.
Why he didn’t use them this time is all supposition. I think he was hoping somehow he could make it out of the conflict with his rule and country still intact. Using chemical or biological weapons would have snuffed that from the moment they were used.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ok this is pure BS. The French Monarchy and Nobles had an iron grip on the people of France.
How did Hussein have complete control over a population armed with AKs and RPGs (readily available in bazaars even) with most families having a son in the army? YES, Iraq had a conscript army. The Shiites would never have rebelled if not for the US promising support and than abandoning them. How come more people are willing to risk their lives fighting your forces than the inferior forces of Hussein?
Obviously they didn’t or the revolt wouldn’t have happened. I can theorize that “the information” age wasn’t in existence then and it was much easier for the people to organize and plan. If they had the hold you believe they did the revolt wouldn’t have worked, someone would have ratted them out. I’m not a French history buff so I can’t say, but it’s not BS, its discussion.
Access to firearms does not mean you have the ability to revolt. I go back to my East Germany reference. They could trust no one. Who could say that your buddy wasn’t an informant?
Why are more willing to risk their lives against the coalition than against Saddam? Easy answer, fear. When you fire against a British, American, Polish, etc. soldiers you can safely assume that they will only be firing back or trying to kill you. The possibilities of your entire family vanishing because of something you do now is much less likely.
We’re fighting the “fair” fight. That’s easy to go up against when you don’t have the fear of family and social reprisals for your actions.
-
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.
-
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 ;).
-
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?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
LOL! No you're right of course ... you are totally useless
am not
-
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.
-
OK, have it your way. What we have here in Iraq in 2003 is by your reasoning an incursion. Have a nice day.
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I could not help noticing that you conceded the argument on Halabja
Not even remotely close.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
;)
-
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.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
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 ...
-
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.
:p
-
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
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
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
I suppose you mean besides the intercontinental missiles that'll melt mountains and vaporize lakes?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
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
He may borrow mine
http://www.savagearms.com/10fpxple.htm
Did not buy the scoped package as I had the scope from model 700 Remington in 30-06 when I rescoped it.
.45 group at 100 yds with 168gr Hornady Match Moly Coated handloads 2980 fps loaded with IMR 4064 powder.
with
Leupold 6X16X40 Target scope
http://www.4scopes.com/leupold_vxii_scopes.htm
see ya at the range
:D
-
Being the antique that I am, I only have two "big bore" rifles.
I have a "deer & coyote" rifle, a Winchester 770 in .270 with an old Weaver 4x. Shooting my handloads or Federal Premiums, it'll put two in the same hole at 100 yards and then the third will be about 3/8 high and 1/4 right of those two. That's shooting without waiting, just reloading, resettling the sights and shooting. Box stock too; I've never changed a thing on the rifle since the day I bought it and mounted the scope. Some fool once asked why I didn't rebed it to get rid of that third "flyer". :)
I also have an "elk rifle", a Weatherby Mark V in .300 WM. I shoot 180g handloads in it and it'll shoot about 3/4". I did restock it in a glass/kevlar stock; the Weatherby wood just moved around too much with climate changes. Plus is was a 1"+ rifle when it was in the wood stock. It shoots about the same with 200g bullets, maybe a hair wider. I like the 180's though, always worked well for me.
-
Originally posted by straffo
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
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 ...
Your statements make little to no sense. If you have something to add then enlighten me. Ignorance, huh.
So the king did what he wanted. How and in what way does that compare with the rule Saddam had? It doesn’t, they don't compare is the point I'm making. What exactly is yours?
-
Lets get back on point. Gun talk has been done elsewhere.
The Iraqi console is mad as hell at he UN. As they should be, not to mention the rest of the world. The UN is comprised of 2/3 dictators and despots, and is and always will be useless. It's high time for them to fade away and leave the heavy lifting to those that do it best. The USA and its most trusted Allies like the UK.
-
Originally posted by JBA
It's high time for them to fade away and leave the heavy lifting to those that do it best. The USA and its most trusted Allies like the UK.
Yeah... let's skip past isolationism and go straight on to unilateralism. We can handle it. We've got all of our present enemies under control and we can handle some more, no problem.
-
According to the lauded expert :rolleyes: on the War and how it should have been fought and to answer why we don’t need the UN involvement.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/12/18/making_a_distinction_over_iraq_kosovo/
Clark also drew differences between the diplomatic run-up to both wars, criticizing the United States for intervening without bringing key allies on board. But when asked why the UN war crimes tribunal's two most wanted men, Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, are still at large today, Clark acknowledged that working with allies posed some obstacles to their capture. The hunt for Karadzic, in particular, "required a degree of cooperation with other powers that proved difficult for some in the US government to accept," Clark said. "There remained rumors of some kind of French connection, rumors that have been denied vigorously by Paris."
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
Your statements make little to no sense. If you have something to add then enlighten me. Ignorance, huh.
So the king did what he wanted. How and in what way does that compare with the rule Saddam had? It doesn’t, they don't compare is the point I'm making. What exactly is yours?
You need to re-read your own post :
Maybe under different technology the French monarch may have been able to do something about his demise and rule with even greater influence.
Do you really think they were powerless ?
When they were able to kill someone at their own will anytime for any reason (or without any reason).
The only difference threis between past French monarch, nobless and Saddam is the technologie they were using.
They were not different in their behaviour,just compare Versailles and Saddam's Palaces for exemple.
-
Originally posted by straffo
You need to re-read your own post :
Do you really think they were powerless ?
When they were able to kill someone at their own will anytime for any reason (or without any reason).
The only difference threis between past French monarch, nobless and Saddam is the technologie they were using.
They were not different in their behaviour,just compare Versailles and Saddam's Palaces for exemple.
Ok… I see what you are saying now, it was a little thin before, but you are getting at what I am basically. I never meant to imply they were powerless just that they, he, didn’t have as much power due to communication.
I agree. Given the technology it could have been just as "ruthless" and ever lasting as Saddam’s rule was. But, the technology wasn’t there so the people could rise up and do something about it. They had more breathing room and time.
The Iraqi people couldn’t. That’s what I’m trying to get across. Saying that they should have helped themselves and didn’t require any outside assistance is incorrect.
-
When 60% of the residents say that Saddam executed one of their family members, do you expect them to rise up? I don’t. I bet they were scared sh**less all day every day. Waiting for the knock on the door.
“We’ve come to rape your daughter and kill your son because we think we heard you say or look or do something we don’t like”
-
Originally posted by JBA
When 60% of the residents say that Saddam executed one of their family members, do you expect them to rise up?
Yes.
-
i would have to second that.
shootin at soldiers is a american tradition.
was literaly raised for it. why the hell else would they give me a rifle at 8.
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
Ok… I see what you are saying now, it was a little thin before, but you are getting at what I am basically. I never meant to imply they were powerless just that they, he, didn’t have as much power due to communication.
I agree. Given the technology it could have been just as "ruthless" and ever lasting as Saddam’s rule was. But, the technology wasn’t there so the people could rise up and do something about it. They had more breathing room and time.
The Iraqi people couldn’t. That’s what I’m trying to get across. Saying that they should have helped themselves and didn’t require any outside assistance is incorrect.
I agree fully.