Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on January 10, 2004, 05:44:55 PM
-
Lets hear it liberals...
Stage 1:
"There are no WMDs...it was all a big lie, the war was about oil."
Stage 2:
"Oh suure there are SOME WMD's..but those are OLD...and besides there are so few of them."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386357.stm
-
How bout nobody posts in this thread after this, we all know where this is going.
Please. :)
-
I find this interesting, especially from US officials:
"However, US officials played down the find, saying the shells were probably left over from Saddam Hussein's 1980-88 war with Iran"
"The coalition has yet to uncover proof that Iraq was still developing weapons at the time of the war last spring."
-
"US military spokesman Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt said of the shells: "Most were wrapped in plastic bags, and some were leaking."
Hehe somehow I don't think those were meant to be used anymore.
btw we have chemical weapons too thought ours are buried in the sea, not in the sand.
Good try thought :aok
-
Heh...the liberal brain never ceases to amaze me.
"Yeah, there were WMD's, but they were not supposed to be used anymore...I think...so therefore they are not WMD's".
-
The 36 120mm shells appear to have been buried for at least 10 years, the Danes said.
Hortlund :rolleyes:
-
So does that change the fact that they are chemical warheads, WMD's...?
Maniac *picture emoticon of a tard*
-
So in your mind this finding justifys the invasion of Iraq?
-
(http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/15/china.missile.03/vstory.missile.peacekeeper.jpg)
some would not be satisfied even if they uncovered one of those .. they just complain that it wasn't able to be fired in a moments notice thus did not constitute the "immediate threat" Bush spoke of
History will show the invasion of Iraq to be the best strategic move against terrorism & middle east unrest that could have been done at this time.
-
I find the invasion justified for many different reasons. His WMD's was just one of them.
But this answers the "did Saddam have WMD's", "did Saddam hide WMD's from the UN inspectors" -questions... doesnt it?
-
History will show the invasion of Iraq to be the best strategic move against terrorism & middle east unrest that could have been done at this time.
You cant win a war against terrorism. Its as simple as that... As long as there are people with mental problems, payback desire and a death wish theres always gonna be terrorism.
-
But this answers the "did Saddam have WMD's", "did Saddam hide WMD's from the UN inspectors" -questions... doesnt it?
Of course, we will have to wait a day or two to get the lab-reports tough. But if they contain WMD of course no one can say he didnt have WMD.
Alltought how much Mass destruction could 36 shells do?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Alltought how much Mass destruction could 36 shells do?
Set one off at the superbowl and see what the combination of WMD and terrorism can do to a lifestyle near you...
-
Like it or not, it does prove Iraq was lying, now doesn't it? Total justification for the war - certainly not - but then that never was the entire reason given.
The whole anti-Bush movement is predicated on the concept there weren't WMDs in Iraq, and that it was all a lie. Now some are found... old, buried for some time, but there nonetheless. How faulty is the intelligence now? How much more is out there?
No, no, no... that just can't be possible. Has to be a CIA plant. Couldn't possibly be real.
Keep moving that goal line, folks.
-
So Kieran,
The war was about finding 10 yr old buried leaking WMDs? good intel.
-
Didnt I just answer that? Or didnt Kieran answer it in his post too for that matter?
Stop trolling.
-
Nah, im leaving this thread now...
Ive always was for the killing of Saddam, i djust couldnt take the way they sold the war to the public...
-
how many more WMD's are buried in the desert?
-
If WMD shells buried and leaking in sand for 10 years counts for 'having'......
After 10 years in sand, iraqis would been probably as scared as allies on the receiving end, to dig those up... let alone transporting and using :D
Anyway.. let's wait for the news of the usable WMD arsenals or more recent WMD projects.
To make right for the war (for what it was hyped to be for) with something buried for 10 years and seemingly rendered into condition as dangerous to user as to target, would only go as far as an excuse
-
where those the same shells that could land in london in 45 minutes ?
They found TRACES of weapons on them - hence they were disposed off, in compliance with UN it would appear. So you're voiding your own argument.
-
If they were buried in plastic,they were being saved.It will be interesting to see if and how many more are discovered.
-
Blister agents are WWI stuff. They are only a nuisance (albeit a painful one) unless inhaled, and even then they are treatable. This isnt the same as anthrax, sarin, ricin or the mushroom cloud that Bush warned us about.
Your argument is not supported by your evidence Hortlund. Dont you think that if the Bush admin thought they could make some traction out of this, they would yell it from every rooftop?
The fact is that the WMD inspection team has pulled out of Iraq. Bush sold the war on the Imminent threat of Saddam with WMDs. He lied. Anyone with their brain engaged can see that.
strk
-
(http://i2.tv2.dk/images/s/f8d0e4049fefbe96076df6f3be657b29/79372)
Reports here states that there are 150 shells at the site.
-
The presence of WMDs in Iraq as justification for the most recent war were simply a means to an end. They didnt have to be there, it really didnt matter anyway...hussein was a sunuvabich whos time had come.
I think the WMD threat had two values.
First value was the obvious one. Hussein had them in the past, used them in the past and could very well be prepared to have them and use them again. The evidence, however flawed, "seemed" to suggest this as a likely scenario.
Second value was the silencing effect it had on war critics (aka liberals, peace at ALL costs types...sometimes referred to as morons). Although it didnt silence them it made them look like fools and it probably was a genuine effect.
All being said and done, using WMDs as a tool to justify war was a valid tactic and employed to great success.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
You cant win a war against terrorism. Its as simple as that... As long as there are people with mental problems, payback desire and a death wish theres always gonna be terrorism.
Okay, so if that's the case, I say let's give up.
Which way is Mecca? Is it prayer time yet? Where can I get a Koran?
-
Which way is Mecca? Is it prayer time yet? Where can I get a Koran?
So all muslims are terrorists... ah i get it... you better start the draft and mount up for a long war.
-
So all muslims are terrorists... ah i get it... you better start the draft and mount up for a long war.
Did I say that?
No.
What did Osama say could end his wrath? Our conversion to Islam. I'm just taking your advice as to the futility of fighting.
Also, I thought you were backing out of this thread....
-
I'm just taking your advice as to the futility of fighting.
The futility of fighting? fight the right battles... Kill the crazy ones thats all you can do...
Terrorism will always be here, as i said before : As long as there are people with mental problems, payback desire and a death wish theres always gonna be terrorism.
Which way is Mecca? Is it prayer time yet? Where can I get a Koran?
It doesent matter if the mad mans name is Osama or Mcveigh. Its still crazy ****ers who neads to be dealt with. Blaming it on religion is a very unvise move.
-
Terrorism will always be here, as i said before : As long as there are people with mental problems, payback desire and a death wish theres always gonna be terrorism.
====
You had better want more done than you suggest. In an age of nuclear weapons portable in the trunks of cars, these people can do a horrific amount of damage to western civilization. The attacks on 9/11 were pinsalamanders compared to what would happen if a nuclear device were detonated in Manhatten, London, Hamburg, Moscow, Singapore.....
-
Agreed.
You need to find and kill Osama, im baffled that this was not priority number one...
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Blaming it on religion is a very unvise move.
Opb HMcG
What did Osama say could end his wrath? Our conversion to Islam.
I think you are confused as to my point. I did not blame anything on Islam, I just noted that to submit to OBL's demands one should convert to Islam. This has nothing to do with religion it has to do with submission.
I understand your point that terrorism is a tactic and to wage war on a tactic rather than human enemies is rather bizarre.
However what else are you going to call an action aganst those who use this tactic? War is as good a word as any and better than most in describing the present effort.
>I guess withdrawing from the thread was a New Years Resolution?
-
I understand your point that terrorism is a tactic and to wage war on a tactic rather than human enemies is rather bizarre.
Yep, that describes it perfectly...
However what else are you going to call an action aganst those who use this tactic? War is as good a word as any and better than most in describing the present effort.
Well the problem is that the "War on terrorism" expression can be used for almost anything, we know that Osama was behind the 9/11 attacks, and the pilots was from Saudi Araibia, but yet Bush attacks Iraq in the name of "War on terrorism".
In my mind, Afgan war was valid and it had my support whole hartly, if you where to attack Saudi you would get my support defenitly...
But attacking Iraq in the name of "War on terrorism" was wrong. Sure im happy to see Saddam gone, but i didnt like the way Bush sold the war, and the way people bought it...
-
Bush sold it? That's odd, I thought congress voted on it.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
So all muslims are terrorists... ah i get it... ..
no but it does appear the recent batch of nutbag terrorists are muslims with a hatred satified with only the death of those who are not
shouldn't let ur hatred of this admin blind u to who the real enemies are
-
Originally posted by Yeager
First value was the obvious one. Hussein had them in the past, used them in the past and could very well be prepared to have them and use them again.
And graciously US vetoed for Iraq in UN after it used WMD against Iranians.
Funny though, all the sudden it's not "ok" to even have those or even be suspected of.
This is something I find botheringly double faced.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
So Kieran,
The war was about finding 10 yr old buried leaking WMDs? good intel.
They are from the mid eighties making them almost 20 years old...And quite useless...Sorry,no WMD's here.
-
So..... chemical weapons are not dangeous.... if ..... the 'use by' date has expired?....
-
It should be clear to all that those on this board who are only interested in villifying Bush wont care if we find 10,000 nuclear warheads aimed at NYC.
It will never be enough to justify the action, it will always be too old, or it will never have been intended to be used. They dont want to be convinced, their pride in their own viewpoint is too strong, and their skulls too thick.
Hopefully, considering the lack of wide-spread reporting of this incident, and the fact that the administration itself is playing the find down, means that there is much else to be uncovered.
Good job guys.
-
Gawsh! Maybe a big `ol apology and a "do over" is in order, then! It may not be too late. Saddam is still alive. Reparations won't cost much more than the funds being used to rebuild the place anyhoo. I'm sure Saddam will make the best use of them.
It was a truly evil war fought by a truly evil power that had no business picking on the little guy who really wasn't a threat to anybody but his own people. Terrorism can't be stopped or even stalled. Besides, it's totally justified. The kids of the "Evil Satan" will just grow up to be adult "Evil Satans." At least the ones dying for Allah with a bomb strapped to their chests are doing something good before they die. Darth Bush must be stopped. Where is Luke Skywalker and the rest of the Jedi Knights when you need them? :D
-
Originally posted by Maniac
So all muslims are terrorists... ah i get it... you better start the draft and mount up for a long war.
Agreed...also.
Always felt that the draft instead of taking 18 - 20 year olds then working upwards should take 45 year olds and work downwards - would be far less wars and bellicose middle aged farts behind computer monitors should get a taste of what they wish for.
-
A lot of those middle aged pharts did their time on the front lines. Go figure.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
They are from the mid eighties making them almost 20 years old...And quite useless...Sorry,no WMD's here.
Mustard gas is quite useful even 50 after years at the bottom of an ocean.
At what point in your twisted mind does a WMD (by definition is mustard gas a WMD) become a non-WMD?
-
Sounds like France and Germany are badly violationg the rules by having buried & lost WMD... from WWI
I think they might want to find those.. should give a call to the danes, they seem to be good at finding lost WMD :D
-
As soon as you point to the UNSC resolution prohibiting them from owning WMD's...
-
Yep, they found some bio/chem weapons....
Looks like they have been burried for a long time tho. Those that found them, say they may come form the iran/iraq war or atleast 10 years old. They where rusted and useless.
But hey... they found something :aok
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
But hey... they found something :aok
Yep. Something Blix an crew didn't find over all those years.
Now one can assume this is the ONLY stuff buried, I guess. Or one can wait and see if anything else turns up.
Because, obviously, no one could possibly bury stuff like...oh... MiG-25's and have them remain hidden except for a freak sandstorm blowing the tails clear. Or stuff like chemical mortar rounds...
Yep... no way ANYTHING else could be hidden in Iraq.
You're all absolutely correct, there's no other possible conclusion.
-
I know AK does work even if buried into sand for a good while and then dug up... but I'd like to see MIG do the same :D
Always wondered why they buried the migs without any cover, just doesn't make sense... the sand probably isn't as wet and corrosing, but somehow I doubt you'll just wipe off the dust and fly away with it...
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The presence of WMDs in Iraq as justification for the most recent war were simply a means to an end. They didnt have to be there, it really didnt matter anyway...hussein was a sunuvabich whos time had come.
All being said and done, using WMDs as a tool to justify war was a valid tactic and employed to great success.
I edited your post to my liking.
I like it.
-
Just in case you missed the point accidentally Maniac (which I doubt), the presence of those shells, whether or not they are recent, constitutes:
1. The presence of WMD.
2. This means SH lied to the UN inspections teams.
3. This means our intelligence that said they must have some chemical or biological weapons that were unaccounted for was right.
4. It means taking anything SH or his scientists said at face value is foolish.
Is it impossibly difficult to wrap your mind around that?
Does it prove imminent threat? No. Does it increase the possibility stores of more lethal WMD weapons will be found. Yes.
A. When asked about WMDs, Iraq
B. lied about known weapons from the Iran/Iraq war
C. lied about WMD program thought to presently exist
A + B = A + C in all probability.
-
Originally posted by LLv34_Snefens
Reports here states that there are 150 shells at the site.
I guess 150 shells constitutes a stock pile of WMD
-
Im sure glad the US/UK atttacked Iraq now, the world is a safer place without those rusting mortar rounds... and almost no people had to give their lives to get rid of them either.
-
Over the past 50 years, in and around the aberdeen proving grounds people have been finding military ordinance buried in the groun... in some cases in neighborhoods where houses were built on top of old artilary ranges..
I wonder if the US government is employing the tactic of "burying" weapons to hide and save for future use....
Is that the intent?
How often does the US military loose weapons and equipment?
The soviets were notorious for loosing...even tanks...
There's an incident of a tank crew selling their tank to some chek for a case of vodka... this happened back in 1982.
Just like the Mobile BioChemical labs (which turned out to be hydrogen generators for weather balloons)... I'm sure these 150 shells were all part of the master Iraqi plan to take over the world...
It's a good thing we are too clever for them... and our Military Intelligence lead us right to that spot...
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yep. Something Blix an crew didn't find over all those years.
Perhaps because Blix was trying to find weapon ,not archeologic artefact.
Btw it would be good to have this archeologic WMD team work in north-east of France it would make our forest safer for the kids
-
And in what way does that change the fact that this is a WMD?
"Yes its a WMD, but its an old WMD" <-- so the ***** what?
-
Guys, the were burying fricken' fighter jets too. You suppose they just "accidentally" forgot where they were as well? Is it safe to assume living in a desert environment might teach a country how to evade detection of war materials by burying them in the, I dunno, desert? You suppose they might have developed a means to relocate these materials, or do you assume they wander from dune to dune like some old water prospector with a winnowing fork?
-
I just wonder how you're expecting to use those after buried for a 'few' years.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I just wonder how you're expecting to use those after buried for a 'few' years.
Put shell in backpack
Put explosives around shell
Put backpack on suicide bomber
Have suicide bomber detonate explosives while in some form of crowd
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Put shell in backpack
Put explosives around shell
Put backpack on suicide bomber
Have suicide bomber detonate explosives while in some form of crowd
Do you realize how big an artilery shell is? LOL
You just don't carry it around in a back pack with out people seeing it. LOL
-
Do you realize there are different kinds of artillery shells? This was a 120mm mortar shell. Something you could easily fit into a backpack.
-
Something about 15kg if I remember ,can be put in a rucksack easily.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I wish I has a picture of a big ugly troll doing the Nazi salute. I would have named it "Hortlund, the big ugly Swedish troll".
Skuzzy, please ban GS, or tell him to stop or whatever. I am tired of personal attacks like these.
-
:rolleyes:
Being called a troll/troller is not a personal attack.
-
Prophetic... http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-19-03.html
Sometime in the coming months, U.S. forces may well happen upon some VX canisters or anthrax stockpiles, and the administration will breathe a sigh of relief. Such a discovery may change the media's focus, but it can't change the facts: This war did not avert a serious threat to the United States. Instead, it may have created new ones.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
:rolleyes:
Being called a troll/troller is not a personal attack.
Being called a nazi is.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Put shell in backpack
Put explosives around shell
Put backpack on suicide bomber
Have suicide bomber detonate explosives while in some form of crowd
*figures the suicide bomber would be dead before reaching the crowd*
-
"....And in what way does that change the fact that this is a WMD? "Yes its a WMD, but its an old WMD" <-- so the ***** what?".
Well obviously what you think consitutes WMD and what Bush thinks constitutes WMD are two entirely different things. Do you not think if this fit the bill Bush wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops? Bush wants to find WMD "almost" as bad as you evidently do.
By the way, you do know what WMD stands for right? Just checking. Some people seem to displaying an ignorance of the most basic facts.
yowser
-
Originally posted by yowser
"....And in what way does that change the fact that this is a WMD? "Yes its a WMD, but its an old WMD" <-- so the ***** what?".
Well obviously what you think consitutes WMD and what Bush thinks constitutes WMD are two entirely different things. Do you not think if this fit the bill Bush wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops? Bush wants to find WMD "almost" as bad as you evidently do.
By the way, you do know what WMD stands for right?
yowser
Weapon of mass destruction. Meaning a weapon that kills indiscriminately.
By definition a chemical weapon is a weapon of mass destruction.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Weapon of mass destruction. Meaning a weapon that kills indiscriminately.
By definition a chemical weapon is a weapon of mass destruction.
So I guess you and Bush will just have to agree to disagree that these are WMD?
I wouldn't plan a career as a chemical weapons expert if I were you.
yowser
-
Originally posted by yowser
So I guess you and Bush will just have to agree to disagree that these are WMD?
I wouldn't plan a career as a chemical weapons expert if I were you.
yowser
*shrug* neither would I since I enjoy being a lawyer.
By definition a chemical weapon is a WMD. If you have a problem with this definition, take it up with someone who cares.
-
"...I enjoy being a lawyer. ".
That explains A LOT.'
Carry on.
yowser
-
LOL yowser :D
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Skuzzy, please ban GS, or tell him to stop or whatever. I am tired of personal attacks like these.
Personal attacks are not bannable. Have him post some chopper vids.
On a side note - anyone have a good argument why these blister gas filled artillery shells, which were stored in definance of numerous resolutions, never destroyed as promised, and lied about on the floor of the United Nations - should not be considered exactly what we're looking for?
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Personal attacks are not bannable. Have him post some chopper vids.
On a side note - anyone have a good argument why these blister gas filled artillery shells, which were stored in definance of numerous resolutions, never destroyed as promised, and lied about on the floor of the United Nations - should not be considered exactly what we're looking for?
...because the U.S. did not invade Iraq to enforce U.N. resolutions. The U.S. invaded Iraq because they "were" an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States. This was the argument for pre-emptive attack. Munitions long buried are proof that Hussein lied, but not proof of an imminent threat.
-
W = Weapons
M = Mass
D = Destruction
Your welcome.
yowser
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, I'm sure a few corroded and leaky shells of mustard gas were a clear and imminent threat to the security of the United States of America. Sure.
And the time is not all that far off, now that Saddam is in hand.
I don't personally consider this "stash" of mustard gas to be WMD "enough" to trigger an invasion.
OTOH..... and some of you dance around this..... they ARE chemical weapons. Now I haven't checked all the various UN pronouncements to see if they were on the "banned list" for Iraq.
The search isn't over yet. Hold the bile on both sides; give it another few months.
If Bush proves right about WMD, I'll probably vote for him.
If he proves wrong, I'll be voting for someone else, contributing to someone else and trying to sway votes for someone else.
After all, you can't go vigilante on a President, even if he deserves it. But you can kick him out.
-
Ah... someday those that have been screeming "they haven't found ANY WMD" as if it were some kind of battle cry will realize they've been every bit as ignorant and every bit the liars they accuse the Bush administration of being. Actually, I doubt it.
MiniD
-
Actually, the first scream in this thread was "They HAVE found WMD".
yowser
-
You're talking about this thread yowser. And you're completely ignoring the "never" part of my statement. Seems that those with their heads burried in the sand really only need to open their eyes and that's where they'll find the answers.
MiniD
-
BTW, the "WMD" topic was a coating the Bush administration used to make swallowing the pill of war a bit easier.
The "there are no WMD" argument that ensued was a complete lie refuted by every administration since the 80's. It amazes me how many people hold to these beliefs while insisting the Bush administration was lieing.
The truth is, the anti-war croud ****ed up on this one. The battle cry should never have turned into "there are no WMD in Iraq... they'll never find them". It should never have even become the primary issue for not going to war, or vilinizing the invassion. Though... I'm glad it did. "Never" is the easiest word to throw back in someone's face.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
...because the U.S. did not invade Iraq to enforce U.N. resolutions. The U.S. invaded Iraq because they "were" an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States.
The US did what the UN was supposed to do and did not: ensure Iraq complied with the resolutions. The UN failed and the US succeeded in making Iraq comply.
The UN regarded Iraq as a threat . The UN was once again proven to be worthless, offering tough words and no action to stand behind them.
The US did what we needed to do to ensure Saddam would not be a threat to us The US did what the UN should have done...... issue an ultimatum to Iraq. Iraq chose to beleive they could get away with whatever they pleased because France and Germany's weakness and failure to stand behind the UN resolutions gave Iraq that hope.
Now Iraq is in compliance, Saddam is gone and Iraqis are free from Saddam. Can someone please tell me what is bad aout any of that?
-
it aint what you do its how you do it.
your neibor kills a man you call the law and they do nothing. you then kill the man yourself, fine dandy, now your a murderer under the law and will be punished/killed.
countrys are the same some people just think being well armed makes us and exeption. they are wrong.
is that so hard to understand?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
BTW, the "WMD" topic was a coating the Bush administration used to make swallowing the pill of war a bit easier.
The "there are no WMD" argument that ensued was a complete lie refuted by every administration since the 80's. It amazes me how many people hold to these beliefs while insisting the Bush administration was lieing.
The truth is, the anti-war croud ****ed up on this one. The battle cry should never have turned into "there are no WMD in Iraq... they'll never find them". It should never have even become the primary issue for not going to war, or vilinizing the invassion. Though... I'm glad it did. "Never" is the easiest word to throw back in someone's face.
MiniD
Not sure where you're getting the "never" part. There's a big difference between wanting proof that there are WMD in Iraq and "there are no WMD in Iraq...they'll never find them". Most objective people are of the former group.
As for the people shouting "there are no WMD in Iraq...they'll never find them"....there are as many people shouting "There are WMD in Iraq". Each side is as clueless about the truth as the other.
A part of me and I'm sure others, sort of hopes they do find WMD. That means we could be wrong about this administration and it's motives. That would be much better for all concerned.
yowser
-
Yowser,
The proof has been in existance for the last 20 years. The debate is stating that the "proof" is wrong. Now the only proof that will be accepted is finding the WMD. Everything else has been disregarded. It's the equivelant of only convicting murderers if there is a videotape of them committing the murder.
Of course, that will be changed as people find out just how badly they've been behaving during all of this. People who had their chests sticking out screaming "oh yeah... well where are these WMDs?!" are just a little more deflated.
Basically, saying there were no WMDs is what is based on lack of proof and assumptions through ignorance. The proof showing there are was already there.
MiniD
-
I was never in the crowd that screamed that there was no WMD in iraq..(how should i know that anyway? and it was documented that they had them in the past)
I was, and still am in the "crowd" that thinks that the US/UK attack on Iraq AT THE TIME was very wrong. Removing Saddam and his friends was sertainly very good for the iraqis.
I belive that the UN should have been part of it to bring more of the world behind the move (would have taken more time of course), and that would have prevented the situation that now excists.
For one or two counties to do whatever they please in the world without caring what others think is a very dangerous situation (just read some history) and does nothing to improve stability.
One more thing is that for the US/UK to ask the rest of the world to help rebuild iraq without getting any lucerative contracts + asking them to remove all og iraqs debt is just asking for it.... Dont think those opposed to the war wants to pay american companies to do the jobs needed in Iraq.
The only winners in this conflict is going to be US corporations and the US military budgets. The loosers are taxpayers and all those iraqi, US, UK, italian troops and civillians that are dead and injured beacuse of this attack. Im also afraid that this conflict will create a larger recruiting base for terrorists.
-
MiniD,
Everybody accepts that Iraq had WMD and used them in the past. Nobody is arguing that.
The question is, did Iraq still possess them at the start of this war or have the capability of producing them. Or did they get rid of everything as they said they did?
I and many others initially supported this war because this administration told us Iraq had WMD and therefore was an imminent threat. We accepted this as fact. It now turns out the pre-war intel or at least the intel they chose to believe and presented was wrong. They did not find WMD where they thought it would be. Note that I am not saying they lied. I am saying they were wrong. Their only hope now is that they get lucky and find WMD where they did not know it existed.
In light of these events, I don't think asking for proof that Iraq was in possession of WMD at the start of this war is unreasonable.
yowser
-
Yowser, there were several issues in regards to WMD. The main issues were 1) the capability to manufacture them and 2) the unaccounted for WMD.
Once you have the capability, you always have the capability. The only thing that is debatable is the nuclear capabilities, but that is simply debatable not dismissable. The biochemical aspect of things is not debatable... capabilities are there.
Then we come to unaccountable WMD. This is what was most innefective over the last 15 years... the fact that Iraq did not destroy anything in a manner that could prove it's destruction. They'd simply not be there. I have a tendancy to say that digging up a batch of chemical weapons from the desert has a tendancy to show that Iraq's version of destroying weapons is different that the rest of the world's (including the UN's). Of course, the gentlement burying shoulder launched missiles in the sand were just trying "to destroy them" too.
MiniD
-
I'm still waiting for a live speach from the White House proclaiming WMD were found....
Surely, this is it! This proves their point!
Why are they silent?
Let's put in to perspective here that the Bush Administration proclaimed that Iraq had tons of WMD - what was the phrase Bushed in his state of the union address... oh yah "Stock Piles"
That's why the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said in their report:
"It is unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or sent out of the country the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons, dozens of Scud missiles and facilities engaged in the ongoing production of chemical and biological weapons that officials claimed were present without the United States detecting some sign of this activity," said the report by Jessica T. Mathews, Joseph Cirincione and George Perkovich.
But ok.... if these 150 rusted mortal shells aren't them... take your time... go find some more!
-
OK, we have a match.
Nak is DmdNexus.
See if you can figure what gave it away using the BBS search function.
;)
-
these are the same people that thought Gorby was the man of the decade and Reagan was the devil. Im guessing Hussein is their next choice for man of the decade.
The liberal doves have no credibility to me. Never have.
To Bush I say, "Four More Years" and lets start thinking about who to put up against the next democratic candidate for 2008. Need to stay ahead on these matters, there is simply too much to lose.
Yeah, its got to be dmdnx. what happened, did he get banned?
-
Weapon of mass destruction. Meaning a weapon that kills indiscriminately.
(Hortlund's idea of a WMD)
Hort what do you think a MOAB does? Kills only unfriendlies? How about cluster bombs or landmines? How about a 500lb bomb? A gunship? A 16 inch shell? How discriminate are these weapons?
Maybe I misunderstand you, are you saying that the entire world should disarm?
WMD's are MASS DESTRUCTION. Think mushrom cloud. I think probably flying a plane into a skyscraper qualifies. Some bio agents, if a way could be found to disperse them, since they could spread by human contact and infect others. Chemicals could be WMDS if used in the right place. Sarin and Ricin are 2 good examples, as are cyanide gas (smells like almonds - from NBR training) and nerve agents - let off in sufficient quantities in a closed, heavily populated area - like a closed in stadium at superbowl.
Blister agents are not deadly unless they are not treated. Period. They do not qualify as Wepons of Mass Destruction. Your evidence does not support your rhetoric, counsellor.
strk
-
Originally posted by strk
Blister agents are not deadly unless they are not treated. Period. They do not qualify as Wepons of Mass Destruction. Your evidence does not support your rhetoric, counsellor.
This statement is nonsense. Plenty of nerve agents have antidotes. There are treatments for a variety of bacterial and viral weapons, therea are even vaccinations for some too. Does that not make them WMD?
I think you are really trying too hard to downplay this small and and yes rather unsubstantial find of old WMD, I wonder why - what are you really afraid of?
Would you apply the same reasoning if 1000 gallons of Mustard were found? Dont say they havent found any yet, thats beyond the scope of the question. Just answer if you would say that you dont think 1000 gallons of mustard are not WMD...
-
The mortor rounds contained a blister agent, not considered lethal unless the mortor round lands on your head. These were not WMDs. Rather these types of munitions are better used for terrorizing and incapacitating an enemy by forcing them to flee or wear protective gear. These mortor rounds were very old but proves that munitions can last for a long time buried in the desert.
This is a moot discussion anyway. Hussein has used WMDs in the past and had the capacity to use them again, at his whim. It was enough, under the circumstances referred to as "Iraq" to justify military action in my opinion.
Everyone here knows this truth:
If any WMDs are found they will undoubtedly be many years old and buried in the desert and the people in support of Hussein will never accept it as an excuse to remove Hussein and the people opposed to Hussein could care less if WMDs are ever found.
The end of this story is Hussein is out. Whatever happens now will happen without Hussein.
-
This statement is nonsense. Plenty of nerve agents have antidotes. There are treatments for a variety of bacterial and viral weapons, therea are even vaccinations for some too. Does that not make them WMD?
No it does make sense, WMDs are weapons that kill almost instantly. Ricin, Sarin, even Anthrax when inhaled is almost always fatal. Nuclear weapons are the best example.
Maybe I shouldnt have listed nerve agents earlier, but I figured that not everyone would have a vial of atropine to stick in their thigh when it hit. Forget nerve agents, they probably shouldnt be considered WMDs.
I think the kicker is they have to be lethal to a large percentage of those exposed in a short amount of time. SOmeone spreading a cold virus is not proliferating WMDs
And yes, thousands of liters of mustard gas would be cause for alarm. It is nasty stuff.
strk
-
Originally posted by strk
No it does make sense, WMDs are weapons that kill almost instantly. Ricin, Sarin, even Anthrax when inhaled is almost always fatal. Nuclear weapons are the best example.
Are you being serious? The definition of WMD is constantly changing to serve the arguments of those opposed to the war. Do you even listen to what youre saying?
We find blister gas packed arty shells.
And since you seem to think blister gas does not kill 'immediately' its not considered a WMD? What a crock of ****.
Blister gas is so bad that by the time youve been exposed you'll wish you were dead. I cant believe you would actually go so far as to try and downplay the effects of chemical weapons in order to serve your own political agenda.
Thats just sick.
-
Agree with MiniD on this one. WMD was the thing that caught the American attention, the item seized by the left as a weapon to villainize the war, but make no mistake, numerous reasons for the war were given. A simple search of the speeches will prove this to anyone willing to look.
Iraq lied about chemical weapons- is anyone surprised? But, instead of saying "yup, that looks bad" we get "well, that isn't so bad". Hmm, who's putting politics ahead of the truth?
-
Yeager I beg to differ on your "land on your head" statement. Blister agent will stay in an area for long periods of time so long as the conditions are correct. A victim left untreated can kill and any ingestion of a blister agent is lethal. Do a search for blister agents used on the Turkish Kurds.
Unlike a vapor based chemical weapon these agents though they are less likely to cause damage if your not in the blast area or come into direct contact are still very deadly weapons. They are infact more detectable than a vapor weapon but again are still deadly if used correctly and precautionary measures aren't used or implemented early enough.
Ingestion is lethal due to the fact large blister will form in your lungs and then in the end burst filling your lungs with fluids thus you can no longer breath. While a vapor based agent requires immediate protection, equipped units will most likely be protected prior to the attack while civilians wouldn't.
No matter what way you look at it these type of weapons are weapons that inflict cruel and unusual torture on it's victims thus banned by the UN.
Strk some biological warfare is often spread through common colds and is why many rogue nations seek these for weapons. The plague is a perfect example of such a weapon that can be spread fairly easily. Granted it's not the common cold but it is very lethal and spreads extremely fast.
And why would you say nerve agents aren't a weapon of mass destruction but yet Ricin, Sarin and anthrax are? They can't be transmitted in the manner of a biological weapon and if anyone can remember the attack in the subway in Tokoyo the attack wasn't lethal as it only killed 12 and injured over 6.000. Now use a biological weapon such as the common cold with a twist and those 6,000 could multiply to millions in just a matter of weeks. Especially with as enclosed as some of these cities are with hundreds of thousands of people passing each other in the close confines of things such as subways and malls.
What determines if a weapon is considered part of WMD is how it could be used and what it's overall outcome could be. So nuclear weapons though everyones worst fears aren't the only WMD to be concerned about. Neither is such things as many chemical weapons as there deployment is much more difficult than lets say a biological weapon. Carrier/Host delivered weapons should be the most feared weapon in the world due to the fact that an overwhelming amount of infections would be extremely hard to counter or nullify and detection is often discovered after it's too late. There are even concerns of a strain of the flu that killed millions back in the day and because the flu strains are recurring it could be deadly the day it comes back, it's just a matter of when and where.
-
Originally posted by strk
No it does make sense, WMDs are weapons that kill almost instantly. Ricin, Sarin, even Anthrax when inhaled is almost always fatal. Nuclear weapons are the best example.
There is a very effective vaccine for anthrax. Sarin cant be that bad because of the 5,000+ confirmed casualties exposed to it in the confines of Tokyo subway trains only 12 died. Ricin, dont know much about ricin - but hey how bad can little castor beans really be?
In other words none of those are WMD either. :) Right?
-
cant believe you would actually go so far as to try and downplay the effects of chemical weapons in order to serve your own political agenda.
The same results can be hadfrom conventional weapons. A mortar on your position or a grenade in your foxhole could hurt you so bad that you wanted to die.
Let me put this in a way you might understand. THere is not some bright line where we can say this is a WMD and this isnt. A MOAB definately causes mass destruction. So does a nuke, of course.
There are conventional weapons and there are WMD's. Mustard gas and most nerve agents are conventional type weaponse (both in period of use and development and in their effects). Nukes, Sarin and Ricin are WMDs - they cause near instant widespread death.
You are overstating the importance of 10-20 year old mustard gas to support your political agenda.
strk
-
No, I am pointing out Iraq was under UN resolution to declare any weapons undestroyed, and a list of items was given. Assuming these types of weapons were on the list (and they almost certainly were) Iraq would have been in violation of sanctions, which means the terms of the ceasefire were breached and the ceasefire was null and void. Now we all know the UN was never going to act on this type of offense no matter what evidence could ever be found. This point was effectively made over and over in the months and years preceding Gulf War II.
So... the US unilaterally decided to take matters into its own hands, pointing out the obvious. Perhaps mistakenly the WMD argument was thrown in, and certainly imminent threat has not been proven, but... illegal weapons are being found, at least opening the possibility truly lethal WMD will be found.
FWIW, the reason the US can have the MOAB is the US isn't under UN sanction to not have it... in addition, it isn't the losing party in a war whose ceasefire is conditional on the US giving up such weapons.
There you go... I hope I put that in a way YOU could understand. ;)
-
Originally posted by strk
You are overstating the importance of 10-20 year old mustard gas to support your political agenda.
strk
I am doing no such thing. I support the action WMD or no WMD. Dont confuse 'shock and awe' over the arguments of the anti-war camp with serious consideration.
It would be nice if we found some large weapons caches, but since Im not losing sleep trying to think of new ways to villify Bush, it isnt high on my list of things that need attention.
Right now Id rather examine the ways in which Bush plans to stabilize the country, install a progressive government, ensure the growth of the Iraqi economy, provide for the security of the local population and our troops, and most importantly, get our troops back home following the completion of the above mentioned objectives.
-
blister agents (mustard gas) are in no way a threat, it's just redculus.*
* see WW1.
the liberal mind is a terrible waste.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So does that change the fact that they are chemical warheads, WMD's...?
Maniac *picture emoticon of a tard*
actualy Washington said , that Iraq have WMD, whitch can be used in 45 mins....
So basicaly this is not what they used to speak about
this is not what they used to scare you
-
Actually, Iraq claimed they had no chemical agents. They obviously did.
You are right if you say we haven't found WMD capable of attacking the US in 45 minutes.
You are wrong if you are concluding with certainty no such weapons existed.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
no but it does appear the recent batch of nutbag terrorists are muslims with a hatred satified with only the death of those who are not
shouldn't let ur hatred of this admin blind u to who the real enemies are
If you will look on geographic area, you will find that 90% of people are muslims
so its pretty big chanse, that what ever they do, its quite possible that he will be 'muslim'
in our country is about 70% atheists.. so if somebody do something evil, you could consider, that evil atheist do a lot of bad things, because ... bla bla bla bla
If someone from ME is reported to be a muslim, its realy not surprise. Reporting it again and again is as silly as ... look that Jewish Sharon ****cked peace talks again
got it ?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Actually, Iraq claimed they had no chemical agents. They obviously did.
You are right if you say we haven't found WMD capable of attacking the US in 45 minutes.
You are wrong if you are concluding with certainty no such weapons existed.
every body know that they had these from war with Iran
However WMD, whitch could be possible ready for use hasnt been found
so what has been found ... few pretty useless shells... just look at the pictures...
somehow i have problem to imagine, how could they use it even 5 years ago .. it appear to be horde of old iron
im still missing those, whitch US claimed that SH gonna use 60km around capital..
Well according to prewar, war speaches about WMD, im somehow not satisfy with these pictures
-
Originally posted by strk
Maybe I misunderstand you, are you saying that the entire world should disarm?
[/b]
Not only are you missunderstanding me, you are raising a very serious question as to whether you should be in this discussion at all.
By definition, a WMD is either a biological, a chemical or a nuclear weapon. If you take a MOAB and load it with chemicals...then fine, it is a WMD.
I think probably flying a plane into a skyscraper qualifies.
Then you are wrong.
Blister agents are not deadly unless they are not treated. Period.
Inhale it, the treat it. Good luck.
-
On a side note, it will be hard now to blame UN investigators for not having found WMDs when SH was ruling the country when it took months for the US to eventually find 150 old mortar rounds while they are controlling Iraq.
As I haven't participated to those threads since a looooong time let me resume my opinions before they are questioned:
1) SH is a total bad guy. Glad he is gone.
2) US has still to prove me that Iraq was an imminent threat to the Western countries justifying a premptive invasion
3) I fear that the invasion of Iraq will
3.a.) fuel the US hate in the arab world
3.b.) now that SH's tyranny is history, leave the room to a Taliban-like influence amongst the population who seems to be more and more hostile to the US presence as time passes. Between two enemies, I prefer a 'classic' dictator with WMDs than religion-freaks with WMDs...because the latter don't fear to die and would gladly do so if they can take out a lot of their enemies with them. So if there are really WMDs in Iraq, I would like them to be found before another bad guy puts his hand on them.
-
I won't argue with that. Bush had better make good on being gone from Iraq this summer. We'll see.
To Orel, how many lies from Iraq do you have to hear before you'll entertain the possibility that maybe, just maybe Bush didn't lie? You are aware the missiles being developed by Iraq had a range outside the limits set by the UN, right? There have been precursor materials found here and there. Now we find shells that shouldn't exist. Nope, no way Iraq was misbehaving, no way.
And please, continue to ignore the rest of the reasons laid out by Bush for going to war. Please focus intently on the imminent threat line, you might see there was more to it than that if you don't focus too hard.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
On a side note, it will be hard now to blame UN investigators for not having found WMDs when SH was ruling the country when it took months for the US to eventually find 150 old mortar rounds while they are controlling Iraq.
You mean the same UN inspectors that said inspections were working? The same UN inspectors lead by Hans Blix, who said he needed 2 more weeks ( or something like that) to certify Iraq in compliance? :lol
-
Originally posted by Kieran
You are aware the missiles being developed by Iraq had a range outside the limits set by the UN, right?
Yep Iraq had plans to build a missile...
they were still in Autocad format... never made it to prototype....
In fact, the analysis from weapons experts discovered the design was significantly flawed.
Having plans and having real weapons are two different things.
So far, that brings the total Iraqi WMD stock pile to....
150 rusted mortar shells
1 Auto CAD drawing
over 6,000 US wounded and maimed
Over 500 dead
Over 20,000 Iraqi dead
Pyrrhic victory
-
Nak/Nex, how many of the wounded/dead did you know personally?
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
The US did what the UN was supposed to do and did not: ensure Iraq complied with the resolutions. The UN failed and the US succeeded in making Iraq comply.
The UN regarded Iraq as a threat . The UN was once again proven to be worthless, offering tough words and no action to stand behind them.
In other words, the U.S. exists as the strong arm of a useless organization.
I don't think so.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Agree with MiniD on this one. WMD was the thing that caught the American attention, the item seized by the left as a weapon to villainize the war, but make no mistake, numerous reasons for the war were given.
The only ones that matter are the existence of a threat. We cannot afford to take down every oppressive government. The tax burden is too great. This was a war of convenience.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
In other words, the U.S. exists as the strong arm of a useless organization.
I don't think so.
The worthless organization only exists because of the USA's strong arm and money.
The US doesn't need the UN's permission to act on a threat which even the UN agreed was a threat.
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
Yep Iraq had plans to build a missile...
they were still in Autocad format... never made it to prototype....
In fact, the analysis from weapons experts discovered the design was significantly flawed.
Having plans and having real weapons are two different things.
So far, that brings the total Iraqi WMD stock pile to....
150 rusted mortar shells
1 Auto CAD drawing
over 6,000 US wounded and maimed
Over 500 dead
Over 20,000 Iraqi dead
Pyrrhic victory
Wrong, Nexus. They tested missiles that flew over the limit. We found weapons that supposedly didn't exist. We found evidence scientists were hiding pieces of a centrifuge. University laboratories were for some reason scrubbed only hours before inspectors arrived (circumstantial evidence, I agree)... and the biggest thing of all, SH sure played like he had WMD.
Truth is, Iraq breached the ceasefire and sanctions many times and many ways. The more we dig, the more ways we'll find, too. Now if you want to argue the things we've found are no big deal, fine, but you at least have to concede they were all violations of sanctions, and nullify the ceasefire. Still, all you do is re-enforce the concept of the UN as a worthless entity. They share your opinions and are therefore rendered moot.
As long as SH was in power we were going back, and it didn't matter who was president. That should be abundantly clear after 12 years of friction between our countries.
-
Try and be honest, if it is at all possible. No one has yet called it an imminent threat.
-
The UN failed and the US succeeded in making Iraq comply.
Which method do you guys think was more succsessful.... the US method or the UN's method?
To be fair, the UN only needed 2 more weeks though, so maybe the US jumped the gun too soon after 12 years of trying the UN's method.
The UN should be happy that the goal of Iraqi compliance has been realized . Rejoice UN, rejoice! Making Iraq comlply was the goal of the UN correct?
-
Not
True.
Imminent threat was only one reason given. It was a stupid card to play, but it was NOT the only reason given, nor was it the only reason Congress went along with it. What you are seeing from Congress is political opponents trying to make hay in an election year, nothing new there.
The UN never went along with the war, so why even bring that up?
Besides that, what does that have to do with you dishonestly stating people here are calling the shells imminent threat?
-
Ah, so you don't intend to be honest. Cool.
BTW, the question you refuse to answer is "Who here has said those shells constitute an imminent threat". Give me a name. Any member of this board. Or... you could again attempt to distract attention from that lie. Your choice.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Try and be honest, if it is at all possible. No one has yet called it an imminent threat.
45 minutes away! That's what they said. What could be more imminent?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Basically EVERYONE who call this "find" justification for the war is calling it an imminent threat. The only LEGAL justification for this war is an attack on the USA or the IMMINENT threat of one. The US administration knew this and that's why they played that card hopeing Hussein would prove them right. They were wrong.
Wrong. What this "find" indicates is Iraq lied about their disposal of chemical weapons. That lie might indicate (to a logical person, anyway) they lied about more than that. Mix that with the other things I mentioned and you have mounting evidence that perhaps Bush wasn't all wet WRT Iraq's intentions to mount a program to develop WMD, or his assertion they already had them. That's the part you can't stand, I'm sure; that maybe, just maybe Bush was right.
In short, the jury is still out. I haven't made up my mind yet, though it is very clear you have. Now if you want to parse what has been stated here to fit your political agenda that's cool, but I reserve the right to call you a liar if you do (as I am one of the people you are accusing of saying something I have taken great pains NOT to say).
Bush was foolish to use the words "imminent threat", no contest. If it was the only reason given for war you'd be right- but it wasn't, and you aren't.
As for the UN and the UNSC, they can step off a cliff for all I care. Hell, no one would even notice they were missing.
-
I don't believe mustard gas was ever on the list of WMD claimed by Powell in the UN speech. Here it is for your reading pleasure.
http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Outlines/MidE/PowellUNspeech5Feb03htm.html
-
So chemical or biological agents (generically) aren't covered? I'd find that hard to believe. And anyway, isn't mustard gas specifically banned by the Geneva Convention?
-
45 minutes away! That's what they said. What could be more imminent?
====
I seem to recall hearing something along those lines, back in the day, but I cant recall who said it or when. Any info?
-
My, my, my, twist to the end. The UN is a joke, but that isn't the point of this discussion, now is it?
BTW, your failure to admit you lied is noted. ;)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
So chemical or biological agents (generically) aren't covered? I'd find that hard to believe. And anyway, isn't mustard gas specifically banned by the Geneva Convention?
That's not what I said.
Here are notes on Powells speech re. chemical weapons
CHEMICAL
defector confirms image of site at mussayib, then site bulldozed & graded in later photo.
Intercepted communication tape: Col. instructs Captain to remove expression "nerve agents" from wireless instructions.
100-500 tons of chemical agent, could fill thousands of rockets.
When will we see rest of submerged iceberg?
Experiments on humans, 1600 death row prisoners moved, tied to beds and autopsies performed -- human source.
-
I stand corrected.
My point regarding mustard gas and the Geneva Convention stands, however. It was something they should not have had.
-
Believe me, no troll. Discuss honestly if you can. Admit you are wrong when you are proven wrong. Simple.
-
Geez.. looks like those pro-war people are now going ranting about 'no-wmd' people.
I could have told them long before the war (like I have...) there can very well be findings of old WMD stuff, but what does that show.... not like someones going to use hazardous weapons, which are more probably danger to the user.
Theres no evidence of WMD developtment/manufacturing from between the gulf wars yet... which I thought was the main reason why the 'coalition' attacked Iraq, not the disposed WMD's.
Kieran,
Just funny that US sort of supported Iraqi WMD.
Not like it's their fault they have WMD if one of the greatest nations supports them and uses even vetos to save their arse.
(not to mention where from some of the WMD was bought from :rofl )
-
I'll give you that. It shouldn't have happened. But where do you start to clean up a mess? And more, it illustrates how the UN can be manipulated.
America is guilty of supporting bad folks, no doubt. Mea culpa. Are we going to pretend the US is alone in this behavior? Really? Are we going to pretend the UN actually stops this kind of behavior, or even limits it? Really?
Time to come to that big realization everyone is looking out for #1. You Scandinavians could benefit from a little soul-searching as well. Your associations are less than... pristine. ;)
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Just funny that US sort of supported Iraqi WMD.
Which begs the question..Why did USA sell chemical weapons to Iraq in the first place?
One can only assume it was so they could use it and kill people with it.
Which begs another question...What is the bigger crime?..The dealer selling WMD or the buyer?
Talk about your fuggn indian giver.
-
Hard work defending Bush these days eh Kieren? :)
Can somebody else not take over for a little while and give the poor guy a break?
yowser
-
Do you think I want a lecture on the proud history you folks enjoyed as collaborators?
Paper (http://www.feldgrau.com/a-norway.html)
Oh! Look! (http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/soviet-union/soviet-union286.html)
The Scandinavian states act to minimize the Soviet security threat through a mix of military preparedness and nonprovocative, accommodationist policies.
Shall I parse this in the manner you have parsed the conversation here today? ;)
-
Originally posted by yowser
Hard work defending Bush these days eh Kieren? :)
Can somebody else not spell you for a little while?
yowser
Hardly. I'd vote against Bush if the inept party of the left could generate a viable candidate that won't be 100% worse. They can't, so what choice do I have?
I had time to kill today, and Gscholz was up to the rhetorical blather and outright lies. Both events merged in a beautiful synergy of purpose.
-
"Complete".
And you are a complete liar. ;)
Hey, if you can parse people being interested in recent chemical weapons finds into people who believe them to be an imminent threat, I can parse your Quisling affair into full-blown nazism. See how it works?
-
Originally posted by yowser
Hard work defending Bush these days eh Kieren? :)
Can somebody else not take over for a little while and give the poor guy a break?
yowser
I'll step up.
These people that are arguing over 45 minuts or imminant threat are just really deflecting the real issue. The REAL issue is that the UN was a COMPLETE failure at getting Iraq to comply with it's resolutions. Nothing but force or at least the credible threat of force was going to work on Saddam....and the UN offfered NIETHER, thus ENSURING a war would eventually happen.
The UN resolutions and Iraqs FAILURE to comply with them are the issue and the ONLY issue. The UN agreed that Iraq probably had WMD as well as banned weapons. The UN screwed around for 12 years trying to get Iraq to be nice and comply. Iraq was NEVER going to comply.
You guys can't even see the forest for the trees. The issue was that Iraq was identified as a threat BY THE UN and the UN did nothing to ensure that Iraq would comply.
Maybe you guys don't like the way it was resolved, but the fact is that the issue was resolved. The UN's goal of Iraqi compliance has come to fruition.
Why even bother arguing about what Bush said or didnt say? The issue is over and for the better of all involved. Can't anyone see that?
-
Gscholz-
Yes, you are. ;)
It would have been easier for you to admit you'd made a mistake a little higher up. You've been calling many here neo-cons, then got all huffy when I mentioned your "agenda". You don't even know me, how would you know if I am a neo-con?
Hypocrisy noted.
I can more easily make the case your country collaborated with the nazis than you can Bush only stated "imminent threat" as a reason to go to war. There is at least some truth to the argument I could make.
-
get our troops back home
Amen to that
strk
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Godzilla, you may like international vigilantism and US world police. I don't.
But I don't consider it to be a case of vigilantism. I consider the action justified in order to ensure Iraq would not post a threat to the US in ANY way.
The UN identified Iraq as a threat, and the US also did. Nobody knew at the time what Saddam had for sure. The only thing EVERYONE knew at the time was that Iraq was not complying with the resolutions.
Now, after what happened to us on 911, I prefer we take NO chances on a known liar and a known threat such as Iraq. I prefer my country stop people like Saddam before they get a chance to do anything to us. Saddam already tried to kill a former President and who knows what else. You dont think we are justified going in after all that was known of Saddam at the time?
It's not like the US was picking on Iraq.....Iraq had ALL the options to prevent this, but chose NONE of them. Iraq decided Iraq'a fate.
Can you not see any merit in these views? It's not like we didn't give Iraq a chance to simply comply
-
I said the chemical rounds were reason for concern, and indicitive of lying on the Iraqis' part. You stated the "neo-cons" are taking a few rounds and calling them an "imminent threat", something no one at all has said. Since my posts are as close to a defense of Bush as you might find in the thread (Hortlund's efforts notwithstanding) I can presume you were referring to me in both cases, if not personally, then by association.
Heck, even the Americans in the field and the Whitehouse aren't calling it proof of an imminent threat.
As for your "agenda", I won't pretend to know it. In the context I used it I am referring to your "purpose" for saying such a thing. You must have one, though I can only guess what it is.
-
No.
If you can't accept the simple fact you are putting words into the mouths of people with whom you disagree, why should I post anything of the sort for you? You are clearly either incapable of understanding the words or you are intentionally twisting them, and little purpose would be served honoring your request for "threats to the US".
-
Originally posted by GScholz
To whom it may consern Kieran. So I MUST have an agenda huh? Well if you say so.
You don't? I do. It ain't necessarily a bad thing, you know.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What threat did Iraq pose to the USA? Be spesific.
To begin with, it was ANY potential threat and that is enough for me. For instance, that Saddam had tried to KIll Bush Sr, that Saddam could pass WMD to a terrorist, that he could harbor or train them. The threat that Iraq could lauch a scud with WDM into Israel just to destabilize the regeon......and any number of other "unknowns"
The threats may or may not have been imminent, but just the fact that they were there and the fact that Saddam was not complying made that enough of a reason. We were dealing with a known lair who was deceiving he world till the end......what more reasons could we possibly need?
I would be very happy if you and others would just acknowledge that we had every right to make sure Saddam was put out of action, even if we needed to go alone.
-
Kieran keeps talking and talking, not noticing how hes talking about things which are true against him as well..
Hypocrisy comes to mind, eh? :D
"you are putting words into the mouths of people with whom you disagree" :rofl
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What threat did Iraq pose to the USA? Be spesific.
Do you mean besides an attempted assasination of a US president? Or besides 12 years of taking pot shots at US aircraft?
I won't even go into all the other reasons 'cause I know you'll deny them.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Then you'd better be prepared to wait untill hell freezes over because you have no such right and you have signed the UN Charter which strictly forbids this use of military force unless used in self defence. The US broke its word. The US cannot be trusted. It's that simple. I would never do bussiness with a US company if substancial money was involved, the US does not recognize international trade courts. I would never turn a POW over to any US unit, the US does not recognize international war-crimes tribunals. The US sets itself above established international laws and treaties.
So, after Iraq tries to kill a US President, we should just not do anything? After Iraq fires at our aircraft, we should stand down?
The US is bad and Iraq was a victem I suppose.
-
There is only one reason we are in Iraq - the Big-O
OIL
If we went after every dictator terrorizing his people, ever human rights violater, every country with WMDs, we would be at war for the next 50 years. We should be invading China first, then North Korea, Iran, Syria, maybe Saudi Arabia, some of the former Soviet countries.
Now it is great that we dethroned an awful brutal dictator and we may find some WMD's yet (it sure would help our reputation in the world) the only reason we are really in Iraq is so that US companies can get their hands on Iraqi oil.
That is the reason we rushed to help Kuwait in the first place.
Big Oil owns everything. Industry needs Energy. US politicians on both sides of the aisle are so bought and paid for it isnt funny.
strk
-
I rest ASSURED that Iraq will not be a threat to the US now, thanks to the US and not the UN.
I rest ASSURED that the UN is worthless.
I rest ASSURED that the only country looking out for the US is the US.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
While you're at it rest assured you have gained more enemies than friends over this. Rest assured that the terrorist recruiters are having a field day. Rest assured you're not safer, quite the opposite.
Sure. It's funny how fast LIbya and Iran have suddenly seen the light. It's funny what a little POWER will do to put fear in these idiots. Even NK seems to be towing the line.
Power and the use of force has been the law of man since anyone can remember. Power talks, the UN walks basically.
You are just lucky that a country like the US has the power.
I guess what you are saying is that it's better not to piss off terrorists. LOL!
I say if they declare war on us, lets have a war. Don't be shy terrorists......lets have a war......isn't that what the terrorists have said anyway? "Death to America" and such? Well countries like Iran, whos prayers of Death to America, should be careful whaqt they wish for.
-
He's not a fascist, and don't call him Jesus.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Sure. It's funny how fast LIbya and Iran have suddenly seen the light. It's funny what a little POWER will do to put fear in these idiots. Even NK seems to be towing the line.
My Gad, this bbs has hope.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Jesus, you're a fascist. You probably don't know it though.
so you worry about pissing off people that call for your country's death?
LOL
I chose to find these idiots that chant to our death and take the fight to them.
-
GREAT POST, Now I am sorry the US took out Saddam
LOL!
-
I see a pattern...buried Migs...buried munitions
Hrmmm.....maybe they were planning to drop these buried shells with their buried Migs!!!!!!!
Crafty buggers...
What we should be doing is invading countries with an abundance of shovels!!!!!!
Make it easier when coming up for a decent reason I suppose when it's all about those shovels....I mean weapons....I mean freedom....I mean Saddam...I mean...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Jesus, you're a fascist. You probably don't know it though.
Wow, now that's an argument.
-
Bottom line: Iraq has complied with UN resolutions and the UN should be happy about that....their 12 year saga has ended in victory, although the UN had nothing to do with it's execution, the final UN goal has been realised.
UN for all your hard work in making Iraq compliant with your very srtick resolutions.
-
GScholz obviously you have no understanding of the US's policies. Though not everything may be liked by all but a threat to the US includes Allies (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Norway, ect..). So when it's said a threat to the US it's in many ways not just directly on our home land.
And since you brought up the fact that going to war is illegal unless the UN approves because of a direct attack then why are you in Afghanistan? How and when was Norway ever involved here that justified there involvement? How about in Iraq during the first Gulf War, was your country immediately threatened or placed under attack?
It's also rather funny you say you'd have no involvement in business transactions with the US but your country obviously enjoys the perks of being an Ally. Especially beings the fact they own C-130's, F-16's, and F-5's that were so graciously made available by the US. I'm sure I could find more ties that your country has to the US that I'm sure you'd enjoy learning about.
Simple fact is Iraq, more like SH brought this upon himself after sanctions were placed on his country after the first Gulf War. And no matter how much you'd like to disagree or spout off your Anti-US bs you can't deny the fact that Iraq has failed to comply in many differents ways since 1991. There's a long list of failures to comply by SH including his long range missiles and acquiring advanced technology that could be used in war.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Godzilla, you may like international vigilantism and US world police. I don't.
You should or Broda and his ilk would be the bbs police not Skuzzy. (if there was a bbs to post to considering the policies of our red friends you would prob would be in a "reeducation camp" anyway)
Carry on.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
Sure. It's funny how fast LIbya and Iran have suddenly seen the light. It's funny what a little POWER will do to put fear in these idiots. Even NK seems to be towing the line.
You can thank our friends in Europe for the turnaround by Qaddafi. It wasn't the Bush administration.
Libya's agreement to disarm under the watch of international inspectors is a welcome development but it is not as dramatic a turnaround as Bush & Co want us to believe. According to Joseph Cirincone, an arms specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "It's part of a trend that has been underway for ten years--of reforms and trying to reintegrate with Europe, mainly for business reasons."
-
So GScholz I'm taking it you have contacts inside your government that gives you this knowledge of US supplied weapons to your nation? I highly doubt that.
I find it funny that you say the GWI was a UN operation and where were they after the "Operation"? Is it typical for the UN to go in and then just leave and think all is good after a country has tried to envade another? I suppose they just figured SH would just sit back and be a good boy from then on?
And we can't forget how well the UN backed up the resolutions that they agreed upon for Iraq. Obviously they did pretty good since Iraq had been and did build missiles that were against the resolutions. Oh wait I'm sure you'll have a nice come back as US's intelligence agencies should have alerted the UN to anything like this. And well ofcourse I'm sure you have intelligence that states not one of them were ever used and were just prototypes that were ofcourse made prior to the whole resolution thing. Or better yet that the Iraqi government had no clue that such missiles had the capability of reaching such places as Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
I'm sure we can also bring up those resolutions somewhere and find that any failure to comply was immediate reason for use of lethal force to make them comply. I guess thats one of those fine print things that everyone seems to miss in the contract. Oh but wait Iraq never did anything to violate the resolutions correct? All WMD and long range missile programs had be disposed of correct?
And answer me this since obviously you have all the knowledge when it comes to Iraq. Why did Iraq keep moving surface to air missiles and SCUD launchers to the border of Kuwait even after the war if they didn't plan on using them? And I'm sure your answer will be to defend themselves against pending air attacks by the US and Britain patrolling the no fly and drive zones. Because ofcourse we were there to attack Iraq and it's people right?
GScholz I wish I lived in your little world where it seems everyone is so peaceful and perfect. Maybe you should run around in little 60's getups so as to fit in with what seems to be a horde of hippies these days. It'd also be nice to be so nieve as yourself so that daily life is more of a blur than reality itself. Hey but you got one thing going for you, you'll always be welcome in France.
-
(http://www.stomptokyo.com/img-m2/son-godzilla-a.jpg)
-
Love the "get an education" line. Is that all you can say or are you going to avoid answering the questions that you obviously don't know the answer to.
And do honestly think it matters whether or not the US cares if you are impressed with us? We are constantly the bad guy no matter what we do, good or bad. What are you going to keep us from coming to the NATO Airmeet every year? My god we won't be able to fly around in little tiger striped aircraft, what will we do. And god knows with out Norway we would be in such dire straits if we ever went to war.
Simple fact is Iraq broke the UN resolutions and it only took 12 years to do something about it cause the UN wouldn't. I could careless about the rumours of this and thats spread by the news. It's the black and white that I see that tells me it was long over due. And no I don't mean the papers but the photos and videos from recon and air patrol missions.
And I'm not sure how or why we'd say you owe us but of course that is purely political. And if Norway is so stable then what would it matter and why would your government care or give in? Pakistan backed out of buying F-16's that they had already signed a contract for. We've got them sitting here on our line as proof. If you wanted new aircraft then buy them, sell your old planes and build your own weapons.
I dont' always agree with what our government does but I'll be damned if I'm going to be made to stand by another country in a fight when they don't wanna be there in the first place. It's bad enough we have those like that in our military who didn't think things through before joining.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The war against Afghanistan was UN approved.
Caare to be a bit more specific? When did the UN authorize the use of force against the Taliban? A call to form a UN force and oust the Taliban, on the order of the GW 1 resolutions? Got a specific SC resolution number?
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Toad
A lot of those middle aged pharts did their time on the front lines. Go figure.
lol mostly in their imaginations - I stopped believing people's war stories when I was about 19.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
I stopped believing people's war stories when I was about 19.
You're right. No one ever served. None. Well, at least after you were 19.
-
14 November 2001
UN Security Council Resolution 1378 on Afghanistan
UNSC endorses plan for interim Afghan Administration
United Nations - The UN Security Council November 14 unanimously adopted a resolution endorsing UN efforts to help the Afghan people establish a transitional administration to replace the Taliban.
The resolution, drafted by the United Kingdom and France, gave strong support to the plan set out by UN Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi to get representatives of the Northern Alliance and Afghan groups both inside and outside the country to meet and begin a process that would eventually lead to the formation of a new government over the next few years.
The resolution calls on the Afghan forces to refrain from acts of reprisal and adhere strictly to human rights and international humanitarian laws.
It also calls on nations to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people as well as fund short- and long-term reconstruction and rehabilitation projects.
This is a summary. I read the actual resolution and saw nothing about member states sending troops to Afghanistan to engage in combat to remove the Taliban from power.
About all it asks member states to actually do is :
4. Calls on Member States to provide:
Support for such an administration and government, including through the implementation of quick-impact projects,
Urgent humanitarian assistance to alleviate the suffering of Afghan people both inside Afghanistan and Afghan refugees, including in demining,
And long-term assistance for the social and economic reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan and welcomes initiatives towards this end;
5. Encourages Member States to support efforts to ensure the safety and security of areas of Afghanistan no longer under Taliban control, and in particular to ensure respect for Kabul as the capital for all the Afghan people, and especially to protect civilians, transitional authorities, United Nations and associated personnel, as well as personnel of humanitarian organizations;
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
For instance, that Saddam had tried to KIll Bush Sr, that Saddam could pass WMD to a terrorist, that he could harbor or train them. The threat that Iraq could lauch a scud with WDM into Israel just to destabilize the regeon......and any number of other "unknowns"
man i *COULD* so many things that im probably another dictator :D
so first of all i could make some breakfast
-
1382 is more of the same; no mention of the use of force or deployment of war-fighting troops.
Mostly deals with internal Afghan stuff; really only mentions outside countries getting involved here:
6. Calls on all bilateral and multilateral donors, in coordination with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, United Nations Agencies and all Afghan groups, to reaffirm, strengthen and implement their commitment to assist
with the rehabilitation, recovery and reconstruction of Afghanistan, in coordination with the Interim Authority and as long as the Afghan groups fulfil their commitments;
Again, no combat-related deployments.
-
"Too bad the only people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair."
-- George Burns
-
And then 1386, 20DEC01; something here at last.
Acting for these reasons under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Authorizes, as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of
the United Nations can operate in a secure environment;
2. Calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to the International Security Assistance Force, and invites those MemberStates to inform the leadership of the Force and the Secretary-General;
3. Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;
4. Calls upon the International Security Assistance Force to work in close consultation with the Afghan Interim Authority in the implementation of the force mandate, as well as with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General;
Note the date, 20 December 2001. The gist of it is to supply troops for a security zone based around Kabul. Not exactly the removal of the Taliban, is it?
Surely, though, you remember the start of Operation Enduring Freedom?
OEF commenced on Oct. 7, 2001. Early combat operations included a mix of air strikes from land-based B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers; carrier-based F-14 and F/A-18 fighters; and Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from both U.S. and British ships and submarines.
The initial military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom, as articulated by President George W. Bush in his Sept. 20th Address to a Joint Session of Congress and his Oct. 7th address to country, include the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan.....
...By October 20, 2001 US and Coalition forces had destroyed virtually all Taliban air defenses and had conducted a highly successful direct action mission on the residence of Mullah Omar in the middle of the Taliban capital, Qandahar.
During this time frame Special Forces detachments linked up with Anti-Taliban leaders and coordinated operational fires and logistics support on multiple fronts.
Twenty days later, the provincial capital of Mazar-e Sharif fell. In rapid succession, Herat, Kabul, and Jalalabad followed.
By mid- December, US Marines had secured Qandahar Airport and the Taliban capital was in the hands of Anti-Taliban forces. Within weeks the Taliban and Al Qaida were reduced to isolated pockets of fighters.
On 22 December Franks traveled to Kabul to attend a ceremony marking the inauguration of the Afghan interim government -- 78 days after the beginning of combat operations.
I think your original statement
GScholzThe war against Afghanistan was UN approved.
could only be considered correct on a post facto basis. It was OVER by the time the UN decided to jump on board.
Which, as we've discussed before, is why many here feel the UN is essentially worthless when the stuff hits the fan. Good with earthquakes and vaccinations but when the going gets UN tough, the UN ...... does nothing.
Or as some think of it, when the going gets tough, they send for the SOB's. And we all know who's phone rings when the going gets tough. It sure doesn't ring at the UN.
;)
No, I didn't forget. I was writing this when you answered. Point is, the heavy lifting was OVER by the time the UN even authorised a "security force". As usual.
-
Careful, here G. :D
They didn't approve OEF against Afghanistan specifically.
They merely said they were
Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts
and
Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter
Now look back at the justification given for the present action in Iraq.
Our government felt Iraq was a threat to "international peace and security caused by terrorist acts". There was the "Atta meets Iraqi intelligence in Prague" that hasn't been completely refuted. Other stuff too. Our government took action in "self-defence" based on their intel.
Now don't go through all that droll "Bush lied", "wrong intel", yadda-yadda stuff.
That remains to be seen and it will play out in the nearer rather than farther term. They have the Big Fish now, they have Dr. Evil himself.
But our government was certainly ostensibly in-line with this resolution when it made its case and took action against Iraq.
I know you don't agree... but then you don't have a vote in it, do you? I only have a vote in it every four years. So, we'll all just have to act accordingly. I'm patient but I still have my realistic limits.
:D
-
YOUR problem is that if you're going to use that to cover our action in Afghanistan, it also quite easily fits the action in Iraq.
It doesn't specify what entity determines that "combat by all means threats to international peace and security
caused by terrorist acts" is authorised.
It also recognizes "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter".
So the present administration exercised its inherent right to self-defence and to combat a threat to international peace. In its opinion, of course, not yours.
But then there's nothing in there that says YOU or the UN itself must be consulted and must approve such action.
Like I said, you're making my argument for me.
Now, to bed.
-
Valium for you all....its on me :)
-
I just want to say thank goodness Fishu and Gscholz are above personal attack.
Oh, and Gscholz, that agenda you don't have is really taking shape nicely. By all means, keep not giving hints. And a final FYI; many Americans don't give a crap about the UN, so you can stop prattling on about it as if it means anything. It isn't helping your argument one bit.
Ok, I lied... after listening to too many pontificating Scandinavians, I don't much like them either. Acting like you don't dislike Americans, but every word that comes out of your mouth regarding Americans is how horrible we are. Fine. We'll not do business with you either. We'll just have to live without... without... say, just what is it important that you folks do, anyway?
-
So.. you dont like scandnavians now either Kieran?
Who do you like then.....besides americans?
-
Jamaicans are ok, sometimes. Canadians about half-n-half. Don't get me started on Aussies. New Zealanders are ok, though.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I just want to say thank goodness Fishu and Gscholz are above personal attack.
ROFL :rofl
I used the exactly same contex you had used in your previous posts in this thread, no more personal than you've gone on others, actually far less so.
So don't try to be too sarcastic, might hit your own arse with it :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You can thank our friends in Europe for the turnaround by Qaddafi. It wasn't the Bush administration.
I guess you missed the quote by Qadafi:
"I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"
-
I think I'll hold judgement until Bl-ush actually say "We've found the WMD we invaded Iraq to destroy!" themselves.
At the moment, it's all just moot semantics.
-
Allrightythen Kieran.
Personally i havent met any american (in person) or from any other country that i havnt liked, i actually dated an american once :D
If i state that i don't like a sertain counties political choises, that does not mean that i automaticly hate or dislike the county or the people of that country. It seems tho that does not apply to you.
I manage to keep issues and people separated and that works well for me.
-
"I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"
Post a source please.
-
Not me, Nilson. If they ain't American, they ain't trustworthy.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Not me, Nilson. If they ain't American, they ain't trustworthy.
And thats your very problem.
Although it ain't my problem what you like to do.. just don't be surprised if you find people uncooperative with you.
-
OK, i guess you need things to be simple.
-
The Finnish? Hate 'em.
Norway? Hate it.
hehe...
-
Enron was a Swedish company ran by Finns, paying dividends to Norwegians and not a single American was ever involved.
KISS for Kieren.
-
Oh! and the bloody British. Hate 'em. Hate 'em all.
Oh, Toad, Gscholt's opinion of you just lowered! Ow! Oweeeeeee! ;)
-
That's because you envy our beer and our weather. The weather is bad, so you have to go to the pub to avoid the effects of hypothermia.
-
Yikes, you have a point there. Too bad your beer is warm.
-
Why would you want cold beer on a windswept winters day?
I had some old friends from uni stay over the weekend. Went walking around a country estate to blow the previous night's hangover away, and then into a proper pub. It was cold, windy but clear and bright. Sitting in front of a log fire, pint of proper English ale in hand and good friends around makes you appreciate life a little more. ;)
Oh yeah, I forgot. Too bad your beer is p**s.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Which begs the question..Why did USA sell chemical weapons to Iraq in the first place?
One can only assume it was so they could use it and kill people with it.
Which begs another question...What is the bigger crime?..The dealer selling WMD or the buyer?
Talk about your fuggn indian giver.
no chemical wepons were ever sold by to Iraq by the US goverment. I have posted the congressional investigation link many times. You sir can believe whatever you want.
-
Yikes, once again I am thwarted.
I'll give you an odd one, though... hot gatorade. Yup, that's right, hot gatorade.
I ran a 20 miler once with a couple of friends in pretty arctic conditions. When we finished, one of the fellows had a thermos of hot gatorade he shared with us.
Best gatorade I ever drank.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So you agree that the invasion of Afghanistan was UN approved? (I don't know why you even argue)
could you point me to the UN resoulution that authorized force in the Balkans?
-
Back to the topic of this thread....
Still waiting for Bush to have a press conference and claim WMD have been found in Iraq.
Why the silence from the White House?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Yikes, once again I am thwarted.
I'll give you an odd one, though... hot gatorade. Yup, that's right, hot gatorade.
I ran a 20 miler once with a couple of friends in pretty arctic conditions. When we finished, one of the fellows had a thermos of hot gatorade he shared with us.
Warm liquids are easier on your digestive system and nutrients absorb faster into your blood stream.
-
I've never had gatorade - never seen it over here. Do you have something called Powerade? They have that at my gym. Oh, and all the lucasade stuff as well. I shy away from them myself and stick with water these days. Used to drink our coach's homemade energy brews when I rowed. Tasted like crap but hit the spot.
After 20 miles, that's deserved gatorade. No way I could run 20 miles even if I was that fit. Left knee is shagged - I can feel some kind of friction inside it. When it's cold and damp it aches. And I'm only 25! :D
-
Sounds like torn cartilage. That can often be shaved and you can recover. If left there, it will wear on the surrounding cartilage and cause you trouble down the road. OTOH, if it is a big tear, it will never heal unless reattached through surgery. Either way, you ought to have it looked at.
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
Back to the topic of this thread....
Still waiting for Bush to have a press conference and claim WMD have been found in Iraq.
Why the silence from the White House?
Even Bush is smart enought not to claim "We found those WMD weapons we were talking about" when troops found few shells buried in the desert 10 years ago.
-
That's the truth. No one has said these shells are anything other than possibly proof of lies. Even then only possibly.
-
This is one of the longer lived, with no genuine reason, threads in quite awhile...should have died out three pages back.
There are no WMDs in this thread, excluding nakhui
-
Originally posted by Staga
Even Bush is smart enought not to claim "We found those WMD weapons we were talking about" when troops found few shells buried in the desert 10 years ago.
The Bush supporters in this thread are claiming the 36... eh 150 mortar shells are proof positive Iraq had WMD and the war was justified... blah blah blah...
Otay... where's Dubya chiming in on this chorus of righteousness?
In fact... where is it in the news media at all... this is a non-story.
I know, he is and has been... but the liberal media in America has censured all his press conferences.
Let me adjust my tin foil hat so I can tune him on Voice of America.
Oh there he is... 5x5 :aok
-
Originally posted by Yeager
This is one of the longer lived, with no genuine reason, threads in quite awhile...should have died out three pages back.
There are no WMDs in this thread, excluding nakhui
And yet you post to it and continue to keep it alive....
Have no idea what you are talking about yeager.
My point of view is straight forward...
I'm all ears... When Georgie Poo says he's found WMD in Iraq... I'll beleive him.
He's hasn't found them yet. Go figure!
-
This is the kind of thread that prolly has to be closed by the skuzz-bot :)
-
Die thread....DIE!!!!!!!!!!
There are no WMDs, its just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Die thread....DIE!!!!!!!!!!
There are no WMDs, its just plain rediculous
Bang! It's dead ;)
-
Quick three questions, please
1 How long did it take to find these?
2 How come they were never declaired to the inspectors?
3 What else is out there? (if you say nothing, thats what you said last week)
I find it interesting that when something is found that is not supposed to exist, no one is upset. I wonder if they were found by the Blix team what would have been said.
I really think where there is smoke there is fire, there are other things yet to have been found, unless we need to get closer to the election. hehe
;)
-
unless we need to get closer to the election. hehe
:)
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
And yet you post to it and continue to keep it alive....
Have no idea what you are talking about yeager.
My point of view is straight forward...
I'm all ears... When Georgie Poo says he's found WMD in Iraq... I'll beleive him.
He's hasn't found them yet. Go figure!
I don't understand. How do you determine the times you'll believe Bush and the times you won't? Does it depend on what fits your argument?
-
Whats the AH BBS record for number of replies to a topic?
LETs DO IT!!!!!
Yessssss
Whats the latest sub topic now (checks)....
There was a war in the Balkens? Damn. Howd it go?
-
To answer your next question; yes I wasn't exactly enthusiastic about NATO forces supporting an internationally recognized terrorist organisation (ANA) operating inside a sovereign nation. The ANA has taken responsibility for several attacks on NATO/UN personnel after NATO/UN assumed control over the area (UNDP having civilian control).
Is it then safe to assume you preferred to sit back and watch genocide, and possibly watch the Balkans powderkeg into a much larger conflict? After all, the UN didn't sanction the action, therefore those nasty Americans were once again lawless criminals with whom you would never do business.
-
I don't understand. How do you determine the times you'll believe Bush and the times you won't? Does it depend on what fits your argument?
Its really simple, the world aint djust "either your with us or against us".
I think it has something with wath the man says,
If Bush said : The earth is round i would agree, if he said Iraq is a imminent threat to the US i would disagree.
If he said, the enron scum are bastards, i would agree, if he said : lets colonialize the moon! i would agree,
Its from topic to topic, is that hard to comprehend?
-
Don't worry Yeager, I have plenty of gas for guys that make blanket statements about people, then turn and get upset when people do the same in return. Mucho giggles from my end.
-
1. Obviously, the Bush administration along with both Houses of the United States Congress felt it was necessary to exercise the US's inherent right of individual or collective self-defence.
Now, do YOU feel it was in accordance with the Charter[/b]? Probably not. However, both the Executive and Legislative branches of the United States DID. I think that supercedes your opinion. Sorry.
2. Again, I point you to the Czech report that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.
Prague Revisited The evidence of an Iraq/al-Qaida connection hasn't gone away (http://slate.msn.com/id/2091354/)
A sample for you from the article:
The background: On April 21, 2001, the CIA's liaison officer at the U.S. Embassy in Prague was briefed by the Czech counterintelligence service (known by its Czech acronym, BIS) about an extraordinary development in a spy case that concerned both the United States and the Czech Republic. The subject of the briefing was Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, the consul at Iraq's embassy in Prague.
The reason there had been joint Czech-American interest in the case traced back to the December 1998 when al-Ani's predecessor at the Iraq Embassy, Jabir Salim, defected from his post. In his debriefings, Salim said that he had been supplied with $150,000 by Baghdad to prepare a car-bombing of an American target, the Prague headquarters of Radio Free Europe. (This bombing never took place because Salim could not recruit a bomber.)
There's more, but suffice it to say that this source is not the only one that is continuing to follow an Iraq/A-Q link.
Like:
Terror fugitive Abu Abbas caught in Baghdad (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-04-15-abbas-captured_x.htm)
You remember him right?
April 15, 2003
Abbas, who is alleged by U.S. officials to have plotted the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro, had been living in a Baghdad suburb under the protection of Saddam Hussein.
Well, if not him, maybe:
Baghdad confirms Abu Nidal dead (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/08/20/nidal020820)
Surely you remember Abu Nidal? The multiple gunshot wound suicide case in Baghdad? :rofl
Led series of worldwide attacks
Abu Nidal was one of the world's most wanted men.
For more than two decades he struck targets from Paris to Pakistan. His followers bombed American airliners, machine-gunned synagogues and assassinated a string of Palestinian moderates.
His most notorious attack was an assault on the ticket counters of an Israeli airline in Rome in 1985.
In that attack 18 people were killed and 120 wounded.
So, once again, perhaps the Bush Administration along with both Houses of the United States Congress felt it was necessary "to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts[/b]". Even to the point of removing those that support, encourage and harbor the actual terrorists.
************
I actually used to think better of you as well. However, you've made it pretty clear to me you're just another US basher. You're not quite to the Blitz level, but I respect the effort you're putting into passing him.
Still, this comment of yours cuts me to the very quick. I shall drink a glass of fine Scotch, seeking solace to heal my wounded psyche. Or, maybe just because I like the taste.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Post a source please.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1986-2004Jan8.html
A spokesman for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told the London Daily Telegraph in September that Gaddafi had telephoned Berlusconi and told him: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."
Think about it. If you were Gaddafi would you be more afraid of the UN and it's fearsome resolutions or the US?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Its really simple, the world aint djust "either your with us or against us".
I think it has something with wath the man says,
If Bush said : The earth is round i would agree, if he said Iraq is a imminent threat to the US i would disagree.
If he said, the enron scum are bastards, i would agree, if he said : lets colonialize the moon! i would agree,
Its from topic to topic, is that hard to comprehend?
That wasn't hard to comprehend. I guess it just gets confusing to see someone crying about what a liar Bush is, then saying they won't believe the facts unless he says them himself. Sounds a little off to me.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1986-2004Jan8.html
Think about it. If you were Gaddafi would you be more afraid of the UN and it's fearsome resolutions or the US?
http://in.news.yahoo.com/031222/137/2aihe.html
The Libyan announcement of the decision took by surprise those unaware of months of secret negotiations, but analysts of Libyan policy said it was a logical step in a long-term trend.
"It's the culmination of a policy that started in 1987. That's when he realised there was a vulnerability about being a small state," said George Joffe, a Libya expert at the Centre of International Studies at Cambridge University in England.
Mohammed Faiz Jibreel, a Libyan exile opposed to Gaddafi, said it took longer before the Libyan leader started to change tack. The big change came when the United States showed its military might in the Balkan wars in the mid-1990s, he said.
-
The UN Charter does not call for any sort of vote, approval, resolution, approbation or straw poll before any nation exercises its inherent right of individual or collective self-defence.
A nation is free to act whenever it is attacked. You will also find that this inherent right INCLUDES a right to anticipatory self-defense. Unfortunately for your side of the discussion, international law has always, and continues to, recognize a right of anticipatory self-defense.
So, although it probably distresses you, it's clear that for the US to be found in violation of the UN Charter's inherent right of individual or collective self-defence, that would have to be found after the fact.
For example, the UN would have to ACT to condemn the action of the US AFTER the invasion of Iraq.
I have yet to see that resolution even offered, have you? Seen any UN sanctions or punitive actions?
No, you haven't.
Now you're between the rock and a hard place.
Either your wrong yet again and the UN as a whole has no problem with the Iraq invasion
OR
The mighty UN is in high dudgeon over the dastardly attack on Saint Saddam and strongly condemns the evil USofA for it's unilateral use of force. Of course, the member states only mumble and mutter to themselves in their high dudgeon. Because just like in every other use of force situation, the mighty UN isn't going to do a damn thing about it. In short... the UN is worthless.
Which one is it?
:D
-
So Gscholz, you prefered bloodshed in the Balkans? 'K. ;)
UN sure wasn't about to solve it, that's for certain, but I anxiously await your "The UN was just two weeks away from..." post.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
http://in.news.yahoo.com/031222/137/2aihe.html
The Libyan announcement of the decision took by surprise those unaware of months of secret negotiations, but analysts of Libyan policy said it was a logical step in a long-term trend.
"It's the culmination of a policy that started in 1987. That's when he realised there was a vulnerability about being a small state," said George Joffe, a Libya expert at the Centre of International Studies at Cambridge University in England.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed Faiz Jibreel, a Libyan exile opposed to Gaddafi, said it took longer before the Libyan leader started to change tack. The big change came when the United States showed its military might in the Balkan wars in the mid-1990s, he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you trying to prove that he is responding to action and not to the U.N.?
if so good job:D
-
Specifically, the bloodshed ended when Nato entered without a UN resolution.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The UN Charter does not call for any sort of vote, approval, resolution, approbation or straw poll before any nation exercises its inherent right of individual or collective self-defence.
If what you say were true then when the US discovered Al-quaeda responsible for 9/11, it didn't need any approval to attack Afghanistan...
Yet, oddly, it did seek that approval and co-operation from NATO allies and the UN security counsel.
However... as usual you and your chauvinistic cronies froth on incessantly with your war is good talk and the rest of the world is weak and sissy.
Blindness and ignorance abounds in Amereeka.
Everything the US goverment does must be done based upon legal authority... I know a concept hard to understand by the ignorant chauvinistic unwashed masses... nevertheless, even Bush and his goons are aware of this necessity.
That's why Bush's clever attornies schemed up "Enemy Combatant" and all those other rules to denying US citizens their constitutional rights.... which oddly enough the US Federal courts are slowly and methodically shooting down as unconstitutional...
US courts have always given deference to the Executive branches in times of crisis... and they have in here too by allowing the process to be intentionally "slow" - really no harm has been done.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong... I think there's some good that has come out of this... really, I do.
And the war in Iraq is not necessarilly bad either... but it's important to get passed all the BS and understand the real reason why it's good... also understand the real reason why the manner in which it was done... is really really bad.
The simpletons, like so many Americans, like to believe the war is moral thing... when it really has nothing to do with morals.
Has nothing to do with what Saddam did to the Kurds or his people.
And that reason isn't "Saddam EVIL, Amereeka Good"
And it's not that "Bush Lied" either...that's a personal character issue he'll have to deal with in another way. The President doesn't have to tell the truth about why things really happen the way they do... they just can't.
Yet still.. they (Bush and his cowboys) must play by the rules.. or at least bend them a helluva lot.
After the UN's rebuff of the US in regards to wanting to attack Iraq for supposidly violating UN sanctions in regards to WMD, the US had to seek another "legal" means by which it could "legally" attack Iraq.. and that means was the War Powers Act - and the legal pretext is "self defense."
With O'Neill coming forth with documentation originating from week one of the Administration... Well, that paints an entirely different picture - doesn't it.
Perhaps the circumstances of the day didn't lead to an act of "Self Defense"... perhaps the act was premeditated....
OMG! That explains alot about the Intelligence Stove piping which is being documented by the Congressional Select Intelligence Comittee!
You're still trying to make that Iraq-AQ link work... yet Powel and Bush keep saying there is none. Powel re-iterated this beleif just as recently as the day before yesterday.
On one hand... you agree with the Bush Administration on the Iraq war and with the other you ignore their position on the Iraq-AQ link.
Perhaps you should go work for them since your information is obviously more up-to-date than theirs.
Yet still you as well as many others here... have no real clue as to why this war came about.
Iraq didn't have WMD for the past 12 years... that is not only a fact... but more and more it is becoming an open very well documented fact. I say open... because the intelligence community of many nations have known this fact for quite awhile.
In any case if this Paul O'Neill situation proves to show an original intent regardless of the circumstances in Iraq... big trouble yet may come for the Bush Administration.... can you say "Impeachment" oh gees did I say that?
Damn cat is out of the bag!
Ah! Republicans will be praying for loss on election day if that jaberwalkie ever starts to run!
Paul O'Neill is known for being a straight shooter and of high moral character... Hey those aren't my words... those were spoken by Mr. Bush himself. In any case, O'Neill is not known to speak hyperbole and dwell in political wrangling which is Chenney, Rumsfeild, Rove, and Powel's modus operandi.
And now it appears the documentation O'Neill has, may not be classified at all... but in deed memos and notes released by the White House's very own Legal office upon his exit.
Danger Danger Will Robinson!
Danger to the house of cards!
The threat of an IG.. seriously... that's the last thing this Administration wants to do...
The CIA leak investigation is going to hit pretty hard when that comes out.... about around election time... be interesting to see how Rove plays the political damage control on that issue!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Really? Which conflict would that be? What do you know about these conflicts?
Will this do? Backpedal all you like. All I see before the NATO strikes are "calls for a ceasefire" from the UNSC. No resolutions.
Timeline of events (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/10/kosovo/timeline/)
-
Nexus and Scholz, do a google search on "anticipatory self defense" and then tell me it's not firmly established in International Law.
Scholz, lovely list of references there; now show me where ANY resolution condemning the US action in Iraq has been offered in the UN and passed, or where the US was the sole veto.
In short, the President and the Congress were quite legal under international law and the UN hasn't said diddly about it.
But both of you have such a lovely shade of pink in your cheeks when you get angry. :)
Nexus, no Iraq/A-Q link? REALLY? So Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal were just living in Baghdad because the local sheep are so warm and welcoming? And the Czechs are just full of BS, right? Becaust the Czechs are sticking to their story about Atta.
OH, wait... I know..... Bush lied!
:rofl
-
I think the "Iminent Threat" needs to be established. That was the selling point we as a people rallied around. I include myself in that WE BTW.
Saying it was worthwhile because Saddam was a "bad guy" or any other reason is just disingenuous.
I heard a great analogy the other day.
A lexus is a great car. Well made and well worth the approx. 30k you pay for it. It is still a great car if you pay 150k for it. But it ain't worth it. Getting rid of Saddam is a great cause.... but was it worth the price?
-
The Czechs are 10 year old State with an agenda to suck up to the US for economic reasons. That aside, I am a bit skeptical about their expertise in middle Eastern affairs. It would be nice to know what British intelligence has to say about the purported links.
"There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News.
The classified document, written by defence intelligence staff three weeks ago, says there has been contact between the two in the past.
But it assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies. "
-
So Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal WERE just common everyday tourists! I KNEW it.
And the Czech BIS are clearly a bunch of suck up fools and stooges for the EEEvil Amreeekans. BTW, did you actually read the article in Slate?
Anyway, thanks.
Now if you'll just give me that resolution condemning the US for invoking its right of anticipatory self-defence, we'll have this all cleared up.
At least to your satisfaction.
-
I see we have the childish, fingers-in-ears, shouting "I can't hear you!" response so typical these days. You even got 'Amreeka' in there. Are you Grunherz in disguise?
Whatever.
You'll find that I didn't deny that presence of Al-Q operatives in Baghdad, but according to that report, British intelligence discounts its significance and even says the fledgling relationship floundered.
Are you saying that Czech intelligence would equal to say MI6, the CIA or Mossad in capability?
-
Originally posted by Toad
No Iraq/A-Q link? REALLY? So Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal were just living in Baghdad because the local sheep are so warm and welcoming? And the Czechs are just full of BS, right? Becaust the Czechs are sticking to their story about Atta.
You'll never evolve if you don't listen, grasshopper.
Plug your ears and cover your eyes all you want.
You'll be eating crow for dinner shortly.
Still waiting for your glorious Army to find WMD in Iraq... you know those silly things Bush had all that irrefutable evidence of!
Oh wait... it's hidden in the desert! Buried in a sand dune! And what the spy satalites didn't see them bury it? Oh yeah it was done at night! It was dark outside.
Religious fanatics don't only live in the Middle East - they also live in Amereeeka!
You're so convinced of your point of view about Iraq-Al Qaeda... even though your glorious heroes Powel, Bush, and the rest of the US Governement's intelligence analystist don't see the significance which you so daftly think is proof positive.
Obviously they are not as smart as you - but then who is. :lol
Might want to tune your hat to a different frequency.
Your conspiracy story doesn't have wings to fly.
And your arguement about the right to self defense irregardless of the UN charter - well once again you speak and show your lack of knowledge on the matter.
GScholz... shot you down in flames on that one. No mistake about that.
Nice job looking for spectres in all these threads.. However they don't live here.
You continue to ignore the legality arguement, which by the way is the only issue worhty of discussion.
The deal is done... but there are long term ramifications yet to come.
A student of history knows, morality has nothing to do with politics and world affairs... it's only a pretense to another agenda.
-
I think Czech BIS is perfectly capable of and competent to handle a simple situation lke this:
So when al-Ani replaced Salim at the Iraq Embassy in Prague in 1999, both the United States and the Czech Republic wanted him closely watched in case he had a similar assignment.
The BIS handled the surveillance through its own full-time teams and its network of part-time "watchers" at hotels, restaurants, and other likely locations. Then, on April 8, 2001, a BIS watcher saw al-Ani meeting in a restaurant outside Prague with an Arab man in his 20s.
This set off alarm bells because a BIS informant in the Arab community had provided information indicating that the person with whom al-Ani was meeting was a visiting "student" from Hamburg—and one who was potentially dangerous.
No "rocket science" intel work there... typical "gumshoe dectective" cheating wife type stuff. I think Czech BIS could handle that.
DmdNexus... did you just insult me? Oh Dear! Oh boo-hoo-hooo-HOOO! I am just destroyed.
And as to smarter, it's like that old joke about the two guys being chased by the hungry bear and one stops to put on tennis shoes. You just have to be a tiny bit faster or "smarter" than the other guy. You never have made me feel like I need tennis shoes. :)
-
And exactly how does this information contradict the British intelligence report?
-
Nexus, no Iraq/A-Q link? REALLY? So Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal were just living in Baghdad because the local sheep are so warm and welcoming? And the Czechs are just full of BS, right? Becaust the Czechs are sticking to their story about Atta.
Heh, there are most probably more AQ living in the US at this time than there ever were in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And as to smarter, it's like that old joke about the two guys being chased by the hungry bear and one stops to put on tennis shoes. You just have to be a tiny bit faster or "smarter" than the other guy. You never have made me feel like I need tennis shoes. :)
What can't argue the topic again?
Yet Again?
tisk tisk
Always disconnecting to cast an insult.... another veiled slight... just so subtle for a giggle or two.
-
I believe, upon an unbiased review, you will find that YOU are/were the one not arguing the topic.
Further, I think you can find the same results in just about any thread where you and I have both participated in the discussion.
Beyond that, I think any realistic review of my posts and those of DmdNexus/Nakhui will clearly show that taking it "personal" is your speciality, not mine.
But all is not lost; I do find your stuff pretty entertaining most of the time.
Dowd, I don't believe it does contradict Brit Intel per se. It clearly shows, however, that there may well be more of an Iraq/A-Q link than has been generally accepted so far. Brit Intel feels the link foundered. Maybe.
From Slate:
The issue re-emerged three days after the 9/11 attack when the CIA intelligence liaison was told by the BIS that the Hamburg "student" who had met with al-Ani on April 8 had been tentatively identified as the 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta.
Atta, the leader of the suicide hijackers and Iraqi intelligence meeting in Prague 5 months before 9/11? Probably just old childhood friends meeting for a Staropramen by the clock tower?
Remember the old "three on a match" warning in WW1?
Atta, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas...... three all on Iraq's match. Bad ju-ju indeed. Maybe more to follow. IMO.
-
Well according to link about Atta and Prague
its long reading about nothing
here is czech version about this problem
http://www.novinky.cz/02/04/35.html
i will make it clear... Atta meet Iraqi ambasador.. fact
another fact is that.... Atta COULD get money from
and last fact is that.... BIS dont know if he got them or not and how
and that Czech minister Jan Kavan.... he is old komunist ***** ...
umm im out
edit.: i forgot to say... that czech BIS said, that he could get money from Iraq ambasador, but we arent able to prove it
And few our later Pentagon claim, that according to czech sources, Atta GOT money from Iraqi ambasador in Czech
...
ummm may be our english just sux :D
-
Dueling Googles:
"ANTICIPATORY" SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST TERRORISM IS LEGAL (http://www.wlf.org/upload/casey.pdf)
In fact, international law has always, and continues to,
recognize a right of anticipatory self-defense , and the U.S. w ould be fully justified in relying on that right.
Didn't think you'd agree,just thought I'd point out that not every eminent scholar agrees with your view either.
As to your possible draft resolution, I think the conclusion you reach highlights what I've been saying all along. The UN is a do-nothing organization.
If such a resolution is eventually offered, of course we'll veto it. It will be just another instance of why the UN doesn't work.
As if the Bosnia/DutchBatt/NATO airstrikes scenario or the UN/SC 12-years-of-Iraqi-noncompliance-to-SC resolutions and all the rest weren't enough.
The UN doesn't work. For lots of reasons; now you'd like ALL the reasons to be because of big bad old EEEvil Amreeka. But you know that's not the whole story.
Seems like you're finally agreeing with me.
-
The only political independence threatened was Saddam Husein's. Iraq will be independent and will have the same territory when we leave.
-
Perhaps Panama and Grenada are not much different than Iraq - what did the UN say in those cases?
-
LOL!
Read what YOU post!
:rofl
Uses of force not undertaken for purposes of annexing an opponent's territory, or eliminating its political independence, for example, by the installation of a colonial regime, are not proscribed, so long as they are not otherwise inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
We are not annexing Iraq. Far from it; we're in the process of helping them set up an independent democratic form of government.
We are absolutely not eliminating ist political independence. Far from it, we are in the process of establishing, for a the first time in a long time, a democratic, representative form of government in Iraq.
Colonial regime? You gotta be kidding. We're spending billions to rebuid their infrastructure that SH ignored for 30 years while he built himself 79 palaces or whatever. And they'll own all, run it all in a relatively short time. We even are getting their debt forgiven for them.
We, my Norwegian friend, are leading ALL these efforts. the EEvil Ammreeekans. :)
Inconsistent with the purposes of the UN? Like, yeah, TOTALLY. We even made SH comply with 12 years of UN/SC resolutions. ;)
Read what YOU post.
-
'89 was a good year for Whine.
-
Originally posted by Toad
IBut all is not lost; I do find your stuff pretty entertaining most of the time.
Damn it - you've figured it out. :aok
You're smarter than people say you are :p
I'm really not serious about any of my rants... I don't think people realize that.....I'm usually laughing my bellybutton off as I type.
And if I do say something that offends someone... oh well... if their turbans weren't wrapped so tight they might just get the joke.
Go figure.
GScholz got you on the UN thing.
-
Originally posted by Toad
We are not annexing Iraq. Far from it; we're in the process of helping ourselves to their OIL , and setting up an independent democratic puppet government under our control.
Preach on Brutha! :aok
-
Just shows how far out into the galaxy you've strayed Nexus.
Anyone following the developing political spectrum in Iraq can see it's going to be puppet to no outside country. In fact, they've got enough good old, hate, envy and demagoguery to compete withe the Dems and Reps here.
And Scholz is bailing a boat with no bottom. We did nothing in violation of the UN charter. Just check the goings on at the UN... zip, zero, nada. No condemnation, nothing. Maybe Scholz can make a quick trip to NYC and brief up Kofi? ;)
Kofi will probably tell him though, that what we did was "not otherwise inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
-
Originally posted by Toad
And Scholz is bailing a boat with no bottom. We did nothing in violation of the UN charter. Just check the goings on at the UN... zip, zero, nada. No condemnation, nothing. Maybe Scholz can make a quick trip to NYC and brief up Kofi? ;)
LOL!~
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Brenn inne Toad. You're on my troll list now.
:rolleyes:
(http://home.comcast.net/~ripsnort60/ostrich.gif)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You don't know dick about the situation, you don't even know what conflicts or what organisations were involved or how they were organized. You don't even know why they were fighting, where and by what means, or what role the UN and NATO played. You don't have a clue, and you can add that to your sig aswell.
Gee, does this mean you are refuting the timeline or not? I'm so dumb I can't tell...
...Yes or no, was there a UNSC call to arms on the issue of the Balkans prior to NATO action? Calls for a ceasefire don't count... has to be a real resolution. Of course you know you aren't about to take that one on fair and square, because you know it didn't happen. Does that mean that any NATO country involved in the bombings are now considered criminal countries? According to your logic, it does.
Perhaps you'd like to take another stab at my intelligence? Care to take another blanket swipe at America? That door swings both ways you know... you make a swipe at America, I make a swipe at Scandinavia, you get your panties in a wad... I giggle and barb you some more... all the while you cannot prove your point. But don't let that stop you...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The only political independence threatened was Saddam Husein's. Iraq will be independent and will have the same territory when we leave.
if they will not be dependent on you some how after you leave.
nice example is mobile network .. thanks alah, they got GSM :D
btw i had few drinks with one Iraq last week, he came from Baghdad few weeks ago and he is going back in next few days..
from his speak i will not be surprised, that American will be wellcome there as they are welcome in Iran, after their army leave
-
So? Does that mean you refute the timeline or not?
My knowledge of your troop dispositions aren't the point of the discussion- stay on topic. Your contention is that any country acting with violence against any other country without a UNSC resolutions (except in the case of self-defense) is a criminal country, correct? NATO countries did indeed engage without such a resolution, and without the engaged countries being a direct threat to the respective participating NATO countries.
In other words, the participating NATO countries would not have incurred any harm by standing by and letting the bloodshed continue.
In other words, the participating NATO countries were by your definition criminals.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Anyone following the developing political spectrum in Iraq can see it's going to be puppet to no outside country. In fact, they've got enough good old, hate, envy and demagoguery to compete withe the Dems and Reps here.
Oh, contrair, I don't think I'm out of the solar system just yet.... like you are with the Al-Qaeda-Iraq and WMD issues.
The spectre of a puppet government will loom over Afghanistan and Iraq both!
The reason why I say this, is that the people of those two nations weren't the ones who over threw the previous regime.... and any government put into place by the auspicious of the US is suspect!
Whether it's true or not... and I do believe the US will make every effort to make it a legit independent government. However, the deep seatted distrust of the west is inbred in the middle east from centuries of western colonization.
You can't deny that stigma is still there and is perhaps one of the root causes of 9/11.
And the distrust of any government installed by the US, will be present among not only the people of that nation but also their neighbors.
You can't dismiss group psychology that easily... at least not for a few more generations.
Any government set in place will have to show it's people and their neighbors that they are truly independent of the US, by bucking US interests....
Let's see if that really happens.... with out some kind of backlash from the US on their leaders.
Bush's "reward and punishment" approach to foreign affairs is going to come back to him.
-
UN troops were peacekeepers only, and were not authorized for aggressive action. NATO bombed the crap outta the place.
Fer cryin' out loud, the timeline makes very clear where I'm talking about. You were there, remember?
February -- Milosevic sends troops into the areas controlled by the KLA, destroying property and killing 80 Kosovars, at least 30 of them women, children and elderly men. The killing provokes riots in Pristina, the Kosovar capital, turns the conflict into a guerrilla war and raises again the specter of ethnic cleansing by the Serbs.
May -- Milosevic and Ibrahim Rugova, an advocate of a peaceful path to independence for Kosovo, hold talks for first time, but the Albanian side boycotts further meetings.
July and August -- KLA seizes control of 40 percent of Kosovo before being defeated in a Serb offensive.
September -- Serb forces attack central Kosovo, where 22 Albanians are found massacred. U.N. Security Council calls for immediate cease-fire and political dialogue.
October -- NATO allies authorize airstrikes against Serb military targets, Milosevic agrees to withdraw troops, facilitate the return of refugees and accept unarmed international monitors.
All in 1998. All before a UNSC resolution. Do you really think I don't know what countries I'm talking about? Wait... you'll answer THAT question, but won't address the one you can't because it will undermine your "UN as the ultimate authority" argument.
-
Any government set in place will have to show it's people and their neighbors that they are truly independent of the US, by bucking US interests....
If this happens.. They wont be independent of the US for much longer..
-
Is that a Challenger tank?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I was in Bosnia in 1995, not in Kosovo. KOSOVO WAS A DIFFERENT CONFLICT YOU TWIT!
And this is the first time you've said where you were. You said you were part of a UN force. That's kinda vague, isn't it?
Who's the twit?
AND... BTW... you still didn't address the question I knew you wouldn't, have you? Don't bother asking me what color boots you wore or the color of your beret, it won't distract me from the point at hand- the NATO action in 1998 happened without a UNSC resolution, making every participating country criminals according to your logic.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If you have further questions, direct them elsewhere. I have neither the time nor the inclination to be your "special class" teacher.
LOL
We're all "special" here! :aok
Relax said the nightman
We are programed to recieve
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Athe NATO action in 1998 happened without a UNSC resolution, making every participating country criminals according to your logic.
Would you like to buy a clue?
"google" or Grokker it.
IIRC, NATO had the authority and backing of the UN, but I don't need to recall... GScholz pretty much slam dunked it.
"Wooosh! Nothing but net"
pssst... here's another hint... NATO and UN work together alot!
-
I stand corrected on the resolution.
My opinion of Gscholtz as a condescending bellybutton stands. If you (Gscholz) had any class you'd admit you put words into the mouths of myself and many posters here with regards to your "imminent threat" and the chemical weapons shells. No one called the shells proof of imminent threat, as you falsely claimed. In short, you are right on the Balkans issue, but that really is nothing more than a sideshow for the original point; you lied. My fault for allowing you to pull me off-tangent when you started squirming, I guess.
Ah well, can't be right every time.
-
ya know its funny how often the combat vets get assalted and become the victims of character assasination because they dare to dissagree with non vet "conservative patriotic" civilians.
or maybe not
-
Oh you poor martyr.
As for character assassination, how 'bout you read closer and see who is making the most insulting remarks. I suppose I shouldn't call a liar a liar when he lies, so long as he served, eh?
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
Would you like to buy a clue?
"google" or Grokker it.
IIRC, NATO had the authority and backing of the UN, but I don't need to recall... GScholz pretty much slam dunked it.
"Wooosh! Nothing but net"
pssst... here's another hint... NATO and UN work together alot!
Nexus-
Hint- I know. I also know UN and NATO are not one and the same. Do you?
-
I also know UN and NATO are not one and the same. Do you?
UN, EU, NATO aint the same? hey WTF!!??!!
:confused:
In by the way.
-
Now, now now... you are assuming too much...
I was wrong about the resolution and freely admit it. You are taking that to mean you were correct on all other points, and you are wrong.
You assumed I didn't know about Serbia. I never answered, that wasn't the point.
You assumed I didn't know when it happened, even though the timeline I gave should have made it painfully obvious I did.
You assumed before we ever got into points I knew nothing about it- and you are wrong.
You said you were part of the UN forces, but you originally didn't say where. I can't read your mind, so guess what? I didn't know where you were. Duh. I'm in the US. Tell me which city and state (look in my profile if you need help). Same argument.
The bottom line wasn't to discuss the particulars of the region, only the UN and NATO participation in the events. Now I give you points for distracting my attention away from the point I was trying to make- That the US's action in Iraq is not without precedent- good job.
But... you took your original sweeping generalization of what you perceive to be Bush supporters, stuck some words in their mouths, and made a mocking political comment. Free BBS, fine, but that wasn't what was said in any context. You then proceeded to show your skirt about your feelings about the US, then got huffy when I flipped a bit back at you. You ACTUALLY thought I was serious about hating Scandinavians, and weren't smart enough to see the sarcasm in it. And I have to admit, much of this has been for my entertainment, but I am curious how far you will go to avoid admitting the obvious- you did start off not only with a lie, but with an insult as well. You went as far as to express your disgust not only with me, but all Americans. That I thought was particularly poignant. hehe... Gee whiz, why would anyone take issue with that? ;)
I do have to apologize to Nilson though... I shouldn't have let him get caught up in this. I don't really hate all Scandinavians. I do find many of them condescending, but there are quite a few condescending Americans, too.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This is completely and utterly pointless. Good night.
Well, I guess I have to put you in the troll folder. My opinion of you just dropped. All that other stuff. ;)
Just so you know you did make the "imminent threat" and "can't trust the US" comments. Hey! I should add that "imminent threat" business to my sig! :cool:
-
the winner of an argument is too often determined by who is left standing at then end of the day. Then again, there is a certain beauty to it.
What shall we discuss in the morning :D
-
Lawdy, Lawdy... this is just TOO funny.
Scholz and Nexus building a house on sand.
Wanna talk about the former Yugoslavia, the Balkans?
The NATO charter:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked[/u] by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
NATO was a defensive alliance by CHARTER.
None of the entities that came out of the former Yugoslavia WERE members of NATO.
Where was the armed attack against a NATO member in this case? When did it occur?
Which Party to the NATO treaty were they assisting there?
Now, let's talk about "violated charters" some more.
:rofl
Oh... wait....... I see. It's OK to violate a Charter if Scholz and Nexus think it's OK. Gotcha.
Anyway, in your counter, please quote and link the addendum to the NATO Charter that says NATO can in fact use military force against non-NATO nations when NO NATO MEMBER IS UNDER ARMED ATTACKED. It'd be nice if you can show where NATO is now the military arm of the UN, too. :rofl
Oh, yeah.... one other little tiny thing.
Can one of you, either Scholz or Nexus, show me which one of the U.N. Security Council Balkan resolutions, and there was a number of them, authorized the use of force against any of the parties to the conflict? Specifically authorized the use of force against any of the parties to the conflict?
Think carefully before you answer because this authorization of the use of force Security Council thing has a very current parallel.... which I'm sure we'll all get a kick out of discussing.
Thanks for making my evening! This IS a great thread.
-
the USA did not "invade"iraq, short history lesson.
*iraq invades kuwait.
*US and allies/UN kick iraq's butt.
* iraq begs for a CEASE FIRE
*US/UN say ok , but iraq must meet certain conditions.
*12 years later iraq still has not met conditions of CEASE FIRE
* US and allies RESUME war, finish kicking iraq butt.
*anti-USA crowd start whining "no fair"
-
Originally posted by Toad
Thanks for making my evening! This IS a great thread.
Toad, you gonna have to start a new thread to discussion this issue.
Would love to have a thread that stays on topic and a few scope rules for keeping the discussion focused.
Perhaps a modirator for dismissing irrelevant information and inflamatory comments - someone we can agree who is unbiased and who doesn't participate in the discussion except to inform the debators when they have strayed from the subject.
Would you like to setup such a thread... state the scope at the top... I would be happy to engage you in such a forum.
The problem with any discussion on a BBS is... it's not a dicussion... people just refuse to agree even after being presented with enough credible citations and logic to refute their point of view.
None of the entities that came out of the former Yugoslavia WERE members of NATO.
Where was the armed attack against a NATO member in this case? When did it occur?
Which Party to the NATO treaty were they assisting there?
To answer your question... your looking at one article which address self defense and the authority of NATO members to assist other NATO members in such action.
I don't have time at the moment to research what I'm about to say... so sure take it with a grain a doubt and disbelief.
Usually charters allow for admendment and actions which are not accounted for in the text of their charters... such as the common legal clause.... "other duties as required"
I suspect there is such a clause... since NATO members DID voted before committing to action in the Balkans... and thus by their vote established the legal authority under the NATO charter to commit forces to assist the UN.
Again... I'll reiterate "democratic" governments base their actions from law... in some form or another.
-
the USA did not "invade"iraq, short history lesson.
*iraq invades kuwait.
*US and allies/UN kick iraq's butt.
* iraq begs for a CEASE FIRE
*US/UN say ok , but iraq must meet certain conditions.
*12 years later iraq still has not met conditions of CEASE FIRE
* US and allies RESUME war, finish kicking iraq butt.
*anti-USA crowd start whining "no fair"
Bull****.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the USA did not "invade"iraq, short history lesson.
*iraq invades kuwait.
*US and allies/UN kick iraq's butt.
* iraq begs for a CEASE FIRE
*US/UN say ok , but iraq must meet certain conditions.
*12 years later iraq still has not met conditions of CEASE FIRE
* US and allies RESUME war, finish kicking iraq butt.
*anti-USA crowd start whining "no fair"
If only the world were as simple as this kind of logic.
Perhaps some day it will be.
-
Here is the Kosovo case viewed through iraq 2003 lenses:
There was no assistance of the UN in the Kosovo matter. There was no UN approval. NATO, an independant military allience, simply acted out of blatant evil agression in terrorizing, bombing and preparing to invade if no surrender an innocent country Serbia which was no longer posing any threat to any NATO members or its neighbors. Clear wish and instance on regime removal or clear regime poilicy change under thread of continued economic sanctions.
Right? This was evil, correct? Just like Iraq? Lets see.
An unprovoked, preemptive attack? CHECK
No UN approval? CHECK
Attack carried out by non UN Military allience? CHECK
NATO is EVIL!!!!!!!
Addendum (kosovo specific):
USA president beloved by European masses: CHECK
Ahhh, thats the difference.. No?
Much of this motivated because many of you simply hate or dislike President Bush... Be honest about it at least...
-
I'll be happy to wait while you (or Scholz) do your research.
Threads wander all over, depending upon what arguments or "evidence" posters introduce.
I didn't bring up the Balkans, but when it came up, it's fair to point out that NATO's Charter was clearly violated when NATO countries ATTACKED entities that had not attacked any NATO country. In short, it was an illegal use of the NATO alliance. Research all you like; you won't find any changes that were made or addendums right before NATO, the purely defensive alliance ATTACKED the Balkans.
Further, I can't find ANY UN SC resolution on the Balkans that authorizes the use of force. None. They all have the same vacuous comments that amount to "if you don't do what we tell you, we're going to..stamp our feet and THINK ABOUT IT SOME MORE!"
Lastly, that ties it directly to the Iraq situation. If you recall, the "anti-war" argument was that there was no UN SC resolution that specifically authorized the use of force.
Gotta laugh then, at the discussion/argument recently in this thread.
To paraphrase:
"Violating the UN Charter is BAD! Soldiers that do that are CRIMINALS! Violating the NATO Charter is GOOD! Soldiers that do that are HEROS!"
"The UN SC Balkan resolution, written with almost the exact same weazel-wording as the UN SC Iraq resolution, authorized the use of force in the Balkans but the Iraq resolution did not."
Research all you like. I want to see either or both of you justify this stuff. Like I said, why watch Leno? This is much better!
-
False alarm, go ahead and delete this thread. :D
===================================
Tests Show No Agent in Iraq Mortar Shells
Associated Press
CAMP EDEN, Iraq - Tests by Danish and American experts indicate there is no chemical warfare agent in mortar shells unearthed last week in southern Iraq (news - web sites), but more testing is needed to confirm the findings, the Danish military reported Wednesday.
The preliminary findings cast doubt whether the suspicious shells will become the "smoking gun" proving that Iraq still maintained supplies of banned chemical weapons when the United States and its allies launched the war last March.
The U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group conducted tests on five shells and none of them showed traces of chemical agents, the Danish army said in a statement released in Copenhagen.
"Based on the tests, the experts conclude that none of the shells contain chemical warfare agents," it said, adding that more tests are needed for final confirmation.
It is believed the shells, discovered last week by Danish troops, are from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
-
I dont want to laugh but.... its a little bit funny :)
-
It would be funny if anyone had really said it was proof of WMD, which no one did- the point I went overly long trying to make.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Lets hear it liberals...
Stage 1:
"There are no WMDs...it was all a big lie, the war was about oil."
Stage 2:
"Oh suure there are SOME WMD's..but those are OLD...and besides there are so few of them."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386357.stm
Let's hear it for Hortland!:rofl
-
So does that change the fact that they are chemical warheads, WMD's...?
And heres a quote from you Kieran :
Like it or not, it does prove Iraq was lying, now doesn't it?
And heres a quote from me :
Of course, we will have to wait a day or two to get the lab-reports tough. But if they contain WMD of course no one can say he didnt have WMD.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Further, I can't find ANY UN SC resolution on the Balkans that authorizes the use of force. None. They all have the same vacuous comments that amount to "if you don't do what we tell you, we're going to..stamp our feet and THINK ABOUT IT SOME MORE!"
In short, I summarize the reading.
You won't find a UN or NATO resolution specifically authorizing force.
Because by time force was necessary that time the authority of that decision had already been established and granted to NATO.
Bosnia gave NATO the authority to enforce the peace.
Bosnia broke the peace and therefore, it was bombed into compliance.
That authority is established in the "Peace Agreement" enforcement clause authorized by the agreements that Bosnia signed with NATO, UN, and the other Balkan states - as detailed in the links below.
NATO and UN's authority to act as an enforcer and peace keeper is also cited below... the citations quote specific UN/NATO Charter elements which grants NATO and UN ability to act in this capacity.
Read the links.
To compare and contrasts with the US, IRAQ and UN situation.
The Gulf War Cease Fire Resolution (UNSC 687) gives authority to coalition to enforce the peace under the auspicious of the UN Security counsel. It does not give individual coalition nations unilateral authority to decide specific action if Iraq does not abide by the resolution - all decisions of the matter are reserved ONLY for the security counsel.
Specifically... The speaker is the UNSC.
"34. [UNSC] Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."
Do you need a link to UNSC 687?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u951215a.htm
NATO entered into this conflict by grant of authorty to "enforce" the peace by the Dayton Proximity Talks which was initiated by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY).
The agreement invites into Bosnia and Herzegovina a multinational military Implementation Force, the IFOR, under the command of NATO, with a grant of authority from the UN.
http://www.nato.int/ifor/gfa/gfa-summ.htm
http://www.nato.int/docu/facts/2000/role-bih.htm
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
In short, I summarize the reading.
You won't find a UN or NATO resolution specifically authorizing force.
Because by time force was necessary that time the authority of that decision had already been established and granted to NATO.
Bosnia gave NATO the authority to enforce the peace.
Bosnia broke the peace and therefore, it was bombed into compliance.
That authority is established in the "Peace Agreement" enforcement clause authorized by the agreements that Bosnia signed with NATO, UN, and the other Balkan states - as detailed in the links below.
NATO and UN's authority to act as an enforcer and peace keeper is also cited below... the citations quote specific UN/NATO Charter elements which grants NATO and UN ability to act in this capacity.
Read the links.
To compare and contrasts with the US, IRAQ and UN situation.
The Gulf War Cease Fire Resolution (UNSC 687) gives authority to coalition to enforce the peace under the auspicious of the UN Security counsel. It does not give individual coalition nations unilateral authority to decide specific action if Iraq does not abide by the resolution - all decisions of the matter are reserved ONLY for the security counsel.
Specifically... The speaker is the UNSC.
"34. [UNSC] Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."
Do you need a link to UNSC 687?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u951215a.htm
NATO entered into this conflict by grant of authorty to "enforce" the peace by the Dayton Proximity Talks which was initiated by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY).
The agreement invites into Bosnia and Herzegovina a multinational military Implementation Force, the IFOR, under the command of NATO, with a grant of authority from the UN.
http://www.nato.int/ifor/gfa/gfa-summ.htm
http://www.nato.int/docu/facts/2000/role-bih.htm
Notice he is talking of an entirely different country, not to mind all the other errors... :rofl
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
False alarm, go ahead and delete this thread. :D
===================================
Tests Show No Agent in Iraq Mortar Shells
Associated Press
CAMP EDEN, Iraq - Tests by Danish and American experts indicate there is no chemical warfare agent in mortar shells unearthed last week in southern Iraq (news - web sites), but more testing is needed to confirm the findings, the Danish military reported Wednesday.
Drats foiled again!
Toad... get your metal detector... time to comb the sands for buried stock piles... they are made of metal aren't they?
Or do you think the Iraqis were so clever they made their WMD out of plastic... makes sense... all that oil! Plenty of plastic. :rofl
The US army has plenty of land mine detecting equipment... Spread out... 1 HUMVEE every 20 feet...
If they don't find any WMD... they'll find enough loose change to at least pay for the war! :aok
-
Yes Maniac, proof of chemical weapons would have been proof of lying. Chemical weapons would not have been proof of WMD, but it would have strengthened the likelihood Iraq had lied about WMD, too.
And the tests aren't concluded yet, are they?
-
Now! im laughing!
LoooL!
:aok
It would be funny if anyone had really said it was proof of WMD, which no one did- the point I went overly long trying to make.
Oh yes, someone did say it.
-
Bosnia, Kosovo, Yugoslavia... Croatia... all were part of the same agreements...
for some reason I have Bosnia on the brain today .... DUH!
Read the links... they answer the question.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Now! im laughing!
LoooL!
:aok
Oh yes, someone did say it.
Really? Who?
-
Hortlund :
So does that change the fact that they are chemical warheads, WMD's...?
And heres you again :
Just in case you missed the point accidentally Maniac (which I doubt), the presence of those shells, whether or not they are recent, constitutes:
1. The presence of WMD.
2. This means SH lied to the UN inspections teams.
3. This means our intelligence that said they must have some chemical or biological weapons that were unaccounted for was right.
4. It means taking anything SH or his scientists said at face value is foolish.
-
Don't worry Kieren; I'm sure they will find more shells/rocket projectiles buried in the sand and if they're lucky maybe some wmd too.
Just keep on digging buddy :aok
-
This is funnier than Al Capone's vault..:D
-
hehe clearly they are just abit deeper.. keep digging!!
DIG DIG DIG DUG DIG DIG DIG!
:lol :lol
-
Mea Culpa on #1. If testing proves even traces of chemicals on the shells, 2-4 stand.
-
Mea Culpa on #1. If testing proves even traces of chemicals on the shells, 2-4 stand.
Agreed. As long as they knew about the shells that is...
-
I may be an idiot, but I'm an honest idiot. ;)
Edit: not saying you are dishonest, merely confessing my own stupidity.
-
LoL!
:aok
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=5&u=/ap/20040114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mortar_shells
-
I'll let Grun deal with the historical inaccuracies you posted.
Bosnia broke the peace and therefore, it was bombed into compliance
Although I'm tempted to do one of those "roll eyes" thingies.
*****
The NATO attack on Yugoslavia began At 1900 hours GMT on 24 March 1999.
I still see NOTHING in the NATO charter that allows for a defensive alliance to attack a non-member nation, Yugoslavia, that had not attacked any NATO nation. I looked at your links but didn't see it. Where's the change to the NATO charter?
You build your case on UN SC resolutions (btw, you'd want to cite the one on SFOR, not IFOR) that give NATO UN authority to use force.
Here's what I think is a short, fair overview from a Japanese source. I agree with it and I think it sums it up quickly.
Humanitarian Intervention and the Conflict in Kosovo (http://www.drc-jpn.org/AR3-E/miyoshi-e.htm)
... NATO's Air Strike against Yugoslavia
The humanitarian intervention in Kosovo was legitimately started by some European countries in compliance with Resolution 1160(31 March, 1998). In summer 1998, a major sweep of Yugoslav forces across Kosovo broke out under the guise of fighting back the Kosovo Liberation Army. SC issued Resolution 1199(23 September 1998) which demanded the cessation of acts of violence against civilians and the withdrawal of Yugoslav security forces used for civilian repression. But Yugoslav refusal to obey the resolution lead to NATO's brandishing the threat of force on 12 October.
The wording of the resolutions was to the effect that Yugoslav non-compliance with the resolutions will lead to the consideration of further action and additional measures. Such wording has been interpreted as requiring SC another action for the mandate of military measures. Nowhere in the resolutions could be found the usual phrase, "to take all necessary measures" which has been understood as authorizing measures up to military operation.
By the autumn of 1998, all NATO nations agreed that there was a moral and political imperative to act. So it would have been no problem, if only SC had adopted another required resolution. The difficulty was that China and Russia had already declared themselves vehemently against using force and so the NATO nations had to rack their brains, in vain, for a legal ground.
The most assertive proponents of military action, the US and the UK, seem to have thought that the existing Resolutions 1160 and especially 1191 based on Chapter VII and the Yugoslav forces in blatant neglect of the demands provided sufficient ground for NATO to use force. The notion was politically adequate but could not be legally sufficient. Other countries conceded the legal fragility of using force and tried to search for other grounds than the resolutions. The reasons they devised included Europe's prominently high standard of human rights protection, imminent risk of humanitarian catastrophe as documented by the UN Secretary-General and an inactive SC paralyzed accidentally with the threat of vetoes by China and Russia....
Nonetheless, the use of NATO forces against Yugoslavia violated the NATO charter. That's what we're talking about here. In short, while the UN may have authorized it, while NATO accepted the authorization and exercised it, that doesn't mean it isn't a violation of the NATO charter.
Both IFOR and SFOR had NATO components as well as components from other countries. It was NATO led, but it was a UN operation, operating under UN directives.
Here's another summary:Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution responds: (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may99/nato5.html)
the UN Security Council passed three resolutions indicating that events in Kosovo represented threats to regional peace and security (a finding that can trigger such authorization) and even though it did repeatedly demand that Belgrade act in ways Milosevic refused to follow, the Council never authorized the use of force because Russia and China opposed doing so.
There was no UN SC authorization for those airstrikes. Both China and Russia, permanent members said they would veto such a resolution at the time. Remind you of anything?
-
So you agree it was a violation of the NATO charter? The air war against Yugoslavia?
-
Oh, allow me!
The North Atlantic Treaty (http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm)
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
You know, when it happened, I thought it was legal. Boroda called me on it here in the O-Club and after a couple long threads and a lot of research, I was forced to the conclusion that Boroda was correct and it was an illegal use of NATO forces.
When you stand back and look at it though, to me it merely highlights the basic problem with the UN.
There can be no doubt Milosovich needed stopping; in that sense, the NATO airstrikes were the "right" thing to do. However, the UN SC, when the issue was hot and in front of them was paralyzed because China and Russia made it known they'd veto any resolution that authorized the use of force.
The current parallel is clear.
And, again, it's the basic problem with the UN. By it's very nature, it is designed to prevent the use of force.
Unfortunately, there's times that heads need cracking.
-
LMFAO
So this is what they were looking for all this time?? Almost as funny as the trailer with "possiblities of being used as a chem/bio lab. :rofl
...-Gixer
-
Cain't find 'em too soon, we ain't stoled all their awl yet.
-
The anti-war crowd never played the "There are no WMD in Iraq" card before the invasion.
I did post here or on AGW before the invasion stating that the Bush Administration's reliance on the WMD justification was very stupid given the US determination to invade. All SH had to do was destroy all the WMD he knew about, and the US wouldnot even have a pretext for the invasion; we'd come off looking like a warmongering threat to global security -- just the kind of power you'd want to organize terrorist attacks against.
36 120mm mortar shells, eh? Buried, leaking and forgotten in the desert where thousands of these things were used twenty years ago. I'm sure the Iraqis will find sites like this for fifty years.
heck, if you go to france or belgium and do enough digging, you'll probably find mustard gas-filled shells.
YEah, they're "WMD", and Iraq was forbidden to have these in their stockpiles. The administration is playing down the find because they'd be ridiculed if they announced that this was what we invaded a country, killed thousands of people, and toppled a government for: a handful of forgotten, non-functional shells out in the desert.
Keep looking.
-
The NATO alliance is only chartered to use military force when one of the member states is under attack and then only against said attacker.
While you may disagree about Milosevic, the sainted UN was heavily involved in trying to stop him. so I guess the UN didn't agree with your assumption. The only thing that stopped a UN SC resolution authorizing the use of force was the Russsian and Chinese threat to veto such a resolution.
Here's another for you folks that think the UN had authorized the NATO use of force:
Annan: U.N. should have been consulted (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9903/24/kosovo.reax/)
March 24, 1999
Web posted at: 6:16 p.m. EDT (1816 GMT)
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Wednesday he understood why force might have had to be used in Kosovo but emphasized that the U.N. Security Council needed to be involved in any decision to use it.
As an emergency session of the Security Council began, Annan told reporters, "It is indeed tragic that diplomacy has failed, but there are times when the use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace.
"But as secretary-general I have many times pointed out, not just in relation to Kosovo, that under the (U.N.) Charter, the Security Council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. This is explicitly acknowledged in the North Atlantic Treaty."
Annan's statement, made after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) began bombing Yugoslavia on Wednesday evening, appeared to back the Russian position that any military action must have prior council approval.
So while some of YOU may think NATO didn't need further UN SC approval, the U.N. Secretary-General disagrees. I think I'll go with his assessment.
It was illegal.
Scholz, he also seemed to understand "why force might have had to be used in Kosovo."
-
Oops, looks like I might have to retract my concession ala Al Gore. ;)
-
Blister agents arent really what we are looking for anyway. Heck I bet the US probably gave it to them, if it dates back that far. It does throw a little egg on some faces but only because it was unexpected. Lots of people feel strongly about politics today, one way or another, so its no suprise really
strk
-
hehe you just saw a several people dogpile one guy who proved them wrong. so they dogpiled again and again.
kieren, you are diverting from reality. read the posts again.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I disagree that there is a parallel to Iraq, and I also disagree that Milosevic needed stopping and that international intervention was needed on such a level. The Kosovo conflict was initiated by Kosovo-Albanian terrorists who slaughtered hundreds of Serb civilians and forced Yugoslav military intervention. If you want to draw a parallel it is much closer to Chechnya. The conflict soon escalated to almost civil war proportions.
After reading the NATO Charter you posted I must say that I find nothing that prohibits the member nations to use military force against non-members (unlike the UN Charter). But even if the NATO Charter was not violated it is pretty clear that its intentions were, and that by using the organisation in this manner NATO exceeded its authority even if it did not violate its own Charter.
The UN is designed to prevent the use of unnecessary force. Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows the UN to use force to deal with threats to international peace and aggression (i.e. GW1 for instance).
Milosevic's government was not overthrown as a result of the NATO/OSCE/UN action. His government fell later as the result of a civil uprising when it was found that he was cheating in the 2000 elections.
You arent saying it was ok because NATO agreed? It still was agaibst UN rules was it not?
If you say its ok becauese NATO allience agreed to attack and it was not aginst NATO rules then wahts to stop somebody from saying Iraq was OK because the "Coalaition of the Willing" agreed to attack Iraq.. Neither of those have any special relation to Un and are independant military alliences.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
the UN in no way authorized military action against Iraq.
Just a refresher.
678 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm)
687 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/scres91.htm)
1441 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm)
-
"COW" claims it was supportiung UN resoltions and is making UN relevant depite itself.
Still I think 95% of Euro oppsition to this war is due to some bizzare dislike of Bush, if Clinton was doing this they would eat it up much easier. They liked Clinton and they dont like Bush.
-
Maybe you are the exception. :)
But seeing all those Bush = Hitler comparsions and protest themnes makes me think its personal for many people.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Just a refresher.
678 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm)
687 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/scres91.htm)
1441 (http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm)
Laz can you refresh everyone's knowledge as to how any of these constitutes UN authorization for invasion due to Iraq proportedly having WMD.
I recall that UN678 relates to UN660, which calls for Iraq to leave Kuwait back in 1990. UN678 authorizes force to compel UN660.
UN687 deals in part with the ban and monitoring of the destruction of Iraqi WMD.
And I recall UN1441 saying something about convening to consider the situation after UNMOVIC and IAEA report on WMD inspections while giving Iraq a final opportunity to show compliance with UN687.
Where was that UN authorization for invasion?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=5&u=/ap/20040114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mortar_shells
all this yaddayadda for nothing..
Oh well, I'm sure they'll find some real WMD shell... at least a dud shell from some gassed village.
-
Someone start a new thread please, this one is all over the place regarding subject matter. I am as guilty of posting off topic as much as the next guy, but let's get a new thread and break this endless loop please. :)
-
I'm not focusing on party at all, its obvious they have no clue about US politics, what I am saying is they liked Clinton better personally and have a bizzare hatred of Bush.
-
There can be no doubt about the intent of NATO.
From the Nato website: Origins of the North Atlantic Treaty (http://www.nato.int/archives/1st5years/chapters/1.htm#f)
Negotiating the Atlantic Treaty
On the 6th July, 1948, the preliminary talks which led to the North Atlantic Treaty began in Washington between the State Department and the Ambassadors of Canada and of the Brussels Treaty Powers. It was agreed from the start that any treaty for common defence, linking countries from both sides of the Atlantic, should be within the framework of the United Nations' Charter. These talks ended on the 9th September, 1948, with a report to governments recommending inter alia that the proposed treaty should:
promote peace and security;
express determination of the Parties to resist aggression;
define the area in which it should be operative;
be based on self-help and mutual aid;
be more than military: that is, promote the stability and well being of the North Atlantic peoples;
provide machinery for implementation.
The report was duly considered by governments, and at the end of October the Consultative Council of the Brussels Treaty was able to announce 'complete agreement on the principle of a defensive pact for the North Atlantic and on the next steps to be taken in this direction'. The 'next steps' were the actual drafting of the North Atlantic Treaty which started in Washington on the 10th December, 1948, between representatives of the seven Powers.
So your evaluation doesn't make sense. Clearly, NATO is and was always intended to be a mutual defensive pact between member nations. NONE of those countries were attacked by Yugoslavia.
No where in the Charter or in the history of the formation of NATO can you find reference to anything other than mutual defense. There NOTHING about "attacking" anyone else. Indeed, the ONLY concept mentioned is that of DEFENSE of member nations. It is the intent and raison d'etre for the NATO alliance.
Scholz:
Most of the UNSC nations did want to intervene in Kosovo ... and unfortunately they did. The nations that attacked Yugoslavia were the same nations in the UN that wanted UN intervention.
Really? No kidding?
"Many of the UNSC nations did want to intervene in Iraq ... and unfortunately they did. The nations that attacked Iraq were the same nations in the UN that wanted UN intervention."
:)
Does this mean you also think the invasion of Iraq was illegal?
As I have said many, many times before, if they don't find evidence of WMD, it was absolutely illegal and Bush should step down. They've had Saddam for one month; I'll give them maybe 5 more to show something. After that..... I'll say it was absolutely illegal. But I am willing to give them time to squeeze Saddam.
Just as I say Clinton's use of American Forces in the NATO attack on Yugoslavia was illegal. I agree with the UN Secretary-General on that. I mean, he runs the organization; he ought to know, eh?
-
I wrote the letter I agreed to write when I lost the bet on the "6 month" timeframe.
Nash acknowledged getting it here on this BBS.
The letter to all Senators and Reps will be written in about 5 more months. I'll give them that long to grill Saddam. But if you have the guy you said had the WMD and can't find anything in 6 months of interrogation... that's about my personal limit.
If that's the case, I think Bush should step down. He won't, of course, but I won't support him in the next election and will send my money and support to another candidate.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
all this yaddayadda for nothing..
Oh well, I'm sure they'll find some real WMD shell... at least a dud shell from some gassed village.
the arguement isnt if they had them years ago, its if iraq had them and ready to use on us right before the war.
villages are slaughtered all over the world, and i dont see you screaming to go in and invade.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
hehe you just saw a several people dogpile one guy who proved them wrong. so they dogpiled again and again.
kieren, you are diverting from reality. read the posts again.
You needs some company there anyway, Towd. ;)
Look, I'll admit anytime I can be proven wrong. Freely. IF OTOH Toad is right about NATO acting without a UN resolution because both Russia and China promised to veto such an action...? What's that mean to you?
-
Russia and China learned that from all those vetoes U.S has made in UN ?
-
No Staga, it would mean my argument with Gscholz was correct. Right?
-
Gscholtz,
1. You have said the US is criminal in its actions in Iraq based on the fact the UNSC did not pass a resolution to use military force.
2. I said the NATO action in the Balkans happened without such a resolution.
3. You gave me a resolution number and a quote, which I accepted as your argument.
4. Toad has since proven there was no UNSC resolution authorizing military force, because Russia and China promised to veto any such resolution.
Does that roughly cover it? What do you mean specifically when you say NATO action there was "shaky"? I don't want to stick words in your mouth, do you believe it was legal by UN standards or not? You're oscillating back and forth so hard I can't tell.
I am always prepared to admit I am wrong. Are you?
-
dude you are not gonna quibble you way out of this.
you arguments have been defeated.
toad is using sophistry to try to give you and honorable out but you try to turn it into you being correct. just plain sad.
he was a trooper in a war you talked out of your butt about. then he made you look silly, get over it,its his right.
you spout the party line well and your a true believer that and a nickle will still not get you a cup of coffee.
p.s. read up any on texas gerymandering? mr expert?
-
well well...looks like the democrats were wrong...AGAIN.
:D
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
the arguement isnt if they had them years ago, its if iraq had them and ready to use on us right before the war.
villages are slaughtered all over the world, and i dont see you screaming to go in and invade.
Uh?
That was sarcasm about this whole thread.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
dude you are not gonna quibble you way out of this.
you arguments have been defeated.
toad is using sophistry to try to give you and honorable out but you try to turn it into you being correct. just plain sad.
he was a trooper in a war you talked out of your butt about. then he made you look silly, get over it,its his right.
you spout the party line well and your a true believer that and a nickle will still not get you a cup of coffee.
p.s. read up any on texas gerymandering? mr expert?
Towd, you are so blindly partisan you make mg look unbiased. But that isn't our topic, is it?
Gscholz did not undo my argument, he successfully derailed it off the point. I goofed when I said there wasn't a UN resolution before NATO strikes occurred, and I was wrong about that; what I was NOT wrong about was there was no UNSC resolution that allowed for a lawful use of force by NATO in the region. I'll happily admit I am wrong if you can prove I am, but you haven't yet.
I don't care what his record is WRT to the discussion; having served doesn't automatically make him right. Toad served too you know, and as they hold opposing viewpoints, one of those guys is going to be wrong. So far it looks like Toad is right.
But I'll throw you a bone; which court recently decided the Republicans in Texas were well within their rights to gerrymander this past year? And do you maintain gerrymandering is only good when Democrats do it?
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
toad is using sophistry
Sophistry?
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Wednesday he understood why force might have had to be used in Kosovo but emphasized that the U.N. Security Council needed to be involved in any decision to use it..Annan's statement, made after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) began bombing Yugoslavia on Wednesday evening, appeared to back the Russian position that any military action must have prior council approval.
[/b]
What's invalid about that argument?
The Secretary-General said NATO should not have used force without getting UN SC approval.
Does that confuse you?
-
you still havent answerd the question i asked you befor i would debate with you. after showing your ignorance of the situation by saying blatant falshoods, who made the map kieren thinks the democrats gerymandered? (its a lie by guess what political party)
and leagal does not mean its not despicable and incredibley wastfull of tax dollars ? did you read the judges oppinions?
for the entire history of texas the state has avoided sutch a sorry eventualy self defeating waste of tax dollars to achieve short term political gain.
all hell is breaking out in states all over the country in similar gerymandring attempts and counter suits. it will cost huge amounts of money from all of us. why? to gain a false majority theres a family value for ya.
your political oppinion railing at a combat soldier is that of a corrupt 5 year old.
watching you put down a soldier in a un sponsored unit fighting for the lives of strangers. the un gave tactit permision for the whole thing and further more you know it.
i.e.you have found a bullcrap sophist argument.
ohh its against the charter! did you see the pretty white tank? did you talk to the guy with dead friends who would have live ones if he had stayed home?
guess where it and here were and guess what large international body was perfectly happy about it. even if it was against the charter technicly. you debate that toad and your just spouting sophist crap.
-
Excuuuuuuuuuuuusse me chum! I haven't made any comment about your "gerrymander" rant. Not that I couldn't, it just that attempting to debate anything with you is a pointless, wasteful exercise. IMO, of course.
As for the rest, you are simply incorrect. I once thought it was given tacit UN permission but after an involved discussion with Boroda, I did more research. Boroda was right, I was wrong. It wasn't given "tacit permission" and it was a violation of the NATO charter.
Any remaining confusion you have can be cleared up simply by re-reading Kofi Annan's statement.
You know, the guy that was Secretary-General of the UN at the time the NATO airstrikes started? The guy that says NATO should have had Security Council approval first?
If you've been paying attention in the thread "against the Charter" is a very popular comment with those opposing the Iraq invasion. Apparently it's bad to violate a UN Charter but it's not bad to violate a NATO Charter. Well, yes.... obviously. There's a word for taking that sort of position.
LDV: guess where it and here were and guess what large international body was perfectly happy about it.
Sorry, you'll have to translate that into a standard English sentence for me. I have no idea what you mean.
-
LDV-
Texas has fallen into Republican control for the first time in how many decades? Where was all your railing about gerrymandering then? I'm not being partial when I say if it's ok for one side to do it, it is ok for the other. All this huff because you made a silly remark about "all hell is going to break loose." Sure is, all around your ears right now. Got a clue why?
Toad has it nailed. I am not the one to originate the "Your country is criminal because it ignored international protocol" argument. Neither is Toad. But if we flip it back at a guy who used that very line to lie and put words into the mouths of myself and others here regarding the meaning of finding outlawed weapons (and make no mistake, HE pulled it that way), then it is wrong? How do you figure?
I am not attacking his military record- now YOU are lying. His personal service has nothing to do with the dialogue I've had with him (other than what HE has said). Plus your hero has made his fair share of personal attacks on me in the process, but I didn't cry like a little girl about it. I gave him some back, no big deal. If you didn't catch that, you are far more partisan than I could ever have dreamed.
-
Holy cow, what a thread.
Guess most have forgotten what it was all about.
So shamelessly I forward my hijacking attempt:
Did you know how close the US was to entering WW2 on the "cough" wrong side?
Did you know that the Norwegians fought a longer battle against the Germans than the French!
Did you know that the only obstacle for the US to sell weapons to the Germans until dec 1941 was the RN with its harbour blockade?
Did you also know that it was the Germans who declared war on the US, not the other way around?
Things are so funny looking at them afterwards.
So would you belive, that I (and also presumably GScholz...?) are quite happy about Saddam being behind bars, nevermind the start, he is one SOB,so scrap the details.
Anyway, that was my attempt for thread distraction
:D :D
-
Here's mine...
Did you know Hardee's burgers are made with 100% Angus beef? ;)
-
10 year old mustard shells is not WMD in my opinion. I sure hope they find some WMD or a nuclear program soon.
-
"YOU are lying"
kieren.
you are unbalanced.
towd.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
They liked Clinton and they dont like Bush.
basicaly we do not like any green live forms.....
-
Gscholz-
Then it's merely been a semantic game for you. If I give a region and a year, are you going to pretend to not know what I was talking about? Sure, the Balkans is a region, where exactly was NATO bombing in that time period? Even the "sparse" timeline I gave you told you that.
So... in your opinion, the action was okay... how comforting. At least you finally literally acknowledge it's illegal. Yes, I do read what you print, but you hedged quite a bit in that paragraph. Your explaination of the paragraph was at least clear, though.
I'm still amused by your assertion I know nothing of the region. I guess if you say so it must be true, eh? Because I wouldn't state the blatantly obvious before your eyes? You got wound up so quickly on the rhetoric and assumptions, wasn't much reason to give you more than the absolute minimum. You'd already decided you were right, anyway.
Towd, all you have to do is point to where I said anything negative about Gscholz's military record and I will cheerfully apologize. Until then, you are lying. Actually, I'm finding to a great extent you and Gscholz are two peas in a pod in this thread.
-
Hey GScholzie: Aren't you glad they got Saddam anyway?
WMD's or not, the SOB was sure trying to get hold of those.
And business blockades or not, he was squandering his nations money on endless weapons and then his own back yard of Palaces and Luxuries.
I must confess that I am not all happy about the way the US went about this whole business, but I'm still glad it's mostly done.
Saying that, this business is probably never gonna be done.
Sighhh
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Now, I am growing a bit tired of your annoying lack of common sense, clarity and ability to follow obvious logic, so this will be my final post on this subject.
Actually, it looks like he pretty much exposed your hypocrisy.
Anything the USA does is EVIL!
DEATH TO AMEREEEKA!
-
:rolleyes:
-
The bad man is gone.... His sons aren't raping and torturing with government help... unleaded premium is $ 1.70 a gallon... We don't have to worry about him buying a suitcase nuke or training terrorists...life is good.
The alternatives are not so good... if Bush woulda said we don't care about iraq... millons of hippies and the liberals on this board woulda posted atrocities commited by the sadman and company every day... Bush would be called heartless.
Most everyone will agree (when election time comes) that things worked out for the best.
lazs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The NATO campaign against Yugoslavia in the Kosovo campaign was not UN sanctioned, but the air strikes were UN "endorsed".
Say what? :lol
Apparently Kofi and both the Russian and Chinese members of the SC didn't "endorse" it one bit!
Remember how were were talking parallels? There's PLENTY of parallels.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes Angus I am glad Hussein is gone, but I'm not happy about the way it was done.
So, just exactly when and how did you plan to get rid of him? I'll be out for a while so I'll just go ahead and guffaw your response now if you don't mind.
-
Gscholz-
All that is missing is the "Or else" clause. As we learned very well from the Iraq conflict, resolutions that don't specifically cite force as the alternative aren't considered by the international body to be tacit approval of force.
Agreed?
I mean, the final UN resolution concerning Iraq did say "or else", it just didn't say "or else" what to the satisfaction of all dissenting countries. The amazing thing is every signing country knew exactly what Bush meant to do in the absence of full compliance. That seems complicity of sorts to me. But that's just me.
-
Maybe after you learn to quit sticking your foot in your mouth?:rofl
I guess the "NATO Air Verification Mission over Kosovo" was what started at 2:00 PM EST, 24 March 1999? Is that what you're saying?
No, of course not. The NATO Air Verification Mission would not have included dropping bombs and rockets on Belgrade would it? Or are you saying Belgrade is the capital of Kosovo?
RESOLUTION 1203 (1998) (http://www.un.org/peace/kosovo/98sc1203.htm)
Find me a reference to the use of force in that. The word "force" is used ONE time; see if it relates to the NATO contingent of SFOR. Let me know.
Note well that the date of this resolution is 24 October 1998; NATO authorized airstrikes the first time on 12 October 1998. You'd think the UN SC would have reminded Milosevich of that in the resolution, eh? But, of course, there's nothing in this UN SC resolution passed just 12 days later about "force" against Yugoslavia.
On October 4, 1998 Russia (Yeltsin) warned that the NATO attack could return East-West relations to state of crisis. Does that sound like a permanent member of the SC with veto power would approve the first NATO airstrikes?
On March 18, 1999, the Kosovo Albanian delegation signed the peace deal in France calling for interim autonomy and 28,000 NATO troops. The Serbian delegation refused, and talks were suspended.
On March 19, 1999, the whole deal fell apart and peace talks adjourned.
Show me something from the UN SC during or after those peace talks that said "Yugoslavia, we are authorizing a NATO air war against you unless you get back to the peace table" or anything like that. You think Russia changed it's mind between October 4 and March 19? No, they didn't and there's historicial documentation to show they didn't.
Russia, that permanent member of the UN SC that has veto power... and said they'd use it on an Iraq resolution.
Parallels.
-
OMG! :rofl
You STILL don't see it? There's not a word in 1203 about NATO using force. Allow me to show you a parallel:
Scholz[/b]
"United Nations -- The UN Security Council October 24 voted 13-0 for a new resolution on Kosovo (UNSC Res 1203) that Acting US Ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh said retained NATO's authority to use force if necessary to enforce compliance with UNSC Resolutions 1160 and 1199 by "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" President Slobodan Milosevic.
"The NATO allies," Burleigh said, "in agreeing on October 13 to the use of force, made clear that they had the authority and the means to resolve this issue. We retain that authority," Burleigh said following the UNSC's 13-0 vote in favor of UNSC Resolution 1203."
Statement by Ambassador John D. Negroponte, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Iraq, Before the Security Council, March 27, 2003 (http://www.un.int/usa/03_040.htm)
Ambassador John D. Negroponte, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations
It was regrettable that the Government of Iraq decided not to take the “final opportunity” for compliance provided in Resolution 1441. The Coalition response is legitimate and not “unilateral.” Resolution 687 imposed a series of obligations on Iraq that were the conditions of the cease-fire.
It has long been recognized and understood that a material breach of those obligations removes the basis of the cease-fire and revives the authority to use force Resolution 678. Resolution 1441 explicitly found Iraq in continuing material breach. In view of Iraq’s additional materials breaches, the basis for the existing cease-fire has been removed and the use of force is authorized under Resolution 678.
[/color]
Two US Ambassadors saying almost exactly the same thing in two different cases, NATO/Yugoslavia and "Coalition of the Willing"/Iraq.
Parallels? Maybe not... maybe "Identicals" instead? :lol
Like it or not Scholz, the NATO/Yugoslavia and the COTW/Iraq are amazingly similar, if not identical. Neither actions were sanctioned by the UN SC. Fer pete's sake, Kofi Annan came right out and said that NATO should have consulted the UN SC first! The Russians said they'd veto any "use of force" resolutions in the SC in debates prior to the actions being taken.
Give it up man. You can't defend one and condemn the other. By your standards, they're BOTH violations of Charters. If you're going to be consistent, you have to view them both the same, one way or the other.
Do you really even want to start in on the parallels in the "non-compliance situation? I'll be happy to oblige, but it seems a waste, given the above. It'll have the same result for you.
Oh and don't confuse agreeing to a "verification mission" with the bombing of Belgrade, OK? I don't think anyone would believe the Serbs agreed to have Belgrade bombed, do you? :lol
-
why are you quibbling toad he was there force was approved. he has shown it again and again.
why you are doing this is the question. our constitution said all men are created equal, how long did slavery last after that.
by your logic there could be no slavery in america.
this hanging on to a sophist argument even when proven wrong is gettting to be like that soudi iraqi kill you got all wrong untill called by a guy that was there? why you do this crap?
-
Originally posted by Toad
OMG! :rofl
You STILL don't see it? There's not a word in 1203 about NATO using force. Allow me to show you a parallel:
Great post Toad. You have pointed out that the Iraq war was just a contiuation of the 1st gulf war due to Iraq's non compliace with the original cease-fire agreement.
That, along with the fact that it was the UN who reaffirmed that Iraq was still not complying with resolution 1441.
Ambassador John D. Negroponte, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations
It was regrettable that the Government of Iraq decided not to take the “final opportunity” for compliance provided in Resolution 1441. The Coalition response is legitimate and not “unilateral.” Resolution 687 imposed a series of obligations on Iraq that were the conditions of the cease-fire.
It has long been recognized and understood that a material breach of those obligations removes the basis of the cease-fire and revives the authority to use force Resolution 678. Resolution 1441 explicitly found Iraq in continuing material breach. In view of Iraq’s additional materials breaches, the basis for the existing cease-fire has been removed and the use of force is authorized under Resolution 678.
That quote says it all. The people here that are trying to divert away from the legality of the coalitions war in Iraq by saying "Bush lied" and the ever present "Where are the WMD??" are completely missing the point. They seem unable to understand the dynamics even slightly.
If you ask most people who hold the view that "Bush Lied" if they are happy Iraq is liberated and the UN sanctions are now being complied with, they usually say yes, it's good....but "Bush Lied"
It's comical to me, it really is.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
why are you quibbling toad he was there force was approved. he has shown it again and again.
why you are doing this is the question. our constitution said all men are created equal, how long did slavery last after that.
by your logic there could be no slavery in america.
this hanging on to a sophist argument even when proven wrong is gettting to be like that soudi iraqi kill you got all wrong untill called by a guy that was there? why you do this crap?
Dude, you make NO sense at all. "Being there" doesn't mean force is approved... ask Gscholtz about our troops sitting in Iraq now. "Being there" also doesn't provide any special insight about UNSC resolutions or the NATO charter. That isn't to say he is ignorant of these things generally, but his access to the knowledge is no greater than anyone else's.
Why do this? Because it is tiresome to hear the "The US is an outlaw nation" crap all the time. As Toad has proven, that line of reasoning can be thrown right back at many of these guys... then what?
-
"The US cannot be trusted. It's that simple. I would never do bussiness with a US company if substancial money was involved."
Gscholtz
Just wondering, is 14.95 substancial money? :):)
-
LDV, I'm not quibbling.
The exact same arguments GS has used against the Iraq invasion can be used against the NATO air war against Yugoslavia. Yet he can't bring himself to admit that. "Fishy" is his nocomittal comment.
That has to be clear to even the most casual observer by now. The exact same types of resolutions, the exact same comments from American ambassadors, etc., etc., etc.
That's that point and you continually miss it.
AS Kieran points out, you use of his "being there", either as PROFOR (all-Euro), IFOR, SFOR und KFOR is merely a red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion about the violation of Charters, either UN or NATO.
Your slavery analogy just shows how much you fail to understand what's being discussed here. TJ wrote equality into the Constitution but it took an AMENDMENT to the Constitution to really end slavery, didn't it? Well, and a Civil War, of course.
The UN and NATO wrote "no agressive use of force" into THEIR charters. The UN caveat is "without UN SC direction". NATO has NO AMENDMENT or caveat... it was designed as a purely defensive alliance of member states.
So, your attempt to bring slavery into this discussion just shows you haven't figured out what we're talking about yet. Slavery took and amendment. Unprovoked use of force against a non-member nation by NATO would require an amendment to that Charter.
***************
And you still don't know what you're talking about with respect to the Saudi kill of the Iraq mig in GW1. The US forces were called off for political purposes on that one.
Those two Iraqis flew under USAF CAPs until the Saudis could get at them.
Someday, somebody will write a book about it and you'll find out how far out of the loop you actually were/still are.
-
Well my current position is that unless they find a real substancial amount of WMD or nuclear program, my vote will go to Howard Dean for 2004. Even if they do find WMD, Im still likely to stay in the Howard Dean camp.
-
Oh, please stop that Balcan discussion, it's been too complicatd since 1940 or so!
Anyway, what ever is said about the Balcan stuff, I have two things on my mind (which is a foggy unit :D ):
1. The world moved too slow, allowing nasty WW2-like stuff to start happening,,,,and
2. The world however did finally put an end to it.
So, too fast or too slow, always a problem.
But the reward of tonight goes to this here:
Just wondering, is 14.95 substancial money?
Well, just talking for myself, but I'll bloody well do business with HTC as long as they are around :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Toad I hope that someday you get a prez who doesn't fck you w/out KY-Jelly :aok
-
Originally posted by Staga
Toad I hope that someday you get a prez who doesn't fck you w/out KY-Jelly :aok
Wow, great argument:aok
Care to actually involve yourself in a debate? Guys like you usually have no logical sequence of thought, but it might be fun to have a debate with you based on the extraordinary point you have made here.
-
We don't have Finnish-style Politicians. Ours ALWAYS use K-Y!
-
i think the analogy stands your claiming a clear statment in a charter means somthing cant happen yet you have clear evidence in front of you that it has/did. the un charter forbids agressive violence, but not defensive and you have a soldier who was there ( are you honestly suggesting they painted their tanks white as a ruse? the other option is your wrong by the way quibble or no) under the un command and still you pretend that it was illeagal in the same manner as the invasion of iraq. the fact that the vast majority of countrys in the world were against the iraq invasion notwithstanding.i.e. you have quibbled.
you know soldiers were there you know the un ( all but two countrys ?) supported it you know its a totaly different situation
the list of bush/neocon crimes/lies grows dayly and going "im right im right" denighing even understanding of your at best quibbled at worst deluded arguments. only helps you in the minds of the non thinking party faithfull.
1.he was there the un approved; the vast majoity of the world aggreed or didnt care
2.bush lied the un didnt approve; the vast majority of the world was dead set against the dead being done in a insane illeagal manner. so he tried a number of different justifications. not the same thing.
and we are back to the 10 year old unusable mortar rounds.
your arguments arge getting weaker and weaker. relighing more on smoke and mirrors.
and my vote is getting more a more threatend every day beacause of immoral candidates you support out of dogma
its a nightmare. my wife sister just had a neice her daddy was scedualed out of the reserves but noooooo he was forced extention and then activated 1 day afeter his baby was born hes off to iraq directly because of these lies and hell no he dosent want to go. hes been drafted against his will.
:mad:
-
he didnt have to go. The constitution protects us from involuntary
servitude. He could have refused to go on reasons of morality.
The only other reason I can see him going was because it was his duty. I dont like it all. Being forced to go fight in a illegal war.
But I realized early on that volunteering for the armed forces meant that my own personal freewill would be voluntarily exempted at the whims of whomever was CIC.
I salute him and his family
==============================================
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to
-
Jeeeezus TOWD......if I was as miserable as you, I would have employed the Colt .45 by now.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
the un charter forbids agressive violence, but not defensive
[/b]
You're absolutely wrong about this. Even Scholz will tell you that. It just has to have SC authorization.
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
under the un command and still you pretend that it was illeagal in the same manner as the invasion of iraq.
[/b]
You don't understand that either. PROFOR, IFOR, KFOR and SFOR all were UN[/b] authorized force deployments that include troops from both NATO and non-NATO countries.The UN merely put NATO leadership on the operation of I/K/SFOR. Those were UN operations (with troops from non-NATO countries) that were put under the operational command of NATO officers. None of those were "NATO" operations.. they were UN operations.
So while NATO troops were involved, they were under UN rules and regs for use of force, not NATO which is a purely defensive alliance (or was until they violated their charter.)
When NATO unilaterally attacked Yugoslavia, a non-NATO country that had not attacked any NATO country, they violated their Charter. Especially considering they did that without UN SC approval.
The UN SC, as evidenced by Kofi Annan's statement and the statements out of Russia, that permanent member of the SC with veto authority, DID NOT authorize the NATO air war against Yugoslavia. No amount of wishful thinking on your part is going to change that. It was simply illegal. This situation is DIRECTLY analogous to the Iraq invasion.
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
the fact that the vast majority of countrys in the world were against the iraq invasion notwithstanding.i.e. you have quibbled
[/b]
Go back and read some of the news articles for Operation Allied Force; there were a lot of countries in the world against the NATO air war against Yugoslavia. So?
Again, the UN didn't approve either one. Further, NATO violated its charter. You can repeat your incorrect version of history but that won't change history. Well, you may convince some folks too lazy to actually research the topic.
LDV:daddy was scedualed out of the reserves but noooooo he was forced extention and then activated 1 day afeter his baby was born hes off to iraq directly because of these lies and hell no he dosent want to go. hes been drafted against his will.[/b]
Either you or he obviously failed to read and understand the Reserve agreement he signed. He can be extended, he can be deployed and he can be sent against his will. This was all explained to him when he signed up. There's lots of folks think the Guard/Reserve is "free money" with no obligation. They're simply wrong.
Too bad for him; it's a tough time to go. But you take the king's shilling, you do the king's bidding.
I knew a lot of Guard/Reserve guys in the airline that used to love bragging about the easy duty and flying top line fighters for sport on the weekends. Then they got called up for GW1 and deployed, some had their enlistments extended. Big difference in Airline Captain pay and Air Force Captain pay. But 99% of them knew what they had signed on for and went without a tear. 1% of them cried and *****ed uncontrollably about the sheer injustice of it all.
Which one is your friend going to emulate?
You're a sad, sour man with an obvious hardon for the US military. You've made it clear you didn't like the Navy. You continually moan that life just isn't fair.
Well, as many have said, you get out of the military what you put into it. Looks like you put the same vitriol and sour grapes into the Navy that you got out of it.
And hey... life ain't fair. No news flash.. it's probably the last thought that went through Abel's mind when Cain whacked him with the rock.
-
This thread really, really, really needs that "Arguing on the internet is like being in the Special Olympics..." picture.
-
G S
Please just let this die!
-
Towd, the fact Gscholtz (or any NATO soldier) was in the region is not proof it was authorized to use force by the UN. What in the world do you believe supports that statement? American troops are in Iraq; does that by your logic mean the UN must have backed that up too? Of course not.
I would also say your assertion it didn't matter in any event "because the world didn't care" is in serious error as well. As has been stridently pointed out by many different international posters (Thrawn for one) the law is the law. If you want to beat the US (for you specifically, Bush) about the head about breaking the law, you are going to have to expect to see an obvious contradiction like this thrown back at you.
I'd known the NATO action years ago was "illegal" by world standards. I didn't know the minutae, and undoubtedly Toad has studied it far more than me or many others, but one thing was clear at the time; the UN failed to act when it should have, and NATO was forced to do what the UNSC wouldn't/couldn't. It has been discussed here and other places before, it's old news. I didn't and still don't have a problem with that, because I place absolutely no faith in the UN in these matters. The UN is not a viable body for settling international disputes today any more than it was then - if anything, worse.
-
And here we go!
(http://www.se7en-x.com/argue/argue.jpg)
-
I think we should start to argue about whether this thread is too long. That should be good for another 30 posts.
It is intresting to look at the development of this discussion.
That poison munitions were found is relatively unquestioned yet apparently gas weapons transform into harmless artifacts after the 'use by' date passes.
The condition of the munitions has something to do with their existance. Apparently if the are in good condition they exist, if in bad condition they do not exist.
The 'use by' date also somehow has something to do with Boznia, and when this date passes, all agreements and treaties regarding the former status of said munitions are null and void.
That the former munitions existed at all presents no indication of possible further weapons and casts no bad light on those who possesed them.
I think I may understand this now....
-
toad: hehe close i have a hardon for liars and the old boy networked liars. and a damn good reason ill hold to my grave. and they are not the military just corrupt criminals in uniform there is a difference and its in their mind not mine.
my friend is not emulating anyone he signed up and new what the "convienience of the army" clause was and hes goin. just like alot of guys went in nam and the first gulf. just doin duty under a lieing cheat is a onerous thing. his father was bad enought but the present "king" is a dealbreaker.
p.s. his contract time was up. the "king" (your analogy not mine) broke the deal and turned a volunteer into a conscript. he was never asked to extend of offered any bonus. i dont thing i have to tell you the difference. your "king" started a unwinnable illegal war with no end and is now forcing unwilling g.i.s to fight it. hense they are gonna start to get hard to find, patriotism as "i think"you know is in the bellybutton of the beholder. his new kid and lonly wife miss him while hes out "defending america"
p.s. hes a medic, but now hes gona be re assigned policeduty. after 10 years of medic (he manages emt service). always a smart move, way to many experinced medics around always in a war. hes lookin forward to being sniper bait, really he is.
-
I'm glad you had so much fun with it. It's an old saying, having its orgins in the British Army.
"When you take the King's shilling, you do the King's bidding."
Sort of that old accountability/responsibility thing; might be hard for you to grasp.
Hard-on for liars? That explains a lot; you always seemed like an internally unhappy person and still do.
You really have a hard time with reality, don't you?
LDV:new what the "convienience of the army" clause was and hes goin.
Good. Most folks understand that when they join the military.
LDV: p.s. his contract time was up. the "king" (your analogy not mine) broke the deal and turned a volunteer into a conscript
Huh? Cleary YOU don't understand but your friend does. Ask him to explain "convenience of the Army" to you again in relation to "contract is up".
"Stop loss" doesnt' break any deal, it's always been part of the deal. It was when my father was in for pete's sake! Had a job with TWA and was out processing when the NK's crossed the border. He stayed in the USAF and did his job and made a career of it. The TWA job just wasn't available after the Korean War. He didn't cry about it. We missed him while he was gone. That's just the way it was, for a lot of families, not just ourss. But I guess you don't understand that kind of stuff. Oh, BTW, did you know that NK says the US invaded NK first? I bet you believe that too... that lying Truman!!!!!
Obviously, your friend understands his obligation though. I respect him and salute him for his service.
LDV: his new kid and lonly wife miss him while hes out "defending america"
Gosh! I hadn't thought of that! I'll be they're the only two folks in the entire USA missing folks that are on military duty.
***********
Once again, just for you with all your "illegal" this and that.
The NATO air war against Yugoslavia had almost exactly the same "authorization" from the UN SC as did the recent Iraq invasion by the COTW.
Now you can rant and rave and fling frothing slobber all around, but that's just the way it is and it is historically documented.
The UN SC did NOT approve either action.
There were previous UN SC resolutions in both cases that, depending on the reader's particular bias can be shown to either support or not support either action.
The UN Sec General is on record as saying BOTH actions did not have the necessary UN SC approval.
So, if you're going to rail against the Iraq invasion, you're just railing agaist the NATO attack on Yugoslavia as well.
Like it or not, BOTH actions happened because, in almost every instance, the UN SC cannot bring itself to authorize the use of force.
That's why the dirty jobs always fall to some other organization, coalition or country.
***********
As for the rest of you gentlemen that want this thread to end, I'll point out that this thread has done more towards surpassing the post count in General Discussion than any other one currently on page on of the O'Club.
:p
-
Well in that case then......437
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3407853.stm
"Three dozen mortar shells uncovered in Iraq earlier this month had no chemical agents, the Danish army says.
I imagine it sucks to have one's hawkish "factual reality" fade to pathetic, wishful fantasy. Yet again.
-
Must be one of the longest thread in history that didnt get locked :)
-
Originally posted by Westy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3407853.stm
"Three dozen mortar shells uncovered in Iraq earlier this month had no chemical agents, the Danish army says.
I imagine it sucks to have one's hawkish "factual reality" fade to pathetic, wishful fantasy. Yet again.
I think as punishment Hortlund, Kieren and Toad should be forced to read this entire frickin' thread from the beginning again, then start a new thread entitled "How Knowing The Facts Now Can Save You Embarrassment Later".
I'm sure there are better thread titles. Suggestions welcome.
yowser
-
It would appear, dear Yowser, reality is whatever you choose it to be. For my part, I fessed to my errors. I hold to where I was right.
-
Dear Yowser,
I suggest YOU read my 3rd or 4th post in this thread.. somewhere in there around page two, I believe.
Then YOU can start a new thread entitled "How Reading What Posters Actually Say Can Save You Mucho Embarrassment Later".
Nothing like trying to shine the spotlight on someone's derriere and finding out..... you yourself are center stage.
Read for comprehension next time, chum.
:rofl
-
ever notice if somone disagrees with you they are condecendingly wrong even when they were eywhitnesses to the event.
first time with me was somthing you heard at a raidio controled aircraft group (admited to after the fact) contermanding what i heard in the cic of the uss virgina during the fight in question the whole thing was said to put down soudi pilots.
you never admitted you were wrong then either....
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
ever notice if somone disagrees with you they are condecendingly wrong even when they were eywhitnesses to the event.
first time with me was somthing you heard at a raidio controled aircraft group (admited to after the fact) contermanding what i heard in the cic of the uss virgina during the fight in question the whole thing was said to put down soudi pilots.
you never admitted you were wrong then either....
Not unlike you just ignoring questions that would prove you wrong.
-
No, I didn't. Simply because you, who was sitting in the CIC of the USS Virginia, are just wrong.
Remember how you thought "Top Secret" was the highest classification? Did you figure that one out yet? As I recall, I enumerated just a few of the higher classifications for you to research. Or do you still congratulate yourself that you were right about that too?
I don't know much about what went on in the CIC of the Navy's USS Virginia.
But I know a whole lot about what went on aboard the RC-135s on station and the AWACS with which they were co-ordinating.
And, again, you are simply wrong. Like I said, someday when the truth is finally unclassified, you'll find out USAF fighters were in position to down the Iraqis long before the Saudis.
But, from what you've posted, you vehemently believe in a lot of erroneous stuff. Passion clearly substitutes for judgement. One more thing like that isn't going to be much of a burden for you. Not my job to convince you anyway.
Have a very nice day.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Dear Yowser,
I suggest YOU read my 3rd or 4th post in this thread.. somewhere in there around page two, I believe.
Then YOU can start a new thread entitled "How Reading What Posters Actually Say Can Save You Mucho Embarrassment Later".
Nothing like trying to shine the spotlight on someone's derriere and finding out..... you yourself are center stage.
Read for comprehension next time, chum.
:rofl
You mean this post?....
================================
Toad:
" And the time is not all that far off, now that Saddam is in hand. I don't personally consider this "stash" of mustard gas to be WMD "enough" to trigger an invasion.
OTOH..... and some of you dance around this..... they ARE chemical weapons. Now I haven't checked all the various UN pronouncements to see if they were on the "banned list" for Iraq.
The search isn't over yet. Hold the bile on both sides; give it another few months.
If Bush proves right about WMD, I'll probably vote for him.
If he proves wrong, I'll be voting for someone else, contributing to someone else and trying to sway votes for someone else.
After all, you can't go vigilante on a President, even if he deserves it. But you can kick him out ".
===============================
I refer you to the BBC story again in case you still have not heard the news:
"....Three dozen mortar shells uncovered in Iraq earlier this month had no chemical agents, the Danish army says. ".
Notice the difference of opinion between you and the Danish army as to what the FACTS are.
Now exactly what part of your statement "...they ARE chemical weapons. " did I not comprehend?
yowser
-
Yep, that's the one!
Did you forget to BOLD this part?
Originally posted by TOAD
"I don't personally consider this "stash" of mustard gas to be WMD "enough" to trigger an invasion.
[/b]
I think that clearly shows my view, don't you? Especially considering the thread title?
Or do you need help with that too?
Oh, and BTW, from the initial report:
Danes show suspect Iraqi shells (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3387607.stm)
The Danish army has released pictures of three dozen mortar shells which have provided the only post-war proof that Iraq possessed banned weapons.
The shells were uncovered on Friday and initial tests showed they contained blister agent, a chemical weapon.[/color]
Anyway, allow me to apologize to putting any creedence at all in the information a sleazy, disreputable news source with a reputation for "getting it wrong" like the BBC puts out as truth. I'll never trust them again, even though most other media outlets were saying the same thing. That rotten BBC!
Thank Cod you've never read something in the papers and thought it was true, eh? Would that every citizen of the planet was as pure and perfect! :lol
Have a nice day!
-
Sorry to hear you have Alzheimer's.
Man, it must be bad if you can't remember a thread for a few days.
:(
At least you're able to laugh about it, so that's good.
Best of luck with it.
-
Why thank you!
I always got along well with the Norwegians in my UPT class.
You're the very first one I've ever met that was deranged by Alzheimer's though.
;)
Those guys used to get cases and cases of beer and whiskey duty free from the Norwegian embassy in Los Angeles. They were the "suppliers" for the entire squadron.
Ringnes? Was that the Norwegian beer? Pretty fine beer, as I recall it.
-
what the hell are you still talking about ... it was already confirmed, there were no WMD in these shells (whitch was 14 years old)
ehm..
-
"...Anyway, allow me to apologize to putting any creedence at all in the information a sleazy, disreputable news source with a reputation for "getting it wrong" like the BBC puts out as truth. I'll never trust them again, even though most other media outlets were saying the same thing. That rotten BBC! Thank Cod you've never read something in the papers and thought it was true, eh? Would that every citizen of the planet was as pure and perfect! ".
For somebody who seems to think they are fairly bright, you're pretty slow to catch on. Time and time again, reports coming out of Iraq have ultimately proven to be false. Yet time and time again you have shown an eager willingness to lap just about anything up....IF it supports your political point of view.
Everybody saw the same story you did but only a few who too desperately wanted to find WMD (we won't go into the reasons why) latched onto it without knowing all the facts.
Time to start thinking for yourself bud. Your blind partisanship is coloring your better judgment.
yowser
-
Get over it Yowser.
Yeah when the world's mass media, INCLUDING THE BBC, said they found chemical mortar rounds I assumed that had that right.
Generally, I trust the BBC to do more complete research than the rest, so when they said the shells
provided the only post-war proof that Iraq possessed banned weapons
I figured they were indeed chemical rounds.
Now NOTE again that I ALSO said this wasn't enough for me to consider the invasion of Iraq justified on the grounds of "WMD".
I didn't just "jump on this report" despite your attempts to paint it that way. I made no big deal about this find, in fact quite the opposite.
Your pretty desperate to make me look as ridiculous as you do right now. You may pull that off someday, but it won't be on this issue.
Yeah, I had wagers on the timeline of find real WMD in Iraq; 90 days and 180 days. Those are over and I lost. So? Guess what, it didn't change my life a bit.
But, repeating again, I CLEARLY stated in this thread that I didn't consider these BBC "chemical mortar rounds" enough WMD to justify an invasion.
Therefore, and as I have also stated, I'm going to need to "see" some "real WMD" within the next 5 months (6 monts after SH's capture) or I'll be working against Bush's reelection.
Now, you can try to slant that position into "blind partisanship" if you like.
However, I think you're the one that comes out looking visually handicapped.
-
"...Your pretty desperate to make me look as ridiculous as you do right now.".
You don't need my help to look ridiculous. You're doing just fine on your own.
Carry on.
yowser
-
Toad ... what are you talking about ... there were no any chemical or banned weapons but artilery shells
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3407853.stm
and some rockets with long range or something like that
-
You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
You can try to turn it into "blindly partisan" but the history of my position on Iraq and WMD is here in the archives. Anyone who's been following this issue and actually read what I posted knows you're just slinging the old BS.
I'll stand on what I posted; my position is clear and has been since before the invasion. Apparently, you're just too visually handicapped to read and understand it.
Have a nice day!
-
im only asking to be sure ... did you mean the old BS link bellow ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3407853.stm
according to your post Toad in this thead, you did consider WMD to be this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386357.stm
and now i post this, with question http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3407853.stm
So i see the only one thing thats absolutly clear about your 'clear opinions'
i guess, that you will probably find some WMD even in NaCl
-
Danes show suspect Iraqi shells (http://httphttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3387607.stm)
Sunday, 11 January, 2004, 18:39 GMT
The Danish army has released pictures of three dozen mortar shells which have provided the only post-war proof that Iraq possessed banned weapons.
The shells were uncovered on Friday and initial tests showed they contained blister agent, a chemical weapon.
'No blister agent' in Iraq shells (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3407853.stm)
Sunday, 18 January, 2004
Three dozen mortar shells uncovered in Iraq earlier this month had no chemical agents, the Danish army says.
Note the Source and the Date for both of these.
Lastly, I again refer you to this post in page two of this thread.
Originally posted by Toad:
I don't personally consider this "stash" of mustard gas to be WMD "enough" to trigger an invasion.
[/b]
Maybe that's confusing to you, Orel.
It says that even if the mortar shells, initially named as banned chemical weapons by the BBC, did have mustard gas in them, I personally WOULD NOT consider them as sufficient evidence of WMD to justify and invasion.
I can't help you any more than that. You'll just have to ponder on it and ponder on it until it comes to you... or it doesn't.
-
Give it up, Toad. Some of these guys only hear what they want to hear. You're absolutely right in your comments, and you're going to have to let them stand there.
-
Did not all get this?
Those shells did NOT contain mustard gas or nerve gas. It was a false alarm.
However, didn't they prove that the Iraqis were manufacturing Anthrax? And wasn't the Anthrax which started to kill in Florida originating from Iraq?
-
And wasn't the Anthrax which started to kill in Florida originating from Iraq?
No, it was an American Wacko who sent the Anthrax letters all over the US. The Anthrax was traced back to an American lab, if i recall correctly.
-
To sum up, independent sources (Danish) initially stated the shells contained a blistering agent (chemical weapon), but 9 days later recounted and said they didn't.
-
The kits used for testing are designed to err on positive side in order to protect those in the field.
Even then they spoke of traces.
All in all, another circus event under the HTC Bigtop.
_____________________________ _______________________
Field tests conducted by British and Danish inspectors indicated that the shells - found on 9 January - contained traces of blister gases - including mustard gas compounds.
But further tests by the Iraq Survey Group in South Iraq and the US Department of Energy's National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho proved these results were incorrect.
"The results show the shells from the Danish area did not contain chemical warfare agents," the Danish Army Operational Command confirmed on Sunday.
_____________________________ _______________________
-
Maybe this thread could continue until they do actually find WMD?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Maybe this thread could continue until they do actually find WMD?
Damn man.... That might be some time.. You wanna be responsible for keeping it on top?
I suppose they could find some tomorrow.. ha.. hahaha.. ahahahahaha!!
:lol :rofl :lol
-
All for the good cause of overtaking the General Forum :)
-
Well
-
if
-
it's
-
all for a good cause, I'll help!
-
hehehehe
-
So close to 500...what the hell....in :D
-
To sum up, independent sources (Danish) stated initial tests showed the shells contained a blistering agent. It was also stated in the same news report the results of more extensive tests should be available in about two days.
Of course the more zealous folks on this BBS just could not contain their excitement and started screaming "They ARE chemical weapons" from the rooftops.
9 days later the results of the more extensive tests were released. No chemicals.
Oops. Never mind.
yowser
P.S. If you want to determine for yourself what was in the news report in question, see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386357.stm
-
We'll probably make 500!
Or, you could say that on Sunday, 11 January, 2004, 18:39 GMT the illustrious BBC said that this was proof of WMD. You know, the "which have provided the only post-war proof that Iraq possessed banned weapons."
Did you write the BBC and reprimand them too? Clearly they should not have made such a definitive statement based on initial tests! Such irresponsible headlines and lead ins!
Get 'em Yowser! Get 'em!
:rofl
Oh, BTW...... I posted that BBC link a long time ago. Along with the follow-on report.
-
Here is the BBC news report from Sunday, 11 January, 2004, 18:39 GMT that Toad refers to above. Read it for yourself and decide:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3387607.stm
I think that you'll notice that like most people with an agenda that only read what they want to read, Toad only focuses on a part of the story and conveniently ignores the rest of the story that doesn't fit. Such as:
"...The shells were uncovered on Friday and initial tests showed they contained blister agent, a chemical weapon."
"...Coalition experts are currently examining the 120mm mortar rounds to see if the initial tests are borne out. Results of more extensive tests should be available in about two days, the Danes said on an official website quoted by the Reuters news agency."
Any objective person reading this news story would deduce that initial tests provide "post-war proof that Iraq possessed banned weapons". They would then await the results of more extensive testing. A person who was not objective would ignore the fact that thus far everything was based on initial tests and could change after more extensive testing.
Again, decide for yourself what the story says. I have much more faith in your honesty and reading comprehension then Toad's.
yowser
-
Originally posted by yowser
Any objective person reading this news story would deduce that initial tests provide "post-war proof that Iraq possessed banned weapons".[/quote
I think that's pretty much what went on in this thread. The initial tests generated the initial comments. Go figure. Later tests initiated later comments.
Originally posted by yowser
They would then await the results of more extensive testing.
yowser
Which is exactly what happened in this thread.
It all turned out to be much ado about nothing. Which makes it a real consistent thread, considering your contributions.
Toad:
"I don't personally consider this "stash" of mustard gas to be WMD "enough" to trigger an invasion....If he proves wrong, I'll be voting for someone else, contributing to someone else and trying to sway votes for someone else.
Yes-sir-eee! There's an overzealous, total Bush supporter that just couldn't contain his screaming excitment poster.
Thanks, yowser! Keep it going, bud!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yes-sir-eee! There's an overzealous, total Bush supporter that just couldn't contain his screaming excitment poster.
[/B]
AH HA....you admitted it!
;)
-
“...They ARE chemical weapons”
When quoting earlier posts, Toad keeps ignoring, skipping and leaving out this most important line for some reason. Important, since my only disagreement with him is that he jumped the gun and said “They ARE chemical weapons” when it was not known. From his last post for example:
Toad: "I don't personally consider this "stash" of mustard gas to be WMD "enough" to trigger an invasion....If he proves wrong, I'll be voting for someone else, contributing to someone else and trying to sway votes for someone else."
It should appear right after "trigger an invasion...". Check every quote from him in this thread and you’ll see it’s conveniently left out each time. He quotes everything else but this line.
Anyways, for your benefit, the post in it’s entirety, including the edited out “They ARE chemical weapons”:
TOAD: And the time is not all that far off, now that Saddam is in hand. I don't personally consider this "stash" of mustard gas to be WMD "enough" to trigger an invasion. OTOH..... and some of you dance around this..... they ARE chemical weapons. Now I haven't checked all the various UN pronouncements to see if they were on the "banned list" for Iraq.
The search isn't over yet. Hold the bile on both sides; give it another few months.
If Bush proves right about WMD, I'll probably vote for him.
If he proves wrong, I'll be voting for someone else, contributing to someone else and trying to sway votes for someone else.
After all, you can't go vigilante on a President, even if he deserves it. But you can kick him out.".
Yowser
-
its "on" toad
the bag of putred puss calling it self toad said. in a silly effort to discredit a guy who was there. after being calling on a stupid lie to aggrandize himself. about an incident that is supposed to be classified (confidential at best) read the part about clearances he schooled me about (in his own mind it never happened) im so steamed just like last time when he addmited he would have to get with his remote control airplain buddies and check they are giving out good ( above top secret ?) info to buddies in the club. :rolleyes:
toad said ina moment of delerium.
"No, I didn't. Simply because you, who was sitting in the CIC of the USS Virginia, are just wrong.
Remember how you thought "Top Secret" was the highest classification? Did you figure that one out yet? As I recall, I enumerated just a few of the higher classifications for you to research. Or do you still congratulate yourself that you were right about that too?
"I don't know much about what went on in the CIC of the Navy's USS Virginia.
But I know a whole lot about what went on aboard the RC-135s on station and the AWACS with which they were co-ordinating.
And, again, you are simply wrong. Like I said, someday when the truth is finally unclassified, you'll find out USAF fighters were in position to down the Iraqis long before the Saudis.
But, from what you've posted, you vehemently believe in a lot of erroneous stuff. Passion clearly substitutes for judgement. One more thing like that isn't going to be much of a burden for you. Not my job to convince you anyway.
Have a very nice day."
are you are on crack? this is a halucination i am acctualy flabergasted at your blatant lie about this. tell me more about your sniper days mr black opps. "ohh yea tell me about the clearance of ****in tanker pilots smart guy you have waited to distance yourself and now you are just plain lying.
you are a lying buffoon hows the shoe fit walter middy.:rolleyes:
-
Well yes indeed I said that Yowser. Anyone who's read the thread up through page two knows that. I haven't denied it.
Based upon what the source you continually reference (the BBC) said.
So it goes like this:
The world news media says the rounds are "banned chemical weapons" after initial testing. Then it comes up in this thread and I said "they are chemical weapons" and I based that on initial media reports.
Now I posted that "they are chemical weapons" in one post on page 2 of the multipage thread. I think my next post is around page 4 where Scholz and I started discussing UN resolutions and Charters again.
So you go ahead an keep trying to paint this as me being overzealous, unable to contain my excitement and screaming "They ARE chemical weapons" from the rooftops.
It's such a disconnect from the reality of the whole post, especially when an intelligent reader considers that I said it sure wasn't a big enough deal to justify an invasion, that it's making you look...... well, you figure it out.
I love it when folks do it to themselves. :rofl
This apparently has your panties in quite a tight wad, though. So for that alone and for the self-portrait you've painted, I'm glad I posted it.
Go 500!
-
LDV, so now as well as not knowing that Top Secret isn't the highest classification you also don't know the difference between an RC-135 and a KC-135?
OK. No point in discussing anything with you in that case.
Have a nice day!
-
you are trying to quibble.
and a non sequitor will not help either.
pleas produce this straw man argument attack post about me and top secret as well.
thanks liar.
-
Quibble? Is that your new word for the week from Reader's Digest?
If you don't recall the discussion we had about that shootdown, I do. I'm sure there are some old timers around here that do as well. You do remember that thread don't you? Back when you used the name "towd" on the BBS?
Yeah, you kept telling me you had a "Top Secret" clearance, the highest clearance there was. That really made me laugh. TS wouldn't even get you through the front vault gate in my squadron. And there were three gates.
LDV: clearance of ****in tanker pilots "
If you think RC-135's are "tankers", you're totally clueless; there's nothing to discuss.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well yes indeed I said that Yowser. Anyone who's read the thread up through page two knows that. I haven't denied it.
Based upon what the source you continually reference (the BBC) said.
So it goes like this:
The world news media says the rounds are "banned chemical weapons" after initial testing. Then it comes up in this thread and I said "they are chemical weapons" and I based that on initial media reports.
Now I posted that "they are chemical weapons" in one post on page 2 of the multipage thread. I think my next post is around page 4 where Scholz and I started discussing UN resolutions and Charters again.
So you go ahead an keep trying to paint this as me being overzealous, unable to contain my excitement and screaming "They ARE chemical weapons" from the rooftops.
It's such a disconnect from the reality of the whole post, especially when an intelligent reader considers that I said it sure wasn't a big enough deal to justify an invasion, that it's making you look...... well, you figure it out.
I love it when folks do it to themselves. :rofl
This apparently has your panties in quite a tight wad, though. So for that alone and for the self-portrait you've painted, I'm glad I posted it.
Go 500!
Not in a wad at all. I think my calm, cool and collected manner of posting is evidence of that. Maybe I should use more smilies like you? :)
As for me painting you as overzealous on this matter, that is strictly my opinion. You may have a different one on this matter. I won’t argue opinions, only facts.
If you had not disagreed with my post that you had the facts wrong there would have been no further discussion.
Anyways, I suppose we’ll have to accept your last post as the closest we’ll ever get to Toad admitting he had the facts wrong.
Move along people. Nothing to see here.
:rofl
yowser
-
you will talk about anything but the friggin subject. the fact that the closest word to lie in the english laguage embodys you regular arguments is a your own personal problem, coming up with half assed argumets preaching to the chior is runnin out of gass fool.
the fact you are lieing about a argument that took place in your own head is your own thing entirely dont drag me into your nightmare of bull****. even if such ranks existed i was not supposed to know about them how would not knowing about them be wrong? i didnt claim to be a spook (like you are?) where the hell did this even come from?
anyway your saying a bunch of guys compromized classified info to you ( what level again junior? and at what rc club meeting? what was the name again and classification level?) ever heard of need to know? or felonys ? your a ****in liar.you argument is as infuriating in its audatious falshood using military secrecy to cover your walter middy racists crap against arabs your a real winner. so you try to assasinate my ****in character on a made up in your own mind argument?
tell me more about the american way and security mr liar.
-
LDV, what is your native language?
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
so you try to assasinate my ****in character on a made up in your own mind argument?
.
Again, you think that's a fine tactic when you use it against Bush, but when used against you it's no longer fair?
-
ohh you mean the part about the guy who never reported for duty after a transferr but said he did. even tho his (if he had reported) co said he never did and no records exist that he did.
sayin it aint true a million times dont change that fact either.
but your really just runnin interception for mr liar anyway so.
back off pack attack boy.
-
So you're saying you don't remember that entire discussion we had about the Saudi shootdown when you were "towd" on this BBS?
You'll have to clear this up. When you go into spew mode, it's hard to tell what you're saying.
I'll tolerate you calling me a liar because I consider the source and so does pretty much everyone else here. Coming from you, any insults are meaningless.
But I'm more than willing to go over that whole argument again with you if you like.
It started when I said that those Iraqi's were passed on to the Saudi flight for political considerations.
Remember now? You had a major spew over that. Then you proceeded to tell me how you were in the CIC of the USS Virginia and personally "heard it all".
I pointed out that you hadn't heard the comms between the RC-135 from my old squadron and the AWACS. You came up with the same security violation / top secret clearance bs then too. Like my old crew wouldn't tell me what they'd been doing, seen and heard.
It's pretty clear you surely don't have a clue what the capabilities of an RC-135 actually are. Nor are you apparently aware of how the RC-135 interacts with AWACS and JSTARS. Heck, I bet you don't even know who (what personnel) was running JSTARS during GW1.
Then you told me that TS was the highest clearance there was and that made it clear you didn't have a clue what really went on.
You still don't.
Like I said, I'm sure there are a few others yet around that remember you spewing off during that one TOWD.
Have a very nice day.
-
Yeah, Yowser, I was as wrong as the BBC on Sunday. I can live with that.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
ohh you mean the part about the guy who never reported for duty after a transferr but said he did. even tho his (if he had reported) co said he never did and no records exist that he did.
sayin it aint true a million times dont change that fact either.
but your really just runnin interception for mr liar anyway so.
back off pack attack boy.
I see. It's obvious you have information that I don't. Could you provide a link please?
-
The Anthrax was traced back to an American lab, if i recall correctly.
It was traced to an Army Lab iirc in Md
-
What and where is "Army Lab iirc in Md"?
(sorry for being so ignorant)
-
Originally posted by Angus
What and where is "Army Lab iirc in Md"?
(sorry for being so ignorant)
I believe he means:
Army Laboratory, if I recall correctly, in Maryland
-
Originally posted by Toad
As well as not knowing that Top Secret isn't the highest classification you also don't know the difference between an RC-135 and a KC-135?
OK. No point in discussing anything with you in that case.
Technically... TS is the highest classification... but then again, that information is compartmentalized and you don't have a need to know - do you.
But if you want enlightenment you could find it by smoking a joint down by the river.
That's pretty much how Bush came up with the notion that Saddam had WMD.... because it didn't come from any credible intelligence source.... as has been proven over and over again....
CAD drawings and Intercepts of two Iraqi's talking about a truck - aka Sophisticated Mobile Chem Lab - Sheesh! That's some real dope smoking... turning a weather balloon hydrogen generator into a WMD Mobile Chem Lab.
Then there's the crack pipe smoking which produced Satelite photos of WMD laboratories.. which after US ground WMD experts searched... scrubed... sniffed... and dug up... turned out to be a pesticide manufacturing facility for Iraqi's agriculture industry.
[Dana Carvy doing his Bush voice]
Saddam Bad.. bad... nope ain't gonna stand for it, no more...
Saddam bad wicked man...
Amereeka Good... on the course of Rightgeousness.
God is on our side - he told me so...
Saddam Wicked... Satan Worshiper.
Satan Baaad
Weapons of Mass Deeeestruction...
45 minutes...until Deeestruction....
Must act now..
Pre-emptive war...
Di Da ditty da!
:rofl
-
WARNING: SIDETRACK
What enlisted rating that normally pulls watch in a CIC would have a TS or above clearance?
I can only think of 2 or 3. Any CT, an FC related to tomahawk and maybe the rare OS.
An IS might have one as well, but I never saw one that stood watch in CIC.
And why would you need a TS clearance to converse with the AWACS? The OS air-tracker and EW's for should would be in contact and those have only a SECRET clearance.
-
499!!
Did they find them yet??
-
Did someone say WMD?!
Damn, another false alarm... #500.
-
Ha!! 501!!
Im just over average!
-
Originally posted by Furious
WARNING: SIDETRACK
And why would you need a TS clearance to converse with the AWACS? The OS air-tracker and EW's for should would be in contact and those have only a SECRET clearance.
Because... you don't need to know.
And a person's military rank and position doesn't necessarily give them certain clearances.
Read the Puzzle Palace by Jame Bamford it will explain the basics - even though it's slightly out of date.
-
In Bosnia they used satelite photos to discover recently dug mass-graves!
Couldnt the same tactic be used to find "recently" dug "graves" for WMD?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
In Bosnia they used satelite photos to discover recently dug mass-graves!
Couldnt the same tactic be used to find "recently" dug "graves" for WMD?
They did use that tactic... They had all the pictures (evidence) before they went to war.. 8)
-
I think Hortlund revealed his "Weapon of Mass Posting" :lol
-
furious said
"WARNING: SIDETRACK
What enlisted rating that normally pulls watch in a CIC would have a TS or above clearance?
I can only think of 2 or 3. Any CT, an FC related to tomahawk and maybe the rare OS.
An IS might have one as well, but I never saw one that stood watch in CIC.
And why would you need a TS clearance to converse with the AWACS? The OS air-tracker and EW's for should would be in contact and those have only a SECRET clearance."
on our ship os airside controlers and opperators all had topsecret (flagship) normal ships do not i believe but i dont know ask toad if he says they need above top secret get suspicious. ;) but to listen to ops (airside speaker was was in middle of cic)you could be anyone with a secret or above( if we had superduper secret i didnt know about it). ct and fc had different areas on the virginia tomahawk console they operated but harpoon launch panal os6s operated (the guys who did the harpoon station manning during gq were both top secret os6s but im not shure if that was required we all did solutions on it for fun).
now on to walter middy
toad
i have never had a argument with you about the vairious abilitys of airborn tankers you are raving about . somone else replied to your "above top secret" crap so i wont again. stop embarrasing yourself with this bullcrap, your showing your lack of knowledge and that you have read to many tom clancy novels nothing more.
you want to talk about anything but your lack of credibility so again who told you classified informantion on the soudie engagement. or shut up and be carful who you spout lies in front of.
expecialy ones that if true are federal felonys.
the name again ?
or the shutting up please no new imaginary arguments thanks:aok
-
Towd, you are simply delusional.
It happened pretty much like I outlined it. It happened right here on this BBS. It was back when you actually posted as Towd. Seems like I remember you having some stuff going on in your life right after that. Got a new woman or something, got your stuff kinda together and came back as LDV.
I see that you're slipping back into your old foaming, spewing, undocumented BS mode, however.
Your position then was that you had a "Top Secret" clearance, the highest one, so you had access to all the information. I simply pointed out that if you thought TS was the highest classification you were fooling yourself. If you think you and the Captain of the USS Virginia both had access to all the same information... well, what can I say. There's much higher levels of security than a mere Top Secret. SCI, SSBI, Codeword come easily to mind.
So in short, your TS didn't give you access to diddly, really. You were the one saying nothing in that operation could be hidden from you because you had the "highest clearance", TS. But you're just wrong again.
AS far as the RC-135's capabilities, I am certain you have absolutely no idea what they can do with regards to identifying and tracking enemy aircraft. Further, I suspect you have a total lack of understanding with respect to how the RC-135 interacts and coordinates with the E-3A AWACS aircraft. Far beyond that, I'm certain you don't know jack about JSTARS capabilities and how IT interacts with the RC-135 and AWACS.
We went over all that in the old argument as well. Your position was that there was NO WAY those Iraqi's got passed on by controllers to the Saudi flight so the Saudi's would get the intercept.
You were wrong then, and you are still wrong. The reason you are wrong is because you don't know what happened with the RC-135 and the E-3A and the Command and Control authorities. It's that simple.
LDV:
to cover your walter middy racists crap against arabs
[/b]
It has nothing to do with racism. You tried to make that argument before too, remember? You called me racist then... and just did it again.. because you thought that I was saying some BS like "inferior Arab pilots couldn't have used the F-15 to shoot down the Iraqis". That's another little crazy thing you came up with. tty. You're welcome.>
Obviously, Saudi F-15 pilots could shoot down Iraqis; they did on that day. No one argues that. I just said it was a political decision to let them have the intercept. Race had nothing to do with it; politics did. You can't seem to live with that simple truth. That is YOUR problem, not mine. But play the racism card; that sort of thing is what you do best. You surely can't argue from facts.
One other little thing for you:
Air To Air Victories In Desert Storm (http://www.rjlee.org/aakill.html)
There were 36 Iraqi fixed-wing aircraft reported as shot down in air-to-air engagements in Desert Storm. They're all on that list.
Now look down column that shows "Unit". Does it strike you in the least bit odd that the USAF accounts for every single one EXCEPT two by the USN on 17 Jan inside Iraq> and EXCEPT the two downed by Capt. Ayehd Shamani of the RSAF on 24 Jan?
No, of course it doesn't. But again, that's YOUR problem.
Now, let's deal with "classified information". I haven't revealed any "classified information" to my knowledge. I know many classified things about the RC-135, E-3A and JSTARS that are still classifed to this day. I have revealed none of those things here, nor did I do so in the last debate with you about this.
The "political decision" wasn't classifed then, AFAIK. My old squadronmates talked about it freely and the guys I knew as Lieutenants were then in positions of command. So, if they told me I don't think it was or is classifed.
Now, I can absolutely understand if none of your old shipmates wants to talk to you. But again, that's your problem. My service friends are still my close friends.
As I said, someday a book will be written and there'll be a footnote to the Saudi engagement. It'll describe how they Iraqis were detected, tracked and how they passed USAF CAP that KNEW THEY WERE THERE but were DIRECTED NOT TO ENGAGE UNTIL OTHERWISE ORDERED. And the Saudis got the engagement.
Now, sorry you've got convenient amenesia about the previous time we discussed this, but it's all pretty well laid out again now, as it was then. There is nothing I could post other than the above that would ever meet your requirements for "proof".
So foam on and spew. There it is, like it or not.
-
pushing the same assertions to cover your own bullcrap im tired of it. digress all you want about "superduper secret" tanker trading cards and your insistance on telling me my argument.
you state the facts then say where they come from or shut up.
as i see it your claiming a bus driver told you classified info you cant proove because its classified. then after mention of felon charges ( cause this **** is a crime or a lie) that you have no acces to classified info wich is it?
ohh you already did say where it came from the r/c club. (mayby superduper secret if just for bus flyers and r/c clubs?). just give it up your just a busted liar.
-
Now who's disrespecting a veteran? Character assassination, yadda, yadda, yadda... ;)
-
Read what I wrote.
I didn't say ANYTHING classified.
My old crewmates told me the flight of Iraqis got passed on to the Saudis. There's your facts.
Don't like it? Tough.
It isn't racist.
It isn't classified.
It's clear you can't see the forest for the trees.
Ta-ta, sweetie!
-
Character assassination is his modus operandi. His problem is that it always turns out to be a suicide. ;)
-
Toad,
What did you fly in the service?
I was on the RC-135 out of RAF Mildenhall 6988 ESS and a few other places... oh way back during the Reagan cold war.
-
343rd, later the 38th SRS from early '74 to mid '80.
Used to go to the Bell Hotel for Beef Wellington for our crew departure parties when at Mildenhall. Lovely little place and great food.
You Security Service then? That explains your occasional posting in Russian I guess.
Well, I doubt we'll ever agree politically on most things, but to another Recce guy.
-
toad said
"But I know a whole lot about what went on aboard the RC-135s on station and the AWACS with which they were co-ordinating.
And, again, you are simply wrong. Like I said, someday when the truth is finally unclassified, you'll find out USAF fighters were in position to down the Iraqis long before the Saudis."
then after he forgot about that he said
"I didn't say ANYTHING classified.
My old crewmates told me the flight of Iraqis got passed on to the Saudis. There's your facts."
dude is a loon. and seems to actualy know very little about security or how they acctualy will come arrest you for spoution classified info. so again i say where did it come from? what is the guys name? we will indeed find if the law was broken.
liar.
-
Originally posted by Toad
343rd, later the 38th SRS from early '74 to mid '80.
Used to go to the Bell Hotel for Beef Wellington for our crew departure parties when at Mildenhall. Lovely little place and great food.
You Security Service then? That explains your occasional posting in Russian I guess.
Well, I doubt we'll ever agree politically on most things, but to another Recce guy.
Just missed you then, I was there between 83 and 85.
Sir!
Aye nice hotel... and a pint or two at the Bird in Hand ;)
I wouldn't necessarily say we don't agree politically.
-
Ah, yes... the Bird in Hand. I was trying to think of the name of that one but it had slipped.
Was there also the "The Ship"? Do I remember that one right? I do remember the fish and chips shop... lotta "post-pub" and post-mission debriefs there chowing down. Good stuff.
Used to take our bicycles over, stuffing them in the tail back by the bunks/spare equip racks. Loved cycling down to Cambridge.
Good folks, good times, good fun and a sense of "doing something."