Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on January 12, 2005, 06:44:23 PM
-
Yet Bush still can't admit he was wrong on the fundemental reason for his invasion of Iraq and the subsequent mess it's in today.
What a joke.
....-Gixer
-
Makes ya feel all warm inside huh.:lol
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Yet Bush still can't admit he was wrong on the fundemental reason for his invasion of Iraq and the subsequent mess it's in today.
What a joke.
....-Gixer
Lemme see...
- there is undeniable proof that Iraq was continuing its WMD program in secret and planning to restart it soon as any heat was off
- there were many cases of Iraq retaining weapons it agreed to not have under the UN charter
- The UN oil for food program was a joke and Saddams regime was just getting stronger
- Saddam was still a genocidal maniac
So Gixer, are you saying you'd prefer to have kept Saddam in power, that you are more comfortable with his murdering family running Iraq?
-
Wow thats nice news Gixer.
By the way: Someone already mentioned it
-
at least we know for certain :rofl
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Yet Bush still can't admit he was wrong on the fundemental reason for his invasion of Iraq and the subsequent mess it's in today.
What a joke.
....-Gixer
"Bush" (no mention of congress?)
"his invasion"
"fundamental"
I'd say you have no knolwedge (or choose to ignore what knolwedge you do have) of the workings of the U.S. Govt.
I'd say you never bothered to 'bone up' on the actual stated reasons for the war, or chose to ignore them so you still had something to carp about.
There's a joke here, but it has to do with you and your perceptions as opposed to reality.
Reading Is Fundamental. Read the following 2 posts, if you dare.
Mike/wulfie
-
Congressional Resolution on Iraq (Passed by House and Senate October 2002)
Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
(continued in next post)
-
(continued from previous post)
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the Wap Xnwers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
-
Wulfie, I bet even you didn't read them.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Wulfie, I bet even you didn't read them.
Here's a revelation: You bet wrong.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
So Gixer, are you saying you'd prefer to have kept Saddam in power, that you are more comfortable with his murdering family running Iraq?
The question was/is that Iraq was invaded for WMD's which has all proven to be false, not that Sadam was a bad man. What makes you so sure that the situation for Iraqis today and in the future will be any better?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by wulfie
There's a joke here, but it has to do with you and your perceptions as opposed to reality.
And the reality is there never were any WMD's so where does that leave your little cut n paste and reasons for war?
Bush only had to say the world "terror" (as he still does) and he could get anything passed, didn't work on the UN so he ignored them and started an unjustified war of choice anyway.
....-Gixer
-
Gixer, why are you so upset about it? It doesn't effect you.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
The question was/is that Iraq was invaded for WMD's which has all proven to be false, not that Sadam was a bad man. What makes you so sure that the situation for Iraqis today and in the future will be any better?
...-Gixer
Probability is in favor of the situation developing for the better.
Pre action = very little chance of change
Post action = very large chance of change.
-
Seems Gixer likes to hammer anything the US or it's Allies do. These kind of people will blame us for gas prices, weather changes and their abnormal bowel movements if they can.
With as many times that Iraq has completely ignored sanctions that were placed on them I could really care less anymore about peoples whines as to there are no WMD found stories. Saddam consistantly and blatantly disregarded the no fly and no drive zones. They constantly fired upon Allied forces in the region with triple A guns. These actions were all in direct violation of the original sanctions from 1991.
Consider the current situation due to Saddams failure to comply with original sanctions that the UN imposed upon them back in 1991. Had the UN had the balls in the first place to slam Saddam when he repeatedly violated these sanctions then maybe someone here would really give a crap about what the UN has to say anymore. I've been to the region and I've seen the bs that his army tries to pull off. Constantly placing weapons in areas that were strictly prohibited due to the Gulf War incident. To top it off they'd not only place them in restricted areas but in civilian populated areas to keep the targets from being hit. They'd place surface to air radar tracking stations right next to areas that by the LOAC are illegal to target. They'd also place surface to ground missile groups within the restricted areas. They constantly tested the sanctions imposed upon them and Saddam is now getting what he should have years ago.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
So Gixer, are you saying you'd prefer to have kept Saddam in power, that you are more comfortable with his murdering family running Iraq?
I'd be more comfortable if the Iraqi people had liberated themselves.
I'm not certain that they even tried.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'd be more comfortable if the Iraqi people had liberated themselves.
I'm not certain that they even tried.
well you're wrong and you're right. It would be more appropriate to say it was bad timing/missed oppertunity. We could have had Sadam out of power after the first Gulf War (not during because that was not the mission as defined by the UN and the coalition) during the big uprising. The problem is we didn't step up to bat to support them topple their own dictator. IIRC we even promised them support but didn't come through with it. Even if we did help out even then regime toppling wasn't really a popular thing to do even if you just helped out.
-
Hmmm... I think you're talking about the Kurds.
-
Might makes right. If Iraq has a problem with being invaded they really shouldnt have disarmed and made themselves so vulnerable.
That will learn em.
-
"Probability is in favor of the situation developing for the better.
Pre action = very little chance of change
Post action = very large chance of change."
That doesn't follow. A very large chance of change doesn't necessarily precipitate a change for the better.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... I think you're talking about the Kurds.
Nah, he's talking about the southern ****es. Interestingly the Al-Sadr family apparently had a major role in the uprising.
-
Pongo supports the Iraqi Insurgency, let there be NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT!
-
Anyone consider that all those months we tried to go through the UN to get in to Iraq, Saddam didn't have every train, truck, car and camel shipping WMD's out of Iraq before the invasion took place?
-
Originally posted by JB42
Anyone consider that all those months we tried to go through the UN to get in to Iraq, Saddam didn't have every train, truck, car and camel shipping WMD's out of Iraq before the invasion took place?
sure, the caravane of WMD's !
oh my now its time again to blame the UN for non existing WMD's LOL :D
-
on the upside, iraq got rid of its Uday.
we still have ours.
:(
-
I've never been in favor of this war. Thought it immoral from the start and certainly unjustified. I mean in America, or at least the America I thought I knew, a person or country has to be proven guilty first, right? Not just proclaimed to be as such..
Some here ask why others outside of America would care about our little invasion? Perhaps they care for the 10s of thousands of innocents that have been killed in Iraqi. It is very sad to say that most here turn a blind eye to that and consider it the cost of 'freedom' in this war of lies..
The longer this continues the more I can't help but look at our invading forces and consider them 'Redcoats' in a foreign land attempting to enforce their governmental ideas and way of life. Of course not the individual soldier doing his/her duty. But America's War Machine that was placed in motion for very specific reasons..
-
What ever papers you guys bring out:
Bush better travel around the world now, while he can. After this 4 years term, he end up tied to US soil, just like Kissinger.
-
Originally posted by JB88
on the upside, iraq got rid of its Uday.
we still have ours.
:(
:D
-
nothing was "proved", just because they did not find WMD does not mean they are not there,buried in the desert/moved to syria.
-
Originally posted by john9001
nothing was "proved", just because they did not find WMD does not mean they are not there,buried in the desert/moved to syria.
Yeah... maybe they were saving them for the next invasion. :rolleyes:
-
One thing was proven. If they existed, they are still out there waiting to be used.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
One thing was proven. If they existed, they are still out there waiting to be used.
-SW
Exactly. One of the rationales given for the war was that the risk of some nasty Bio/Chem wepaons being given by the ebil Saddam to the equally nefarious Bin Laden was so great. Yet now Iraq has been turned into a magnet for every Jihadi who wants to earn his one way trip to paradise in the very location where these alleged stocks of WMD are still unaccounted for. Thus the very circumstances the war was ostensibly started to counter have in fact been created. Doh!
Of course that assumes that one believes said WMD existed in any significant quantity after the mid 1990's. Since Bush, Cheney et al seemed to believe so, you'd think they'd be prosecuting a continued search with a little more vigour. Wouldn't you?
-
De Nile is not a river in Egypt :)
-
Originally posted by john9001
nothing was "proved", just because they did not find WMD does not mean they are not there,buried in the desert/moved to syria.
x:confused:
Re-reading....
:lol
re-reading....
:rofl
Oh, where do I start with this one....Should we contact Fox Muldr on this? Maybe they were buried in the desert AND moved to Syria?
or, Buried deep in the desert in Syria? I get it now. Gotta go, I think I'm gonna call the police on my neighbor, and tell them that he was dealing crack, and even though it's no longer there, I believe he buried it deep in his backyard, and moved it to Green Bay.
Yeah, THAT will go over real well...
handsomehunk
-
Originally posted by JB42
Anyone consider that all those months we tried to go through the UN to get in to Iraq, Saddam didn't have every train, truck, car and camel shipping WMD's out of Iraq before the invasion took place?
I wish people would stop perpetuating the myth that there were any there in the first place.
Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice both said prior to 9/11 that the sanctions against Iraq had worked and they had no significant weapons capability.
That is two of the most senior people in the US administration admitting there were none to begin with!!
You were lied to. You'll get over it some day.
-
I have a hard time finding every single little terd in my cats sand box.
Now think how hard it would be to find something in that sand box.
-
Originally posted by john9001
nothing was "proved", just because they did not find WMD does not mean they are not there,buried in the desert/moved to syria.
IMAO every little child know that all Iraqi nukes were moved to Iran ... you dumb.
Lets see few facts..
Bush claimed that iraq have WMD (deployable in 45 mins).
Bush claimed that Iraq is cooperating with Al-quaida.
Then he went to the US`s congress.... he convinced all those sheeps.. ohh sorry i mean congresman, that Iraq is great danger for world piece. So so so ... all those noble man gave him some mickey mouse money and he started to play.......
Baisicaly all so called evidence were suplied by CIA ( or am i wrong?)
Later on Bush invade Iraq, kill some 10 000 civilist, cause dead of few thousand US citizens.......
Then they found mobile laboratories... OMG it were not chemical laboratories, it were some meteorological stations... dooooh....
OMG Iraq didnt buy Uranium from Nigeria ?... it can not be !!!
Hollyyy... watermelon there is no evidence that SH were linked to Al-quaida as CIA belived.?!
Ohhh and those WMD..... there are not even WMD...
So regardless what could SH do in future lets make it short.
If you will go to the american congress with paper from CIA.... and if you will demand $999999999+E6 because pink elephant is about to terrorise colony of foxs close to the canadian border, they will simply give you permision to vulch Uganda. [then you only need to explain people that pink elephant is great danger for american home cats and thats it.. no... you must ask god to bless kitecat facotries in US]
In the other words.... Do you realize, what credit do you have in the world now ?
Words like 'CIA' or 'secret services' gave people more laugh that british 'Halo Halo'
But you are to cool to care about it, so i will just finish my cookies.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Probability is in favor of the situation developing for the better.
Pre action = very little chance of change
Post action = very large chance of change."
That doesn't follow. A very large chance of change doesn't necessarily precipitate a change for the better.
Ya think?
Should a situation remain completely stagnant, there is zero chance for the better. Should a situation fluctuate, it has a greater chance for the better.
That's entirely subjective though. Throw the pre-war situation at "50%, just ok" then we have an equal chance of better or worse change.
-
they found migs buried in the desert after a sand storm exposed them, the "meteorological stations" were also buried in the desert.
so you think that if saddam would go to all the trouble to bury migs and "meteorological stations" in the desert he would not bury WMD?
de-nile is right.
-
Hmmm... maybe because the MiGs were ineffective against the U.S., but might be useful once our attention turned somewhere else.
I don't think a few MiG-25s are comparable to a WMD capability.
-
LOL imao would you be so kind and post some of those burried mobile meteorogical laboratories links ?
yeah .. i spoted Migs in the desert.... hmmm they were w/o wings and from cold war era
Man you have big fantasy...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... maybe because the MiGs were ineffective against the U.S., but might be useful once our attention turned somewhere else.
I don't think a few MiG-25s are comparable to a WMD capability.
Yes they are, so...neeener neeener neeener:lol
SH filled the fuel tanks w/ WMD, THEN buried them in the Mig25's...and moved them.......to Syria...
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
SH filled the fuel tanks w/ WMD, THEN buried them in the Mig25's...and moved them.......to Syria...
naaa no Syria Iran Iran ... looks even today we were laughing at home, coz some Emreekaan expert pointed on some satelite picture and said ... iranian could hide Nuke bombs under this rock... coz its big enuf ....
But i accept that Syria could get some part of those WMD... why not... everybody know that SH had plenty of them
-
I have a WMD in my pants; it's a real bringer of the death, destroyer of the worlds and makes girls cry and ask for more :)
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Yet Bush still can't admit he was wrong on the fundemental reason for his invasion of Iraq and the subsequent mess it's in today.
What a joke.
....-Gixer
Not once were we ever told that WMD was the only reason for going into Iraq. The list of reaons for going into Iraq has been documented numerous times on this board, not our fault you choose to ignore every reason EXCEPT wmd. It has also been documented that some of Iraq's stockpiles of WMD were NEVER accounted for. Iraq also had a stockpile of uranium, several hundred tons iirc.
-
"Iraq is no threat to America. It's just plain redikulous!"
Whoo boy, remember the daily floggings that poor sonahvab1tch got over that? Those were the days, eh?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Not once were we ever told that WMD was the only reason for going into Iraq. The list of reaons for going into Iraq has been documented numerous times on this board, not our fault you choose to ignore every reason EXCEPT wmd. It has also been documented that some of Iraq's stockpiles of WMD were NEVER accounted for. Iraq also had a stockpile of uranium, several hundred tons iirc.
It was the PRIMARY reason for the invasion of Iraq! Nothing else. And since that has proven to be completely false so are the reasons for being there. Do you really think the other reasons are worth the cost in lives and situation that Iraq is now in? Even Blair wouldn't of followed him on that crusade if that was the case.
When Bush say's "Absolutely" he hardly looks as if he has convniced himself on that one let alone anyone else.
Do you think Bush would of been able to sell the reason for invading Iraq on anything else other then making out that he was a threat to the world and armed with WMD'S?
Nothing but scare tactics and war mongering. Suprisng that someone isn't made accountable including Bush himself.
....-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Nothing but scare tactics and war mongering. Suprisng that someone isn't made accountable including Bush himself.
Gotta hand it to the GOP. The Democrats just don't have the stones for a good old fashioned witch hunt.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
The question was/is that Iraq was invaded for WMD's which has all proven to be false, not that Sadam was a bad man. What makes you so sure that the situation for Iraqis today and in the future will be any better?
...-Gixer
The question is why was Iraq invaded.
Leftwing-treehugging-whalehumping-vege-eating-lesbian-manhatres jump to the "WMDs must be found to justify the invasion". Of course this is the idiots response based on their non-questioning belief of left wing dictator-loving media.
Read the stuff above... let me point it out for you: "to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons PROGRAMS".
The US never had to find a big pile of WMD's, all they had to do was find programs, which they did.
Of course the left-wing-tards like some found here tend to look at the short term result of the invasion and liberation of Iraq.
Heres what the alternative was:
- Iraq continues to defy UN Inspectors
- Iraq develops Bio/Chem/and Nuke programs
- Iraq keeps using Oil for Food to keep populace in poverty while those in government live in luxury
Then a couple of years down the track Iraq announces it has Nukes, then the scenario looks dangerous for Iran, Israel, or Kuwait. Iraq would most likely start picking a fight with Israel and one could see a nuclear conflict starting very very easily with Iraq drawing Egypt and Syria into the war.
Alternatively the US and UN could have left Iraq and before Iraq completed its programs the Israeli's would have been guaranteed to stick their noses in in some form of pre-emptive strike.
Don't know why you hate the yanks so much Gixer, maybe you need to stop hanging out with vegans.
-
"Programs" huh?
I'm not exactly a rocket scientist, so somebody help me out here.
How long does it take to go from a "program" to a "mushroom cloud?"
45 minutes, or more than 45 minutes?
-
I think the answer depends on whether you're a member of the current administration (or not).
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
.The US never had to find a big pile of WMD's, all they had to do was find programs, which they did.
LMAO, errr yes they were did and were expecting too, cripes I'm not going to go over that again. PRIMARY reason for the invasion not programes or intent.
Then a couple of years down the track Iraq announces it has Nukes, then the scenario looks dangerous for Iran, Israel, or Kuwait. Iraq would most likely start picking a fight with Israel and one could see a nuclear conflict starting very very easily with Iraq drawing Egypt and Syria into the war.
That's such BS and just working on the fear tactics and war mongering.
Meanwhile in Iran.. They are busy adding the finishing touches to their 4,000 km range missile and warheads.
Since Iran is obviously far more advanced down this track and a threat to Israel why weren't they invaded instead?
Don't know why you hate the yanks so much Gixer, maybe you need to stop hanging out with vegans.
I don't hate the Yanks I just think their leader is an idiot, who's stupid decisions effect us all. And wonder how your so easily sucked into Bush admin propergander as well. You must tape Fox news every night and believe in all that balanced reporting. :lol
...-Gixer
-
Didn't bother reading the replies or the whole thread... But one thing strikes me about this whole Iraq deal...
A bad man is not doing bad things to his people anymore. Millions of people are free... Isn't that worth anything?
Then again, why couldn't we just invade Iraq with THAT being the primary objective? Why does there need to be anymore justification than that?
The problem with politicians is they don't speak from their hearts.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States of America, then the war was in violation of the UN Charter and thus illegal.
You should know by now we don't care what the stinking UN thinks.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Who gets to decide which countries needs ... "purification"?
Do we have the right to force our ways on other people, and if so doesn't that justify others who have done the same?
And finally ... do you really believe that the US government opposed the UN and many influential allies, lied and cheated and finally invaded Iraq because they cared about the poor Iraqis, and wanted to help? If so then I suggest you look in the mirror. I think you might have "Naive, ignorant do-gooder" stamped on your forehead ... curtsey of the US government.
As would most of Europe after world war two thanks to America.
Look I am in agreement with you about the war but maybe for different reasons.
I am glad that Sadam is out of power the world is a better place because of it.
But what I don't like is the fact that so many young American and
allied troops have died for a people that really do not want us there.
I don't know what will happen after the election in Iraq wether it will be any better or not.
I kinda doubt that we will see any change because of Iraqi's killing Iraq's Shiite's Vs the Sunni's Vs the Kurd's.
Until all three of those groups set down and work out some form of government on there own there will never be peace in that country.
So as I see it we at this point are now wasting not only our time there but also our young peoples lives as well.
Hold on let me put on my Nomex suit
-
Originally posted by GScholz
As would most of Europe what?
America pumped millions into Europe after the war.
Helped rebuild the economy's of many countries.
Now weather it was to our advantage to do so remains to be seen
but it is undeniable that America help in many ways to rebuild Europe after WW2.
-
Finland didn't receive a penny from US and we did just well. Same would had happened in other european countries thought maybe a bit slower.
Marshall plan was win/win situation for US; it helped some european countries to rebuilt but it also helped American companies to export their goods to Europe and keep european countries tied to US.
Thinking it was made for just showing good will is... well... naive. Well maybe it fits pretty well to some Americans then :)
-
yes..new zealnad...finland and the rest of euro land would of been much bettr off with hilter as daddy...and it wouldnt bother me if you were in concentration camps...
Hell Sadom is a good guy too..
again...
you guys really shoudl of been with the human shields
Im ready to vote..
HAHAHA get ready for 4 more years..then after that..get ready for another republican president....
and get ready TO DIE!!>.ALL you terrorits supporting states...DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Axis of Evil..... Call a spade a spade..I love our boy Bush
-
I'm sure your mom and pop are proud of you :)
-
Originally posted by Gixer
It was the PRIMARY reason for the invasion of Iraq! Nothing else. And since that has proven to be completely false so are the reasons for being there. Do you really think the other reasons are worth the cost in lives and situation that Iraq is now in? Even Blair wouldn't of followed him on that crusade if that was the case.
When Bush say's "Absolutely" he hardly looks as if he has convniced himself on that one let alone anyone else.
Do you think Bush would of been able to sell the reason for invading Iraq on anything else other then making out that he was a threat to the world and armed with WMD'S?
Nothing but scare tactics and war mongering. Suprisng that someone isn't made accountable including Bush himself.
....-Gixer
The fact that Saddam was harboring terrorists and had terrorist training camps in Iraq was enough for the US to go in. Bush never said there was a primary reason for going in.
a PRIMARY reason is something other people like you use.
-
The fact that Saddam was harboring terrorists and had terrorist training camps in Iraq was enough for the US to go in. Bush never said there was a primary reason for going in.
Simply not true.. Unless you call the gen Iraqi population terrorist .. You know, like those guys that turned from Iraqi citizens into terrorist over night.. and then insurgents.. I'm certain eventually they will be CIR... Central Iraqi regulars.. or perhaps Iracong..
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Who gets to decide which countries needs ... "purification"?
Do we have the right to force our ways on other people, and if so doesn't that justify others who have done the same?
And finally ... do you really believe that the US government opposed the UN and many influential allies, lied and cheated and finally invaded Iraq because they cared about the poor Iraqis, and wanted to help? If so then I suggest you look in the mirror. I think you might have "Naive, ignorant do-gooder" stamped on your forehead ... curtsey of the US government.
No I think the US Government went in there for their own selfish reasons.
I think a lot of Americans are happy we did it for these "do gooder" reasons.
And to answer your question as to who gets to decide which countries require "purification", I guess that would be the English Speaking World, with a few exceptions. We and our allies are the only ones who seem to be willing to do something other than talk.
-
Originally posted by wombatt
You should know by now we don't care what the stinking UN thinks.
its may you personal wish, but not official politic of your goverment.... check reality baby.
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
yes..new zealnad...finland and the rest of euro land would of been much bettr off with hilter as daddy...and it wouldnt bother me if you were in concentration camps...
Hell Sadom is a good guy too..
Ofcourse Saddam was great man of good habbits. Otherwise US would never ever support him in his war agains Iran nor make bussines with him.... aaah i almost forget that SH had to be realy good men, since US has borrowed $4bil to SH in the past .....
Btw back to your post... do you expect contemporary Euros to lick your balls because of WW2 ?
-
Originally posted by wombatt
You should know by now we don't care what the stinking UN thinks.
It seems to me that USA wants to be in everything, but not to follow any rules, just controll things.
Right now USA is infact thretning Bosnien Serbs: Telling them to complie and co-operate with the International wartribunal!
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Last time I heard USA did´nt even recognize it as a legal instance.
Talk about double standard.
-
LOLOLO
LMFAO..
so Soodma didnt support terrorits.
we can just use ..1 EASY example..
Him sending checks to PLO families when thye blow themselves up.....You want more?..or were these 401k.plans?....LMFAo..
cluless dolts..
Adn Ball licking for euros> becuase of what we did for them in ww2?...
maybe..but atleast soem FRIKN RESPECT..hell I dotn even need respect..JUST STFU..and stop bashing every chance you get...Im tired of of us being security for all the spineless nations....
Your countires remind me of the cheeses eatn surrender monkies..
we can always count on you guys for one thing.........
"Your always there when you need us"
and whaaa..we were .."allies " with the commie bastard pinko-reds..at one time too....situations change.
Maybe if your euro papers werent voluntarily so frikn Biased you woudl see more then what is feed to you..YA YA..Atleast we have freedom of speech..and we get to see all wacko sides in our news..
Why do you think Libya..just said..OK..you can coem in now...WOW..what a friend Kahdafi is now..lolol..
BIG STICK....BIG STICK...You better protect that ***
-
Originally posted by Gixer
LMAO, errr yes they were did and were expecting too, cripes I'm not going to go over that again. PRIMARY reason for the invasion not programes or intent.
That's such BS and just working on the fear tactics and war mongering.
Meanwhile in Iran.. They are busy adding the finishing touches to their 4,000 km range missile and warheads.
Since Iran is obviously far more advanced down this track and a threat to Israel why weren't they invaded instead?
I don't hate the Yanks I just think their leader is an idiot, who's stupid decisions effect us all. And wonder how your so easily sucked into Bush admin propergander as well. You must tape Fox news every night and believe in all that balanced reporting. :lol
...-Gixer
Actually, thats not true, unless you're a US Senator and know more than we do. I suggest you read the congressional endorsement of the invasion.
Fear tactics? Why is it Gixer? Do you have such a short memory that you forget Israel PRE-EMPTIVELY attacked Egypt and Syrai, that your forget Israel PRE-EMPTYIVEL attacked Iraq's previous nuclear program. That you also forget the Iraq attacked both Kuwait and Iran. Calling me fear-mongering in the face of these facts? You seem very ignorant on such things.
Iran, yes thats a problem. Nobody is happy with what they're doing, however as far as a threat goes they are way down the list of luny countries. Iran while it has the odd extremist fruitloop is a pretty stable country and fairly westernised. The list of reasons for attacking Iran is far shorter than those of Iraq. For example, Iran did not use bio-chem weapons on its own people.
I'm not a fan of any US president. But I don't judge them based on the media circus. Bush isn't an idiot, his old man was a WW2 vet - the sorta guy that brings up good kids. Bush Jnr qualified on fast jets, you have to be more than average to do that - speaking of which what is your profession gixer?
Show me one US president that hasn't had one side of the political process calling him idiot. Its up to you whether you get sucked in by the media.
Theres a saying, you can please some of the people all of the time, and you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can never please salamanders like you ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Do you have such a short memory that you forget Israel PRE-EMPTIVELY attacked Egypt and Syrai, that your forget Israel PRE-EMPTYIVEL attacked Iraq's previous nuclear program. That you also forget the Iraq attacked both Kuwait and Iran.
UN sucks, they could´nt prevent the attacks on Egypt and Syria from Israel.
You see, every resulotion against Israel put forward in security council was Vetod by USA.
UN sucks, because they could´nt prevent a war between Iraq and Iran.
Saddam, sponsered by USA, attacked Iran. USA supplied the gas wich was used both against the Kurds and during the Iraq-Iranian war. Of course, their "Ally" turned the blind eye towards it.
USA trained Muhajedeen to fight the Soviets in Afganistan.
Do I have to mention the "Contras"?
Then suddenly, it all backfires and you guys shout "911" and take this as an excause to secure your future oilsupply.
And now you end up loosing another War. Will you guys ever learn?
-
Well I'm not crazy about this war but I do not see us losing it either.
-
Originally posted by wombatt
Well I'm not crazy about this war but I do not see us losing it either.
It was lost in the very moment you guys started it. But I bet there will be no end to the damages it caused.
It actully changed the history of USA being the "good guys". Even if Nam proved oposite, I think the world still thought there was good intentions. This case was way to clear.
And..........hahahahahahaha (not funny really).... your children will ask ya how you ever could put a vote on such a moron as Dubya, just like german children asked their parents how Hitler came to power (by voting).
And you will say "I always been a Democrate, I voted Kerry"
-
I think for alot of people I know for me for instance I voted for the lesser of two idiots.
-
Originally posted by wombatt
You should know by now we don't care what the stinking UN thinks.
Uhm, the US is part of the UN.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Simply not true.. Unless you call the gen Iraqi population terrorist .. You know, like those guys that turned from Iraqi citizens into terrorist over night.. and then insurgents.. I'm certain eventually they will be CIR... Central Iraqi regulars.. or perhaps Iracong..
There were at least 2 terrorist training camps in Iraq, that too has been well documented here on these boards in other threads. Not our fault you refuse to believe it. It has also been well documented that Saddam gave money to PLO families for suicide bombers, and that he gave shelter, food, medical aid to terrorists.
Saddam, sponsered by USA, attacked Iran. USA supplied the gas wich was used both against the Kurds and during the Iraq-Iranian war.
The US sponsored the war against Iran? Show some proof. Did we back him? Yeah, but we also helped the Iranians. Btw I dont agree with helping both sides in a conflict like that. As far as supplying the gas to Saddam to use on the Iranians and his own people.....show some proof. All you will find is that we SOLD him chemicals that had a dual use. All information that I could find was that we sold the chemicals to Iraq with the understanding that they werent to be used in making chemical weapons.
-
So how did you help Iranians in their fight against Iraq?
By shooting down a passenger plane?
-
Originally posted by Staga
So how did you help Iranians in their fight against Iraq?
By shooting down a passenger plane?
Google for the Iran-Contra scandal. Dont recall the specifics off hand, but I do know that Iran got much needed spare parts for their fleet of F-14 Tomcats. Profits from those covert sales were used to help fund the Contras in Nicaragua iirc.
-
Isn't it ironic that those wanting the USA to keep out of other countries affairs and not act as world policeman are the same people at the front of the queue demanding handouts from the US to help the tsunami victims.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Isn't it ironic that those wanting the USA to keep out of other countries affairs and not act as world policeman are the same people at the front of the queue demanding handouts from the US to help the tsunami victims.
Dont even go there. You be sorry if you start that again.
-
Vulcan not much different than how Germany despises what our military is doing and yet when we start talking about closing bases in Germany the local community cries because we would kill their local economy if we left. The don't mind taking the money brought in by the "war machine" but in the same respect they'll scream about how unjust we are and how ruthless we would be if we removed our bases leaving people without work.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Bush Jnr qualified on fast jets, you have to be more than average to do that - speaking of which what is your profession gixer?
Vulcan, since your so fond of Bush's policy in Iraq. When the Bush Admin and Generals say that only 4 out of the 18 provinces may not be able to participate in the election do you think that's significant?
As for occupation...
I work in IT System Support/Developer Tandem Mainframes and Commercial Helicopter licence and ATPL since 98.
By the way I like the way you always chuck in a personal insult or two in your posts. So what's your occupation dumbarse?
...-Gixer
-
Cobra, don't you get it, the US went and put their military there, so in fact, you are responsible for the consequent dilemna.
-
Moot if your speaking in regards to Iraq. I'm sorry but SH is responsible for what has been going on since 1991. He has consistantly went against sanctions that were imposed upon him after the war and I really don't feel sorry for what is happening now.
We can sit here and discuss this day in and day out. Simple fact is he couldn't follow the sanctions that the UN imposed upon him after the Gulf War and the UN didn't bother to press harder when he was violating those sanctions. He kept being defiant and pushing military hardware into the areas that he knew were off limits. He exposed his civilian population to the threat of strikes by coalition forces because he would hide his military hardware in and around civilian establishments on a daily basis. He consistantly tested coalition forces with rapid launches of his combat aircraft into the no fly zones. He consistantly sent out propoganda about his new long range missile systems.
Maybe the US shouldn't have used WMD as any kind of major reason for going in. If he was willing to constantly go against the sanctions then what would keep him from trying to build WMDs? Being a threat to the US itself is not totally correct. Yes we have forces stationed in the AOR which means US personel are infact within range if he decided to build such weapons. We also have allies in the area that are within range of such weapons if he chose to build them. It should have boiled down to he cannot and refuses to abide by the sanctions imposed upon him by the UN and he is in direct violation. Violation of those sanctions means the right to use lethal force to make him comply.
These people here can sit here and hug their trees all day as far as I'm concerned. If they really gave a watermelon about what is happening in Iraq then they would have voted to impose stronger measures to force SH to comply with the sanctions that he brought upon himself. We didn't force these upon him or his country. The UN forced these upon him because of his previous actions. So at one time the UN and all the members of the UN decided that he was enough of a threat to the region to impose such sanctions. So where were these supposed allies over the past 13 years prior to the US waging war on Iraq? Why did they stand by while SH constantly violated the sanctions imposed from the Gulf War and say nothing or do nothing to force him to comply? How many of these countries actually stood by and tried to enforce these sanctions? Why is it everytime the coalition forces that were there imposing these sanctions hit targets that were in violation that the media and all these countries made such a big deal about the strikes?
It's easy to sit in your homes far from what is really happening and pass judgement. Having absolutely no clue as to what is really happening in the area other than what the majority here see on television. These people haven't seen the targets and their locations realitive to the no fly and no drive zones. They only see these nice little video clips that have been declassified for public viewing. These video clips once contained the actually latitude and longitude of the targets which would prove without a doubt SH was in violation. You also don't see half of the recon photos that show SHs military equipment sitting next to temples, housing complexes and general civilian populated areas. SH is willing to give the lives of his people to try and make some point about how inhumane the coalition forces are. Yet he doesn't abide by LOAC or the Geneva Convention and he can't follow simple rules and regulations that were imposed upon him due to his actions in Kuwait. So how much integrity does a person like this really have?
People can keep believing whatever they want in regards to WMDs and why the US is now in Iraq. He was a ruthless dictator that couldn't follow the sanctions from the Gulf War. He was in direct violation and the UN wouldn't do anything to rectify the situation so now the US and it's allies are. Keep US bashing because it's obvious we are becoming immune to it and at some point in time it won't be just a few people here and there. When some country out there decides to take the same path as SH, any requests for help will be greeted with the door being slammed in their face.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Vulcan, since your so fond of Bush's policy in Iraq. When the Bush Admin and Generals say that only 4 out of the 18 provinces may not be able to participate in the election do you think that's significant?
As for occupation...
I work in IT System Support/Developer Tandem Mainframes and Commercial Helicopter licence and ATPL since 98.
By the way I like the way you always chuck in a personal insult or two in your posts. So what's your occupation dumbarse?
...-Gixer
I thought I was alone working on NSK systems :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
I thought I was alone working on NSK systems :)
LOL
S Series here, what are you working on?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
LOL
S Series here, what are you working on?
...-Gixer
straffo doesnt work there... he is resting there while he is away from his snail farm :rofl
umm there is nothing wrong about sleeping with the frogs :D
orel
ps.: WTF happen to our squad forum im missing place to post BS
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Cobra, the USA has in no way the right to enforce UN sanctions or punish countries that violate them ... without a UN mandate. The UN didn't give you one because they didn't believe your BS WMD story.
The invasion was illegal. Spending hundreds of billions on a war of choice when thousands of people die every day from hunger and war elsewhere is immoral and wrong.
This war is illegal, immoral and wrong.
If the UN didnt believe SH had or was still trying to preserver his WMD programs why did they keep sending inspectors? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Elfie
If the UN didnt believe SH had or was still trying to preserver his WMD programs why did they keep sending inspectors? :rolleyes:
Sending inspectors is one thing, using it as an excuse to invade and occupy another country is another.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Elfie
If the UN didnt believe SH had or was still trying to preserver his WMD programs why did they keep sending inspectors? :rolleyes:
because som elobotomized tars were still crying out that Iraq is full of WMD and they cant sleep.
got it ?
-
Originally posted by lada
because som elobotomized tars were still crying out that Iraq is full of WMD and they cant sleep.
got it ?
Sign material,,, Thanks Lada:D
-
And Lada scores... :lol
-
Originally posted by Gixer
LOL
S Series here, what are you working on?
...-Gixer
S series here also , I worked on Euronext Stock exchange software.
Orel we still have squad forum here : http://www.eurosquad.ch/forum/
-
Straffo, Gixer, Lada, Patrone and others against the Iraq war.
Can you explain to anyone what exactly it is that upsets you about the war?
Then explain what other wars upset you to an equal degree.
There are lots of wars and conflicts in the world that the UN did not "give permission" for. Why is is that Iraq is the one that really makes you upset?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Straffo, Gixer, Lada, Patrone and others against the Iraq war.
Can you explain to anyone what exactly it is that upsets you about the war?
Then explain what other wars upset you to an equal degree.
There are lots of wars and conflicts in the world that the UN did not "give permission" for. Why is is that Iraq is the one that really makes you upset?
Because the following things.
1. The false causes given.
Blix wanted more time to search for the WMD´s
In this he was brushed off and statment from countryleaders that Iraq had the ability to deploy WMD within 45 min.
If more time was given, maybe, UN would have came to the same conclusion that it took USA nearly 1200 men during 2 years and a budget of 700 million dollars.
2. The use of your double standard.
A dictatorship can never be good, but use this argument to attack a soverign country is a little strong.
If this was the real reason, then why didnt you start out liberating in South America or Saudi-Arabia, where actully most of the terrorists attackers from 911 came?
(because these dictatorship are sponsered and supported by USA?)
3. The claimes that the goverment of Iraq had close bonds to Al-quada. Not proven to be correct.
Simple said, your reasons to make a country suffer so much, to kill civilians, women and children.
To be cowards, to let it happend so far away. Without risk to get retaliated.
Yes, You are really cowards to hit guys that cant hit back.
-
Patrone, what other wars upset you? Reasons given? LOL! What other war needs a good reason?
You are a joke.
I don't recall you EVER protesting any other conflict in the world.....and there are lots.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Because the following things.
If more time was given, maybe, UN would have came to the same conclusion that it took USA nearly 1200 men during 2 years and a budget of 700 million dollars.
Simple said, your reasons to make a country suffer so much, to kill civilians, women and children.
To be cowards, to let it happend so far away. Without risk to get retaliated.
Yes, You are really cowards to hit guys that cant hit back.
You are not very intelligent.
After the UN cleared Saddam, are you saying he could be trusted to not rebuild his military and wmd? I'd rather know for sure than trust Saddam and his UN buddies/partners in crime.
And killing civilians? Are you sane? Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of them.
You have no argument other than your hate for the US. Make a logical argument, please.
-
Originally posted by patrone
To be cowards, to let it happend so far away. Without risk to get retaliated.
Yes, You are really cowards to hit guys that cant hit back.
So, all nations that go to war need to make sure the other guy can hit back, or else they are cowards?
hahahaha. Clown.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Patrone, what other wars upset you? Reasons given? LOL! What other war needs a good reason?
You are a joke.
I don't recall you EVER protesting any other conflict in the world.....and there are lots.
Oh Old pal, as we go way back, knowing eachother and you know so much about me.
I have never been this much upset over any war during my grown life as this war.
And a joke? Just the kind of comment one could expect from you, when I answer your questions asked
-
Originally posted by patrone
Oh Old pal, as we go way back, knowing eachother and you know so much about me.
I have never been this much upset over any war during my grown life as this war.
And a joke? Just the kind of comment one could expect from you, when I answer your questions asked
You say that the US is killing Iraqi civilians? Do you agree that Saddam killed 100's of thousands of them?
What is it that upsets you more, the US trying to remove Saddam ?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You say that the US is killing Iraqi civilians? Do you agree that Saddam killed 100's of thousands of them?
What is it that upsets you more, the US trying to remove Saddam ?
I know about the Saddams killing of 100´s of thousands but not on what grounds he did this: maybe you can inform me better about Iraqs internal affairs? Maybe you can tell me about the uprising encauraged by US during Iraq 1?
But I dont see how his killing of 100´s of thousands, can defend you guys doing the same: To kill the same amount in 2 years as he had 20 years to complete.
You guys are sick in your retorics. Just like the looser who posted about that Abu gaib Guard who got sentenced to 15 years:
"if you are stupid enough to let your pals photograph you while doing it, you deserve 15 years".
Makes me sick and many of you guys post "I pray for you", the double standard used are shocking. If you really belive so much in God, why don´t you fear him?
I doubt nobody will suprised the next time a BIG "BOOOOOOM" is heard from inside USA and most will actully say : "We´ll, they had it coming".
I dont think that anyone deserves this, really
-
Originally posted by patrone
But I dont see how his killing of 100´s of thousands, can defend you guys doing the same: To kill the same amount in 2 years as he had 20 years to complete.
I'm not going to respond to you anymore....you are obviously insane, or a liar.
So, Iraq is the one war in your life that hurts you the most? You must be an idiot.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Straffo, Gixer, Lada, Patrone and others against the Iraq war.
Can you explain to anyone what exactly it is that upsets you about the war?
Then explain what other wars upset you to an equal degree.
I wouldnt say that im upset about the war.
I were upset when first black eye iraqi lady died. [damm i should get married :D ]
I were glad when those who were paid to kill other started to die as well.
I were upset, when Bush assigned reconstruction contracts before/during war w/o tenders and US`s people didnt mind in.
Im glad that all that parade of BS has turned to be an international shame.
So do you realy wanna know why so many people mind Iraqi war ?
Because some hillbilly told us, that we are stupid and we should follow him coz he have enough money to shave 2x a day.
But what made me laugh about Afghanistan and Iraq is fact that mickey mouse army is not even able to secure one city.
Lets compare it to Russian vs. Afhanistan war.
Russia didnt even claim that they are spreading freedom or something special.. they simply went for afhanistan w/o attempt to convince own people that they are "terrorist supports" if they do not agree with that war. And they returned with shame as well :p [btw im foreteller ]
hint.:
Did you ever think, why US "disarmed" afghanistan and left rest on UN, whitch did a good job overthere. And why US went otherway in Iraq and clearly failed? [can you imagine faces of all those COE who were horny to make billions of $$ in Iraq :] ]
-
Lada, ever wonder why no other war is ever mentioned?
The US went to war against Iraq. What's the big deal? Plenty of other wars and conflics on a much greater scale, yet everyone wants to make Iraq the most important....it's the end of the world.
The US does not go to war on a whim. We are not war mongers.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Vulcan, since your so fond of Bush's policy in Iraq. When the Bush Admin and Generals say that only 4 out of the 18 provinces may not be able to participate in the election do you think that's significant?
As for occupation...
I work in IT System Support/Developer Tandem Mainframes and Commercial Helicopter licence and ATPL since 98.
By the way I like the way you always chuck in a personal insult or two in your posts. So what's your occupation dumbarse?
...-Gixer
Don't like personal insults do you? Hmmmm...
I just think their leader is an idiot
I was merely pointing out, that if you do the jobs you say you do, and are working towards your ATPL then you should know that it is not a simple thing to qualify to fly jets.
4 provinces out of 18, how much more is that than could vote before?
Me, I work in IT, specifically security and networking.
-
Gixer, I admit.....after the US got ride of Saddam, the Iraqis will no loger have a 100% vote for Saddam.
Saddam got 100% of the vote in the last "election" That is a benchmark for all democracies and proves that he was the people's President.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
4 provinces out of 18, how much more is that than could vote before?
Me, I work in IT, specifically security and networking.
Well may be you could go and practivce some IOS cmds and then there will raise a question on your mind.
Why cisco teach in CCNA that Rip1 doesnt support smaller subnetmasks that C class, while RIP support it regaring norms.. ehh ?
well just kidding.. the proper question is...
How many provinces has been excluded in Afghanistan, where election has been run by UN ?
Exclude 2/5 of people from the election and call it democratic election must be some new emrekan way.....
But i think that in US its quite normal as well, so it do not surprise me :D
-
Lada, what country are you in? Afraid to tell anyone? ashamed?
Let's here about your country and it's fantastic history.
-
GS so your saying that the US and it's allies have been illegally enforcing UN sanctions since the end of the Gulf War? Have we not been there enforcing the no fly and no drive zones for oh lets say for the past 14 years for the UN. Did the UN not authorize this or has the whole world been watching a small war over the past 14 years and now they feel the need to say something?
Don't give me the bs about spending billions on war while so many people are dying in other countries that need aid. You can keep your hippy ideals to yourself. Wars have been fought over lesser issues than what this current war is being fought over and people were still dying around the world.
Your country spends billions to keep your war machine ready for what exactly? Why not spend your billions instead on saving the world? What threat is there against your nation that requires you to keep such an arsenal? Keep your bs about what is spent on the military and it's operations to yourself. Better yet since your such a peaceful country why is it the UN didn't go to you after the Gulf War to ensure sanctions were followed by SH. Or any other one of the so called peaceful nations within the UN. Oh that's right because you guys only want to stick your nose into the fray when you feel like it. You really don't give a watermelon unless it affects you in some way. I wonder what might be affecting the Euro world that they care so much about this war. Oil prices maybe? Must be hard on the pockets eh.
I'm sure you really care whether or not a tyrant like SH has been ousted from power. I'm sure you really cared about how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that have died during his reign of power. If you really did then why is it all of a sudden now you wanna jump in because of so many civilian casualties and an unjust war? Funny how you and the rest of the Euro countries stood by why he massacred his people and didn't say a word. What about the unjust war he has been waging against "his" people? Where were you guys then? Why weren't you standing up for the rights of that nation during that time of turmoil? Oh because it didn't affect your oil prices then and what you don't see can't hurt you right? Unjust war huh? You and your peaceful nations would allow genocide to happen if you had the ability to turn a blind eye to it. So in closing keep your bs peace loving crap to yourself. The day you actually get off your arses and do something to keep tyrants like this from killing off their people at will then you can step up to the plate and voice your opinion. Until that time you do little but stand up on your soap boxes and preach about how unjust the rest of the world is when trying to stop these acts.
-
Originally posted by lada
Well may be you could go and practivce some IOS cmds and then there will raise a question on your mind.
Why cisco teach in CCNA that Rip1 doesnt support smaller subnetmasks that C class, while RIP support it regaring norms.. ehh ?
Yeah well maybe I won't because I don't touch Cisco gear.
Lada, if you're going to try and be a smartarse you could at least try and get your english to a level that we can understand. If english is a second language, and you can couple, don't try and be smart.
Now, be gone, crawl back to your failed communist experiment. Your grasping straws over how many provinces get to participate in Iraqs first steps to a true democracy is transparent as Soviet-envy of how the Soviet Union crumbled at the feet of the US.
-
Just yanking you chain mate, shooting down your pony wasn't enough.
Re: the politics of this thing, I usually agree with the US the most (e.g. if I was given an active spot in the US mil I'd take it); but the lack of thoroughness and general fallaciousness of debating, on the net and IRL, to me is the most absurd thing.
-
lol Yep GS isn't a US hater at all. Ever wonder why his posts are so one sided? But GS has already enlightened us by letting us know the United States is the reason for all the worlds problems. We have caused the whole world to become unstable and we are just another Napoleon Bonaparte, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, and can't forget Adolph Hitler. Yep we are just biding our time so we can take over the world. Unlike the Asia and Euro folks we won't fail and we won't just enslave all of you but cut the heads off of your precious civilians for the world to see and understand just how powerful our nation really is. Isn't that how the Asian and Euro folks use to do it? Wait or was it like the Northmen who killed everything in their path regardless of what it was? Maybe we should become more like the Euro nations. We just might learn how to be really sadistic.
You really need to get a life GS. You might also want to seek counsel for never ending hatred of the world and those which oppose your ideals.
-
GS again your US bashing is getting old. And if those sanctions were "illegal" where was the UN and why did they allow it? The whole UN must work really well if they allowed it to happen for over 13 years. Good thing we have them there to ensure things around the world are dealt with in a timely manner. If we had the UN during WWII you very well may have been speaking German. It would have taken them how many years to make a decision on Hitler?
GS you seem to think that the rest of the world is so pretty and hasn't done a thing that is unjust in anyway it's amusing. But the US ofcourse is just a war mongering country.
How about Norway gets off their arses and tries to clean up something for once instead of standing on their soap box constantly talking the talk but not walking the walk. Your just a bunch of panzies that sit at home and whine about the rest of the worlds doings.
And GS if your weren't such a dolt then maybe you wouldn't have made the statement "No other country in the world have started more wars than the United States of America." if you didn't want it to backfire in your face. If it was a thousand years or a hundred years your statement was false.
Just keep sitting your panzy arse at home making your billions off of oil and keep whining about watermelon that not even your country will get off their arses to deal with. Typical Euro trash that wants to bash the US.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Don't like personal insults do you? Hmmmm...
I was merely pointing out, that if you do the jobs you say you do, and are working towards your ATPL then you should know that it is not a simple thing to qualify to fly jets.
4 provinces out of 18, how much more is that than could vote before?
Me, I work in IT, specifically security and networking.
Working towards ATPL? I finsihed my ATPL back in 98 and certinly never thought of the exams as being hard or a test of brilliance.
Actually Sadam did hold an election, remember he got 100% LOL
4 out of 18, well Sadam was never pushing democracy was he? Or all this BS about democracy and freedom spreeding through the Middle East. 4 out of the 18 is very significant if your the one that's pushing for democracy and an election to try and pull out your troops out, as that 4 (if you bothered to look at the pop stats) makes up half the population of Iraq.
That's something that Bush and his Generals forget to mention.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Straffo, Gixer, Lada, Patrone and others against the Iraq war.
Can you explain to anyone what exactly it is that upsets you about the war?
Then explain what other wars upset you to an equal degree.
There are lots of wars and conflicts in the world that the UN did not "give permission" for. Why is is that Iraq is the one that really makes you upset?
If you start your post with a false assertion what kind of answer do you expect ?
I was not against war , I was against the war as started and planed by GWB.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I was not against war , I was against the war as started and planed by GWB.
So, if you were not against the war, but only against the way BG planned it, then what are you upset about?
-
I'm not upset.
Where have you got this idea ???
I'm more upset of the attitude some US warmonger showed especially when it concern my country.
-
GScholz-Cobra412 4-0
Wtg :aok
(please dont give him more fact, he might not be able to handle it.)
-
Originally posted by straffo
I'm not upset.
Where have you got this idea ???
I'm more upset of the attitude some US warmonger showed especially when it concern my country.
Straffo, I understand completely.
-
Following the Gulf War, no-fly zones were set up north of the 36th parallel to protect Iraq's Kurdish minority and, later, south of the 32nd parallel to protect the country's Shiite Muslims. They were implemented by the United States (under President George H. W. Bush), Great Britain, and France. As justification, the trio of nations cited U.N. Security Council Resolution 688, adopted in 1991 to condemn Iraq's brutal repression of the Kurds and Shiites. The resolution demanded that Iraq cease its "repression of the Iraqi civilian population."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2074302/
No, the "no-fly zones" were not UN sanctioned and thus illegal.
So its illegal to protect people from oppression and being murdered?
The UN Charter is just that, a Charter, it is NOT a collection of international laws. In order for something to be illegal it has to be against the law.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
The question was/is that Iraq was invaded for WMD's which has all proven to be false, not that Sadam was a bad man. What makes you so sure that the situation for Iraqis today and in the future will be any better?
...-Gixer
Gixer, why do you think that the WMD (as 'casus belli') were not in Iraq's possession when the USA started the war? Is this because those WMD have not been found until now?
As far as I remember, not all of the WMD (in the amounts existence of which was accepted by Iraq itself) were attested for. Nor were there enough official Iraqi documentation presented to the United Nations about the liquidation of those amounts of the WMD. This can be easily construed as the 'casus belli', especially if one takes into account the well-founded scare in Israel (strategic ally of the USA) of the Iraqi WMD attack, and special intrests in Iraq's oil.
All that said, you can't speak about "WMD's which has all proven to be false".
Iraq has several big lakes, two big rivers confluense of which ends up in marshy delta, and maritime border line in the Persian Gulf.
As a philologist with military background, I can envisage the realization of the popular Russian saying 'kontsy v vodu' ('the ends - into the water'). This ends my post here. :cool:
-
You are dead on about the WMD's Geriatriczaur (sorry couldnt resist on that one :D, I wont do it again, but I HAD to do it just this once lol)
Even if the US found a cache of chemical weapons Gixer would claim the US planted them there heh
-
I have to forgive you, Elfie. :mad:
-
Originally posted by genozaur
I have to forgive you, Elfie. :mad:
The first time I saw *Geriatriczaur* I was eating, and I had to clean my monitor from all the partially chewed bits of food after seeing that :rofl
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No, the "no-fly zones" were not UN sanctioned and thus illegal.
THE NO-FLY ZONES Humanitarian basis for the no-fly zones (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/453/45306.htm#n75)
...Legal basis for the no-fly zones
30. The precise legal basis for the no-fly zones is controversial. The MoD's view is that—
... the justification for the No Fly Zones remains that of overwhelming humanitarian necessity in that, without our deployment, a severe humanitarian crisis would in all probability recur....[72]
...31. Our colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee recently examined the 'doctrine' of humanitarian necessity in their Report on Kosovo. They concluded—
... at the very least, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention has a tenuous basis in current international customary law...
Specifically in relation to NATO's intervention in Kosovo, that Committee decided that the action was 'of dubious legality in the current state of international law' but 'justified on moral grounds'.[76] The Foreign Affairs Committee supports the 'aim of establishing in the United Nations new principles governing humanitarian intervention'.[77] We too would support that aim but in the meantime, in the absence of internationally agreed procedures, we have no doubt that UK participation in the no-fly zone operations over Iraq is justified on moral and humanitarian grounds.
-
Originally posted by genozaur
As a philologist with military background, I can envisage the realization of the popular Russian saying 'kontsy v vodu' ('the ends - into the water'). This ends my post here. :cool:
Are you saying they dumped their WMDs into the sea or lakes?
Funny thing is many countries have done the same to chemical weapons but not for hiding them but to get rid of them for good.
I hope you didn't leave that out intentionally :)
-
lmao GD amerihaters coming in here owning all the americans.. lol :lol :lol
Be gentle GS be gentle! hehe
-
The "no-fly zones" was a violation of Iraqi air space. Unauthorized entry of military aircraft into another nations airspace is by definition a military invasion of that nation and thus utterly illegal without UN approval.
Again, the UN doesnt make International Law, it's only guidelines for operations is a *charter*. Approval or disapproval from the UN has nothing to do with legal or illegal.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Yeah well maybe I won't because I don't touch Cisco gear.
Lada, if you're going to try and be a smartarse you could at least try and get your english to a level that we can understand. If english is a second language, and you can couple, don't try and be smart.
Now, be gone, crawl back to your failed communist experiment. Your grasping straws over how many provinces get to participate in Iraqs first steps to a true democracy is transparent as Soviet-envy of how the Soviet Union crumbled at the feet of the US.
come one Vulcan its old "out of fashion" story.... english is my 3rd language.
however in 6 month i i will may be take one more.
HMmm i see that you had to bash a little bit coz you didnt know what to say ... ahh... ok then ... np
-
Originally posted by Staga
Are you saying they dumped their WMDs into the sea or lakes?
Funny thing is many countries have done the same to chemical weapons but not for hiding them but to get rid of them for good.
I hope you didn't leave that out intentionally :)
When someone dumps something into the water while reading a newspaper and drinking beer, does it make a big difference what his intentions were?
:confused: :D :cool:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This is typical war mongering hypocrisy. You're just trying to veil your illegal, unjust, self-interested war with the perception of doing good. If your true objective had been to free people from tyrants you would have stared in Africa. For the amount of resources you have spent on this war you probably could have cleaned up much of Africa from tyrants that make Hussein seem like a really nice guy. Of course as your government put it other "troubled" countries are not "floating on a sea of oil".
You see, that's the benefit of having a poorly educated and informed population. It's makes your government's work so much easier. "Be afraid America! Terrorism is everywhere! Your government will protect you! Just shut up and watch American Gladiators! Your Government will protect you!"
/Applauds.
-
"How fortunate for the government that the people do not read."
Made a good point, since the entire Western, "civilized" world stood back and watched a million+ innocents get slaughtered in Rwanda in 1994.
SH was one of "Our Boys," for quite some time, as was OBL. We let them do our dirty work, and paid, and are paying the price for it. This is what happens when you lie down with dogs. You get up with fleas.
Those pan-African warlords and their governments have nothing to offer, and neither do its citizens, so, let em kill each other off...regardless of how much worse they are than SH and OBL combined X10.
-
We will DOMINATE EVERYONE...
get ready you little pe-ons...get ready to take it
You know that computer you are using right now?...What OS are you using>..
YA thats rigth>>>AMERICAN BABY!!!
"WE RUN TINGS....TiNGS NO RUN WE!!!!!!!"
Don Woney- Third World Cop
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA....like I tell you little whiny gilrs...If you dont want to take it in the Face..turn around and take it in the 6
and ..daMMIT MAN...I wish G-Shulz"I know nushing"!! and his crew would stand behind what they say...HUMAN SHIELD!!!!..I hear that Iran may need some shields soon..Didnt I see that bus leavn Eur0Land?
Remeber that bus that was on its way to Iraq with all the "human Shileds"...lmfao...this is great
-
Originally posted by GScholz
When you have signed that charter you are bound to abide by it. The USA has signed the UN Charter.
The UN Charter still has nothing to do with legal or illegal. The UN doesnt pass legislation and never has. Also what did the UN do to enforce its own resolution to Saddam to stop oppressing his own people?
-
notice how Iraq left Kuwait right away after the UN told them to?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Oh no, not again. I refuse to educate every singe dimwit on this BBS on the functions of the United Nations. Go to http://www.un.org/law/ and do the work yourself.
Is the UN a legislative body? If not, then how can it pass laws that make things either legal or illegal. You claimed the no-fly zones in Iraq werent legal because they werent authorized by the UN.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Is the UN a legislative body? If not, then how can it pass laws that make things either legal or illegal. You claimed the no-fly zones in Iraq werent legal because they werent authorized by the UN.
If USA have signed the UN charta and USA did 1945.
Then USA is also agreeing to the international laws that UN has set.
(If you remember: USA is a funding member and also in the SC?)
If USA dont accept the jurisdiction of the International Court? Now thats another issue.
-
Is this thread new or from 2003? Is this a BBS or a hamster wheel?
-
A charter that governs how an existing body of people operates is NOT the equivalent to law. Yes the USA signed the UN charter.
Let's use GScholz's example of the no-fly zones in Iraq.
The UN passed a resolution saying Saddam has to stop oppressing his own people. The USA, Great Britain and France set up and enforce no-fly and no-drive zones in northern and southern Iraq to enforce the resolution. Someone says...hey thats illegal the UN didnt authorize it...so France pulls out. The USA and GB continue on enforcing the no-fly/no-drive zones.
The UN passes a resolution, then does nothing to enforce it and when others take it upon themselves to enforce it.....then the action taken becomes illegal? :rolleyes:
-
I saw nothing in that link you provided GScholz that says the UN passes laws or is a legislative body. Which does nothing to support your claim that UN approval is required to make military actions legal.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I saw nothing in that link you provided GScholz that says the UN passes laws or is a legislative body. Which does nothing to support your claim that UN approval is required to make military actions legal.
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Article 92
The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.
Article 93
1. All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
Now read the charter, please
-
Originally posted by NUKE
notice how Iraq left Kuwait right away after the UN told them to?
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by patrone
Now read the charter, please
A charter is NOT a law. GS has said that if things dont have UN approval they are illegal.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
A charter is NOT a law. GS has said that if things dont have UN approval they are illegal.
I don't understand where you are going with this. Are you mistaking this for some American law that affects you personnally or could be ruled on by some district judge?
Have you considered the eyes of the International Court of Justice that each member state has signed to honor?
-
You U.S. guys continue to argue with the Euro's. Why? They will not EVER agree with one thing or at least most things this country does for whatever reason. Why beat your heads agaisnt the screen?
Why argue with the U.S. haters both here in this country or abroad?
Let them compare notes as to why this country sucks or why we are War Mongers and the Police of the world. Let them decide what we should or shouldn't be doing. Let them talk all the talk they want.
Let the haters here do the same. Let them continue to live here and hate here at the same time.
It really is irrelevant what they think. Don't you agree? None of them here on this BBS will be able to change it. None here on this BBS that hate this country so much can do a thing to make this country change a dang thing.
U.S. people that hate everything here can't do a thing but vote and gripe either.
Let it go....means nothing.
When not if but when we get hit again , hopefully we will have a leader that will hit back 100 times harder. Hopefully we will have a leader that has convictions and will do what he thinks is the right thing.
No matter the end result , the U.S. will be wrong or "Have it coming" as was posted before in this thread.
Being the best always comes with the lesser's judging you.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Is this thread new or from 2003? Is this a BBS or a hamster wheel?
This thread is from the early 2003 when 1,200 "specialists" etc. started the search for the WMD.
:D
-
Originally posted by RedTop
You U.S. guys continue to argue with the Euro's. Why? They will not EVER agree with one thing or at least most things this country does for whatever reason. Why beat your heads agaisnt the screen?
Why argue with the U.S. haters both here in this country or abroad?
Let them compare notes as to why this country sucks or why we are War Mongers and the Police of the world. Let them decide what we should or shouldn't be doing. Let them talk all the talk they want.
Let the haters here do the same. Let them continue to live here and hate here at the same time.
It really is irrelevant what they think. Don't you agree? None of them here on this BBS will be able to change it. None here on this BBS that hate this country so much can do a thing to make this country change a dang thing.
U.S. people that hate everything here can't do a thing but vote and gripe either.
Let it go....means nothing.
When not if but when we get hit again , hopefully we will have a leader that will hit back 100 times harder. Hopefully we will have a leader that has convictions and will do what he thinks is the right thing.
No matter the end result , the U.S. will be wrong or "Have it coming" as was posted before in this thread.
Being the best always comes with the lesser's judging you.
I'm simply the best, - said Mr Simpleton with his usual matter-off-factish simple tone. :D
-
Only I dont understand about WMD is why someone didnt friggin plant some in Iraq. Where is our CIA when we need them. One nice batch of sarin and bingo America aint looking so wrong now bout Iraq.
As for the U.N. it is an american tool. It is something we use to achieve different things on our agenda without looking like we did it. We fund most of it, and we supply most of the troops.
I for one am always open to discussion about global topics Europeans. Too many people have that same opinion Red. Why bother? Maybe you might change someone else's point of view, you might learn something new, you might change your point of view, the list goes on.