Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on April 30, 2005, 07:15:05 PM
-
...about who and what we deposed in Iraq.
The bodies of 1500 Kurdish women and children have been discovered in a mass grave south of Baghdad. They had been lined up in front of a pit and all had been shot.
Care to guess who is responsible? That's right...that famous "victim" of unprovoked American aggression.
-
Way to go, start a flame war...
-
Shuckins,
Save your breath man, it will never change, the Iraq war will always be wrong in the liberals POV. The only thing that would have changed their minds is when NYC, or Philly were a smoking hole, or thousands across America started dieing from some wonderous bio agent. Then, going to war in Iraq would have been ok.
-
Saddam Hussien and regime had every right to not have WMD's. You see, they didn't have any WMD's and even if he did, it's none of any one else's business. The WMD's that the U.S. stupidly duped most of the world into believing Saddam had never existed, so we never should have invaded Iraq. Bush is nothing but a war mongering ogre and should mind his own business, because the WMD's never existed. It's the WMD's you see, if it weren't for the WMD's the U.S. wouldn't ever have had any reason at all to invade Iraq, which was an illegal invasion because there weren't any WMD's. Syria never recieved any WMD's from Saddam Hussein, and the WMD's were never buried in the desert, because there wern't any WMD's. Did I tell you the war was illegal and the U.S. is criminal because there weren't any WMD's? Ok just in case you missed it... Iraq never had nary any WMD's at all, none. So it was illegal and wrong and bad to invade Iraq, because they didn't have any WMD's.
....this about cover it? :rofl
-
Thanks Holden...I do what I can.
-
It was an illegal war! The only "illegal" war in Earth's history, I might add.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
It was an illegal war! The only "illegal" war in Earth's history, I might add.
So ant colonies invading other ant colonies weren't illegal? What if the bad ants had WMD's? Imagine the horror? Whole ant hills wiped out with the push of an ant WMD!!!
-
in related news, WMC's found in iraq, thats dead women, men, children.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
So ant colonies invading other ant colonies weren't illegal? What if the bad ants had WMD's? Imagine the horror? Whole ant hills wiped out with the push of an ant WMD!!!
Name another war that is called "illegal" by the current mass of idiots on Earth?
Only the Iraq war is "illegal" to the ignorant pukes.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Name another war that is called "illegal" by the current mass of idiots on Earth?
Only the Iraq war is "illegal" to the ignorant pukes.
Can't.. they weren't here for most of'em. But, all things considered, I'm sure there were those that took the stance on any given war. Remember, there have always been plenty who simply want to have thier tulips kicked... it just happens.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
...about who and what we deposed in Iraq.
The bodies of 1500 Kurdish women and children have been discovered in a mass grave south of Baghdad. They had been lined up in front of a pit and all had been shot.
Care to guess who is responsible? That's right...that famous "victim" of unprovoked American aggression.
They did up a new mass grave every week or two. It really dosnt matter though, he was only killing his own people.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
It was an illegal war! The only "illegal" war in Earth's history, I might add.
I don't get it, did we jaywalk on the Road to Bagdad?
-
Well if that was the reason why the US troops went to Iraq, then by all means go dig around rest of the middle east, africa, parts of south america and asia.
Too bad nobody ever mentioned those bodies as the reason to start the war. The bodies only came up afterwards as an excuse.
I think it is immoral to use the bodies as an excuse after the primary reasons became poor. Let alone 'remind' the world of the bodies, as if they were the whole reason.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Well if that was the reason why the US troops went to Iraq, then by all means go dig around rest of the middle east, africa, parts of south america and asia.
Too bad nobody ever mentioned those bodies as the reason to start the war. The bodies only came up afterwards as an excuse.
I think it is immoral to use the bodies as an excuse after the primary reasons became poor. Let alone 'remind' the world of the bodies, as if they were the whole reason.
It was one of many reasons they gave, you just choose to hang your hat on one.
-
I wonder if anybody knows if less people are dying in Iraq now than during Saddam's regime.
Seems it's still a reign of terror.
-
Krusher
I disagree , Mr Blair stated the they had wmd deployable .....bit of an over exageration i think..
Wether the war was right or wrong , it's a bit late in the day for that , what needs to be done now is get IRAQ stable so all our troops can come home.That in my mind is the most important thing .
-
Originally posted by Fishu
....Let alone 'remind' the world of the bodies, as if they were the whole reason.
AAAAAHA!!... The ANSWER TO WORLD PEACE!! LOOK AWAY!!!! LOOK AWAY!!!!
Man, why'd it take so long for us to figure that out?
-
Too bad nobody ever mentioned those bodies as the reason to start the war. The bodies only came up afterwards as an excuse.
Fishu, you have some homework to do. Here, let me help you get started. Bush mentioned that the people of Iraq were suffering from mass murder, torture and rape under Hussein's regime. He said this before he sent in a single troop
Here's an example for you: This excerpt from a speech on the 19th of March at the BEGINNING of the war:
My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq,to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
[
-
rwanda. sudan.
let's go. who's with me?
oh. i see.
-
Yes, 88. shame on us for prioritizing countries in our best interest.! Blahahah! Shame on us for looking out for ourselves in the process of ridding the world of murderous tyrants. Blahahahah!
:rolleyes:
-
who give a crap about a few dead foreigners
-
i happen to give a crap about a few dead anybody's thanks.
killing people is wrong. always was, always will be. any good christian should know these things by now.
( i seem to recall steve going on a christian tyrade once iirc)
then again, it was that way back when we slaughtered the indians too.
i wonder who would give a damn if it was your daughter getting splattered all to hell.
hmmm.
-
Originally posted by JB88
killing people is wrong. always was, always will be. any good christian should know these things by now.
Even a non-christian like me knows that.
-
88 knows a lot about the indian wars eh?
Poor noble and non vilolent savages needless slaughtered.... like killing hippies or buddha really...
About iraq... yep, it was in our own (and the worlds) best interest to get rid of a gold toilet seat buyin, genocidal tyrant so we took him out first. Klinton coulda done something in africa but he wussed out even tho he had cried when all the nonexistent black churces burned in arkansas when he was a kid.
killing people is not allways wrong. It should allways be one of the last choices tho.
lazs
-
i seem to recall steve going on a christian tyrade once iirc
huh?? No, you don't recall, you invent.
-
You get the government you deserve.
-
Originally posted by JB88
rwanda. sudan.
let's go. who's with me?
oh. i see.
I'd go.
I seriously doubt you'd have much non-US company though.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You get the government you deserve.
Or do you get the government you tolerate?
(http://www.proudflag.com/yank/flag_gadsden.jpg)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
-
Thou Shalt Not Murder.
It's not "thou shalt not kill."
-
6th Commandment; Verse 13: "Thou shalt not kill."
The Hebrew word "ratsach" is translated as "kill" in the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, and some other translations of the Bible. However, it is difficult to apply this in practice. Killing chickens and beef cattle is legal now as it was in biblical times. Nobody today is concerned about pulling vegetables from the garden, even though it kills them. The word "ratsach" is commonly believed to describe the premeditated killing of a human. It requires that the victim be a human being. Many other translations translate "ratsach" as "murder" in this verse.
This Commandment is not absolute. Not all murders are forbidden. Hebrew Scriptures specify many grounds for which this commandment is to be ignored, and a guilty party executed. Persons found guilty of temple prostitution, engaged women who are seduced by a man other than her future husband, women who practice black magic, some women who are raped in urban areas, children who cursed their parents, some non-virgin brides, Jews who collect firewood on Saturday to keep their families from freezing, persons proselytizing in favor of another religion, persons worshiping a deity other than Yahweh, strangers who entered the temple, etc; all were to be executed.
Just sayin'
-
Why can't you admit that you were duped with the WMD, which infact was by far the most important reason you went there? Anyway, why on earth would you even want to "liberate" people in the other side of the globe who have no meaning whatsoever to you?
Do I care or hold a grudge against the US? Hell no, I don't care what your reasons were! As long as you are dropping them it's all good in my book. I don't need muslim or any other religious bigots. Yes it's sad that there's plenty of innocent dropping from both sides, but I guess there's allways casualties in wars.
If I were a whoopee hippy I'd prolly be furious...:D
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
...about who and what we deposed in Iraq.
The bodies of 1500 Kurdish women and children have been discovered in a mass grave south of Baghdad. They had been lined up in front of a pit and all had been shot.
Care to guess who is responsible? That's right...that famous "victim" of unprovoked American aggression.
How many people died in the 9/11 attacks? And Bush says he doesn't know or care where OBL is? Saddam was more important because he killed 1500 Kurds, huh? Right. How many people have died in Iraq due to attacks by insurgents, a movement that our invasion gave unity and strength of purpose to?
I ain't saying its a travesty to have 150,000 troops on the ground of an oil rich nation in a politically unstable region which has turned against us, but I am ready to discard the lies and address the real reasons we're there.
Cripes North Korea is making nukes and firing missiles towards Japan now, and I think they claim they have one that can reach the continental US. There's your WMD nation, and they seem proud of it.
-
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Which is exactly what the people of Iraq should have done.
-
Originally posted by oboe
And Bush says he doesn't know or care where OBL is?
[/b]
If you like I can give you an e-mail to a friend just back from Afghanistan. He was in a medical unit and routinely treated US Special Forces of all the services as well as US "contract" employees. I think he can assure you that while Bush may have made that remark, Bush is also making sure the pursuit of OBL has not stopped.
In short, all this "we aren't looking for OBL" is just so much........ bovine waste matter.
How many people have died in Iraq due to attacks by insurgents, a movement that our invasion gave unity and strength of purpose to?
[/b]
1. Fewer people have died in insurgent attacks than SH killed for political reasons; fewer by a huge margin.
2. Our invasion gave them unity? There was no "insurgent" movement under SH. Do you know why? Think on it. I suspect if we rounded up people wholesale, shot them in the head and buried them in mass graves we could cut down on the insurgency too. Of course, it might take killing 100K or so but that's been done by the previous administration in Iraq. Would you be happier then?
Cripes North Korea is making nukes and firing missiles towards Japan now, and I think they claim they have one that can reach the continental US. There's your WMD nation, and they seem proud of it.
What do you think? Would it have been easier to disarm NK (forcefully if necessary) before or after they got a few nuke warheads finished?
I'm guessing that once they get nukes, things get a bit more complicated and the risks soar astronomically.
But since NK obviously wasn't going to quit making their nukes without force, what exactly do you think should have been done?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Which is exactly what the people of Iraq should have done.
And now, the remainder of that paragraph:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --
I do think the people of Iraq should have done it.
You'll recall there was an attempt after GW1 which the rest of the world ignored and did not support.
-
About 3000 people died at the WTC. The number who died under Saddam's rule is more than an order of magnitude greater.
By the tone of some of these posts, a number of you find him less objectionable than the American President who went after him.
As has been stated numerous times on these bbs by myself and others, the president makes his foreign policy decisions based on intelligence reports gathered by the CIA and foreign intelligence agencies. Since these groups are run by human beings, occasionally they make mistakes. Name a single presidential administration within the last century that hasn't made mistakes in foreign policy based on faulty intelligence.
Personally, I don't believe a mistake was made in this instance. According to a former deputy secretary of the NSC, satellite photographs confirmed that vast convoys of transport trucks and other vehicles crossed the Iraqi border into Syria just prior to and during the U.S. invasion.
Makes you wonder what they were carrying...doesn't it. No...I don't suppose some of you would even admit that possibility.
None of which addresses the main topic of this post, Saddam's bloody massacres of his own people. If might be a little easier for you left-wing types to work up a little sympathy for their suffering if they were registered voters in a blue state.
Otherwise, your professed empathy for the oppressed of the world becomes a mere elitist affectation...worn when one wants to impress the feeble minded and the gullible.
-
I have a question for all these people that keep saying the American public (and the world also I guess) was 'duped'.
You are using the word duped as if President Bush deliberately and premeditatedly lied to everyone.
Do you really believe that he lied? That President Bush absolutely knew that there not any WMDs and he chose to lie about their existence so he could pursue the war for another reason?
-
Originally posted by Drunky
I have a question for all these people that keep saying the American public (and the world also I guess) was 'duped'.
You are using the word duped as if President Bush deliberately and premeditatedly lied to everyone.
Do you really believe that he lied? That President Bush absolutely knew that there not any WMDs and he chose to lie about their existence so he could pursue the war for another reason?
Yes, I really do believe so. Sure he didn't have any certainty about them but he never mentioned that, didn't he not? If someone provided false data to him it's still his responsibility as the head of the state. There are plenty of people around the globe who do support your war in Iraq(I'm neutral or slightly supportive), but I highly doubt that too many people(outside the US it seems) ever took the WMD argument seriously.
-
Yes, I really do believe so
Then so did Russia, FRance, the UN, and just about everyone else because they all said Hussein had WMD. What an amazing conspiracy.
-
What I don't get is why the Euros feel the US needs to answer
to them for our foreign policy. they constantly cry about our
"interference" in their affairs yet seemingly have no hesitation
whatsoever interfering with ours. Double standards anyone?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
About 3000 people died at the WTC. The number who died under Saddam's rule is more than an order of magnitude greater.
By the tone of some of these posts, a number of you find him less objectionable than the American President who went after him.
.
Every one I've ever spoken to on the subject was totaly horrified about 9/11.
Many; many people I've spoken to on the subject were immensly impressed with American self control post 9/11 with respect to Afghanistan (you'd be surprised how many "Amerihaters" over here don't understand why you didn't nuke the place); and I've never heard any one critisize America's descision to go into Afghanistan.
The whole world was with you. Even Canada!
Then Bush took that ground swell of sympathy and support and pissed it up against the wall.
Indeed; he may well have cost his closest ally (Blair) his job.
Few people with brains would postulate that the world is not a better; safer place without Saddam. And indeed; with out America leading the way; he may well have still been in power at this point in time.
But the end DOES NOT justify the means. That is the bedrock that our understanding of the post WWII world is founded on. And it's the principle that Bush has ignored.
We still don't understand Bush's (and Blair's) imperitive in starting the Iraq conflict in the way he did. And; in not understanding; we remain suspicious.
In short; it ain't what he's done; it's the way he's done it.
No one over here (that I talk to; least ways) thinks that what America has done in Iraq is "wrong"; however no one understands why it was done in the way it was done.
Do any of you? (no; I don't mean form your own rationalisations; I mean take the reasons the administration presented to you; and make sense of them).
Was Saddam; could Saddam be a "threat to the world" (not his own people; as Toad pointed out they have a role to play) with USAF F16's and RAF Tornado's buzzing his arse every time he scratched it?
-
Originally posted by Rino
What I don't get is why the Euros feel the US needs to answer
to them for our foreign policy. they constantly cry about our
"interference" in their affairs yet seemingly have no hesitation
whatsoever interfering with ours. Double standards anyone?
Only when it concerns myself. The Iraq affair doesn't really concern me so I'm not trying to interfere with your foreign policy... I simply find it funny that some people who were duped are trying bring up excuses for it and/or divert attention to elsewhere.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Just sayin'
Persons found guilty of temple prostitution, engaged women who are seduced by a man other than her future husband, women who practice black magic, some women who are raped in urban areas, children who cursed their parents, some non-virgin brides, Jews who collect firewood on Saturday to keep their families from freezing, persons proselytizing in favor of another religion, persons worshiping a deity other than Yahweh, strangers who entered the temple, etc; all were to be executed.
Interesting list of exceptions....
Originally posted by Steve
Then so did Russia, FRance, the UN, and just about everyone else because they all said Hussein had WMD. What an amazing conspiracy.
Yeah amazing how only govts. pursuing a war talked up their immediate threat, and deployment, and that only the immediate pursuit of war was able to secure such an immediate threat to the region...
...and amazing how these same govts. are now constantly baiting and switching the said cause(s) of the war now that said immediacy has turned into a farce...
Tronsky
-
As of Monday, 25 Apr, there were over 24,000 media-documented Iraqi civilian deaths (http://media-documented Iraqi civilian deaths) resulting from the U.S.-lead invasion of Iraq. Other estimates range as high as 100,000 civilians killed.
And nope, not implying at all I liked Saddam Hussein better than GWB. Hussein was a tyrant, an evil dictator, and the US apparently gave him assistance that helped him stay in power.
Maybe we forget that when we blame the Iraqis for tolerating his rule and not rising up against him.
Toad, you are free to post the email, though I believe you when you say you have a friend who was in the service in Afghanistan who believes we are still looking for OBL. I'd be interested to know why he thinks we haven't found him yet. Does he feel our forces in Afghanistan have the number of personnel, equipment, and support required to accomplish the mission? If so, why does OBL remain at large? Any idea why GWB uttered the mother of all flipflops and claimed he didn't know or care where OBL was in March 2002 after swearing to find him in September 2001? Any wild guesses?
If the reason for invading Iraq was to protect this nation from a terrorist country that supposedly possessed WMDs, then why are we sitting on our hands regarding North Korea? No suspicion is necessary - they have them, they have missiles, and they are working on mating the two. Do you think 'because it wouldn't be easy' is a valid excuse for not taking pre-emptive action to defend our country?
Put another way, which nation poses a greater threat, right now, to the US? Iraq or North Korea? GWB has said he will not rest in defending this country, so let's get the troops on the boats and get moving.
If on the other hand, the reason we invaded Iraq was to secure vital oil supplies for our economy, then lets come clean and admit it. The longer OBL remains free, the longer we put off dealing with North Korea (and now Iran for that matter), the more I become convinced that this is the real truth behind the invasion.
We wouldn't be the first nation in the world who initiated a war of aggression to secure oil supplies.
-
Originally posted by oboe
As of Monday, 25 Apr, there were over 24,000 media-documented Iraqi civilian deaths (http://media-documented Iraqi civilian deaths) resulting from the U.S.-lead invasion of Iraq. Other estimates range as high as 100,000 civilians killed.
[/b]
1. Your link doesn't work.
2. "Media documented" realy doesn't say much. Does this media show that the 24,000 were a DIRECT result of US action? Or does it include Sunnis blowing up Shiite funeral processions?
I'm sure you see the difference.
And nope, not implying at all I liked Saddam Hussein better than GWB. Hussein was a tyrant, an evil dictator, and the US apparently gave him assistance that helped him stay in power.
Maybe we forget that when we blame the Iraqis for tolerating his rule and not rising up against him.
[/b]
Jeez, what an old chesnut. You are aware we supported Stalin too? Friends sometimes later become enemies. Enemies sometimes later become friends. There are times when "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
In short, you can look at the political relationships of just about any country on earth and find reversals in support. Things change, relationships change as a result.
Toad, you are free to post the email, though I believe you when you say you have a friend who was in the service in Afghanistan who believes we are still looking for OBL.
[/b]
I didn't say I'd post it. I can ask HIM to contact YOU. I'm sure he doesn't want his addy posted all over the net.
He was the CAT/X-ray tech that did the work on our SF guys that got shot up chasing A-Q in Afghanistan.
I'm sure he can assure you we are still looking for OBL and it is still a "hot" fight. He'd probably E-mail you some pics of legs blown off if you like, if that's what it's going to take to convince you.
I'd be interested to know why he thinks we haven't found him yet.
[/b]
Three reasons. Terrain, particularly on the Pakistan border, Support of the locals in that area, the possibility that OBL is in a country where we can't search, like Iran.
Sorry, I'm not a Bush mindreader. Why don't you call the White House Press Secretary with those questions.
then why are we sitting on our hands regarding North Korea?
[/b]
I suspect it's because people like you would absolutely crap if we gave NK an ultimatum and went to war if they refused to surrender the nukes. Just a guess.
But really........... you think we should go after NK militarily? Right now? Do you?
Do you think risking nuclear war is the right course in trying to disarm NK?
Put another way, which nation poses a greater threat, right now, to the US? Iraq or North Korea?
[/b]
Put it this way.... is there a greater chance of disarming Iran BEFORE they get nukes than there is AFTER they have nukes?
We could disarm NK. Are you willing to accept all out war on the Korean peninsula and the possible discharge of nukes over Seoul and Tokyo? I'm guessing the SK's and Japanese are not quite ready yet.
The longer OBL remains free, the longer we put off dealing with North Korea
[/b]
We are dealing with NK, just not to your particular satisfaction. I'm pretty happy with the current administration's stance. They're not getting sucked in like Clinton did with the Carter deal and they're involving other Asian countries so that "face" will be a player.
(and now Iran for that matter),
[/b]
Why do you assume we are not dealing with Iran? Do you think you know everything because the news would have told you?
We wouldn't be the first nation in the world who initiated a war of aggression to secure oil supplies.
No blood for oil, Oboe? Jeez.......... End of discussion, I guess.
-
yep... how many "civilians" were killed because they were in the way of U.S. troops and how many of em were killed by "freedom fighters" ? you simply say that they were all killed because we were there.
lazs
-
Sorry about the link! I'll try again:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/ (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/)
Here's what the fine print says about who is counted in the database:
This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.
I'm not assuming there is no fighting or searching going on for OBL in Afghanistan; I'm sure there are plenty of legs being blown off. I am frustrated that OBL has not been caught (yet), and bewildered by the CinC's Mar 2002 statement that he doesn't know or care where OBL is. And yep thats an old chestnut too - I admit that right now. Doesn't make any difference to me though- I hate to see a terrorist hit us that hard and then get away. I want him caught and brought to justice. Its been 4 years and we caught SH in a much shorter time.
You might be pleased to know I don't think there are many people like me. I think I have a curious a mix of traditionally liberal or traditionally conservative views on a range of issues, in fact I don't care for the liberal or conservative labels at all. One type of person I don't admire is someone who simply holds to a party line on all the issues.
No, I don't want to go to war in North Korea. My statement about putting the troops in boats was meant to point out the insincerity of Bush's rhetoric about never resting in defending America. He was willing to send our active duty and reserve troops to invade a nation suspected of harboring WMDs - well now we've got one where no supposition is necessary. NK has them, and missiles, too. And suddenly all he want's to do is talk. To borrow from Bodhi, The only thing that would have changed their minds is when NYC, or Philly were a smoking hole, or thousands across America started dieing from some wonderous bio agent.
Well it looks to me like NK is closer to being able to do that than Iraq was.
In fact, I think they way we are dealing with NK (talks involving other nations) is the way we should dealt with Iraq all along. I wonder why its OK for NK (and Iran if you are right), but wasn't OK for Iraq?
That's why I'm beginning to conclude the Iraq war was never about WMDs, but about oil all along. So I guess I'm halfway down the road to saying it IS blood for oil.
I realize I am not as fully informed as our decision makers, but what do you want me to do? What is an interested citizen to do, beyond relying on a variety of news sources, while at the same time realizing every source has a bias?
Again sorry about the broken link!
-
oboe,
How do you propose we disarm the NK's?
Military Force? Preemptive Nuke strike? Or, like we are doing, continually starve their economy in hopes that the regime will change.
The first two of those reasons will result in thousands, possibly millions of deaths especailly if the nk's are able to get missiles into Seoul and Tokyo, never mind LA, SF, or Seattle.
As for the WMD's in Iraq, I think that has never been settled. I feel that most if not all of their weapons were moved to Syria, and / or buried. Everyone seems to forget that our forces found numerous mobile labs buried in the desert, and numerous labs that were in / under places like hospitials and schools.
So, no proof has been shown that he did not have capabilities to reinstitute these programs when the UN got off his back. Do you really feel he was such a good samaratin that he just gave em up?
-
Originally posted by oboe
includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation
[/b]
An incredible reach.
I think you'll agree the "Occupying Authority" is making a huge effort to maintain law and order and create a health care/sanitation system that is far better than anything they had under Saddam.
If we had made no or little effort in these areas, there might be a case. However, given the magnitude of the task and the incredible effort in manpower and money that we are making, this is a completely bogus set of stats. IMO.
You don't just wave a wand and all is well, particularly in a "country" made up of 3 different and opposing violent groups. Considering the situation, I think the "Occupying Authority" is doing awfully well.
I am frustrated that OBL has not been caught (yet),
[/b]
Aren't we all. However, I feel he will eventually be caught. He's just a criminal and eventually they all screw up.
and bewildered by the CinC's Mar 2002 statement that he doesn't know or care where OBL is.
[/b]
This is what Bush actually said on March 13, 2002:
{quote]Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
[/quote]
The media was hounding him about OBL, IIRC, when he was trying to focus America on a different part of his agenda. In short, a politician talking.
Still, you can see he pointed out we'll deal with him when we can/have to and we will evenutally get him in due time
From CNN, datelined April 26, 2005.
Last month, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told the BBC that Pakistani forces had their best chance of capturing bin Laden last year that but they lost the trail.
Pakistan is where most intelligence analysts suspect the al Qaeda leader is hiding, probably somewhere along the mountainous border with Afghanistan, so Musharraf's assertion that the trail has gone cold can't be good news.
Musharraf told the BBC that Pakistani forces had come close to bin Laden: "There was a time when the dragnet had closed, and we thought we knew roughly the area where he possibly could be," he said. "That was, I think, some time back ... maybe about eight to 10 months back."
The Pakistani government launched a military campaign in the previously autonomous border area of South Waziristan during the last two years. There were numerous clashes, 48 by the government's count, between the military and what it called al Qaeda militants.
The result? More than 250 government troops were killed, according to a Pakistani official. But that campaign is over, and the troops are largely gone from the border area.
Now a different approach is being tried.
This time, the U.S. government has launched a media campaign in Pakistan, using radio, TV and print ads that call on Pakistanis to give up bin Laden and other leading al Qaeda figures, in exchange for millions of dollars of rewards ($25 million for bin Laden).
So, they got close and missed. If he's in Pakistan, we can't go after him overtly with 1500 troops. Now we're trying an new tactic. Might not work but we're trying.
We all want him caught yesterday but that's not the real world, is it?
No, I don't want to go to war in North Korea. My statement about putting the troops in boats was meant to point out the insincerity of Bush's rhetoric about never resting in defending America. He was willing to send our active duty and reserve troops to invade a nation suspected of harboring WMDs - well now we've got one where no supposition is necessary.
[/b]
You apparently fail to see the difference.
You DO realize that once these nutbag dictators HAVE nukes, the situation changes dramatically?
Would you rather have a dozen NK-type situations with dictatore in possession of nukes or would you rather prevent them from getting nukes by any means possible BEFORE they have them?
I think Bush is doing awfully well with NK considering the situation he inherited.
I do not want to deal with them without other Asian nations getting involved and putting their "face" on the line. Clinton/Carter got taken to the cleaners going it alone.
As far as "defending" America, once clowns like Kim have the nukes, you are back at the old MAD doctrine. We can invade NK and remove him; it's well within our military capability IF you are willing to accept all out unrestricted warfare. That means everything on the table, including nuclear strikes. Is that what you want? We could do it now and "win". NK doesn't really have delivery systems. They'd probably nail Seoul and Tokyo to make a point. They might ship one into a US harbor on a freighter and nail a few of our port cities... is that a good game plan in your view?
Once NK decided to make the nukes, which they did despite the Clinton/Carter, it's no longer a "conventional" scenario if it comes to military action.
So.. what do you think... let Iran get them so we have TWO "NK" situations to deal with? You're up for nuclear proliferation amongst the dictatorships of the world?
NK has them, and missiles, too. And suddenly all he want's to do is talk.
[/b]
Well, hell yes. You want to risk nuclear war? I'm thinking once the nukes are in the hands of dictators, talking is a good idea UNLESS you are willing to nuke them. Well, President Oboe... do we launch the ICBM's?
I wonder why its OK for NK (and Iran if you are right), but wasn't OK for Iraq?
[/b]
Because Iraq was found in violation of an SC resolution? By unanimous vote in "material breach"? That's a bit different, I'd say.
As for Iran, we're at essentially the same point we were at with NK when it became obvious they were cheating on the IAEA inspections and beginning to develop weapons.
We ignored the situation in NK... you want to ignore it in Iran with the same results?
-
I chose a link to the body count site because it seemed to me to be making an effort to count only verifiable deaths according to a set criteria; I think other estimates (a joint effort between Johns Hopkins and Baghdad University, IIRC) put the casualties as high as 100K. I suppose either can be disbelieved or discredited; how many civilians do you think have died as a result of our invasion/occupation?
No guys, I don't want to invade or nuke North Korea. The point I'm laboring to make is that by Bush's rhetoric on Iraq, that is probably what we would be doing if he meant what he said. Therefore I am tempted to conclude he didn't mean what he said, thus the invasion was really about something else entirely.
See, if we are unwilling to do anything but talk to a nation who genuinely poses a threat to our security, why were we willing to mobilize and invade a country that only supposedly posed a threat? Oil? Pretty tempting isn't it?
I think what you guys are saying, because Iraq didn't pose an immediate threat and the cost wouldn't be too high ($300 billion so far?) it was alright to go in and make sure Iraq wouldn't develop WMDs and become a real threat. But once they have nukes and really do pose a threat, its too late to do anything about them except talk?
By that logic then, should I expect an invasion of Iran?
-
oboe,
they were working on a nuclear device
they did have the ability to again start making chemical weapons,
they did have a biological weapons program...
So, by those three facts, when did they not have a WMD program?
-
Originally posted by oboe
How many civilians do you think have died as a result of our invasion/occupation?
[/b]
I'm sorry but I'm only counting casualties that are a DIRECT result of US action.
I feel it's more than clear that we are making a well above average effort to maintain law and order and upgrade the health/sanitation/infrastructure of Iraq to better than it was under Saddam.
So I'm not counting deaths caused by, for example, Sunnis driving a suicide car bomb into a Shiite funeral procession.
Further, in comparison to the "Saddam Society" there'd be a lot of dead Iraqis for "political" reasons. You are aware of the mass graves they continue to find?
In the end, the Iraqis are going to be far better off than they were under SH. It isn't going to be bloodless...neither was the American Revolution or the French Revolution.
The point I'm laboring to make is that by Bush's rhetoric on Iraq, that is probably what we would be doing if he meant what he said.
[/b]
I think you misunderstand him. He's using different methods to deal with different problems. Iraq was not NK. NK is not Iran. There is no one "standard" solution unless you consider military action the best alternative and are willing to risk nuclear war in every case.
Therefore I am tempted to conclude he didn't mean what he said
[/b]
I, otoh, feel this guy has "meant what he said" in dealing with NK, Iraq and other "world" political issues far more than the previous guy. YMMV.
See, if we are unwilling to do anything but talk to a nation who genuinely poses a threat to our security, why were we willing to mobilize and invade a country that only supposedly posed a threat?
[/b]
Because it was possible to militarily remove SH; in fact, if you review the actual military operation, it was amazingly effective and short with minimal casualties.
This would not be the case with NK, especially after the Clinton/Carter solution did not work and they developed nukes.
If NK presented a similar challenge as Iraq, I think we'd have removed Kim by force if necessary already. However, China makes a difference, nuclear capability makes a difference and I'm not sure which of those is the biggest.
I think what you guys are saying, because Iraq didn't pose an immediate threat and the cost wouldn't be too high ($300 billion so far?) it was alright to go in and make sure Iraq wouldn't develop WMDs and become a real threat.
[/b]
No, I'm saying because Iraq didn't pose a threat of multinational nuclear war it was "doable". See the difference?
[ But once they have nukes and really do pose a threat, its too late to do anything about them except talk?
[/b]
Unless you are willing to risk nuclear weapon exchanges, yes. Do you think othewise? Are you willing to risk nuclear war to disarm them or should we reassume the MAD/talk profile we had with the Soviet Union all those years? Which would you prefer?
By that logic then, should I expect an invasion of Iran?
I doubt there'll be an invasion simply for logistical reasons. Despite the "we can fight a two front war" talk you've heard from 1945 until the present, it's just not true.
We don't have the military capability to invade Iran or NK right at this moment. IMO.
By the time we could, Iran will have nukes.
What I actually expect is for Israel to draw the line in the sand without being public about it. I'm sure the Iranians noted the sale of the "bunker busters" to Israel. Israel has a very long history of improving any weapon we give them, and I'd expect that to happen here. A "nuke" bunker buster wouldn't suprise me in the least.
Think about this.. Israel builds nuke BB's and uses them on Iran's facilities. Israel would claim that any radiation that escapes would be from Iran's nuke program. The Iranians would claim the Israelis used nukes on them. No proof would ever be deemed sufficient by either side and the tinfoil hat folks would have a carnival.
So, I think that the message will be sent and understood. The question is will the Iranians go ahead anyway.
Stay tuned.. I think it will get real interesting reasonably soon.
-
Bodhi,
Are you talking about Iraq? If so I don't think I ever said they do not have a WMD program. Even so which nation poses the greater threat? Those with WMD programs or those with the actual WMDs?
I think Toad is saying you go after the WMD-program nations before they become full-fledged WMD nations. So in the case of North Korea, its too late to do anything but talk, but in Iran, its not to late to invade and stop them, as we apparently did in Iraq.
(Though I don't have any hard evidence to links that support the claim that we really stopped a WMD in Iraq - do you?)
Or perhaps it was all only about securing a vital oil supply for our economy. If that is the case, I would expect to see a US presence in Iraq perpetually, with no invasion of Iran.
If our campaign really is about WMD security, then I would expect to see significant drawdowns of US force levels in Iraq and an invasion of Iran before too long.
Seem reasonable?
-
Toad,
I can't offer anything substantial regarding the Clinton/Carter dealings with North Korea (btw weren't there a couple presidencies in between there - did they just ignore NK?) Other than to say I recognize these situations develop over time and I'm sure the situation in NK today cannot be entirely ascribed to the actions of GWB's administration alone.
That site in question listed over 7,000 civilian deaths due to direct combat action. They include the other deaths - for example your car bombing example because apparently the conquesring nation is supposed to provide for security of civilians while order is restored.
I hope you are right about the Iraqi's future. Its by no means a done deal IMO, alot can still happen.
I don't consider military action the best alternative - I think I'd always consider it the last alternative. I'm more of an isolationist, and lot of that stems from budget concerns. Foreign wars are danged expensive, and we are already deep in debt.
-
For a quick overview (well, relatively quick) of the NK nuclear program check out Global Security's summary.
Nuclear Weapons Program (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm)
The horse left the barn slowly, throughout the 1990's.
As for the "conquering nation" aspect, there'd be deaths in Iraq from other than "natural causes" if we hadn't invaded. I think it's quite a stretch to lay blame for every "unnatural" death at the feet of the Occupying Authority. For example, people die from criminal activity in every country every day. It's totally unreasonable to expect that we could prevent every one of those.
And again, they don't try to balance the lives not lost to SH and his goons in the equation nor do they ascribe any value to the end goal, a free Iraq where thousands are not shot in the head and buried in mass graves because they are political opponents.
There just aren't that many bloodless coups on record.
For the record, I'm probably far more of an isolationist than you are. Check my past history on the bbs.
Iraq was a mistake, IMO. Unfortunately, that's hindsight. I don't feel I was lied to by Bush or that we were all deliberately misled so we could have a war for oil. To me that is just nonsense.
However, the without finding WMD...even if they were moved out to Syria or whatever..... I see no way to justify this war under Just War Theory.
We did it and now we have to do our best to give them a chance at a free government.