Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Stringer on September 08, 2006, 10:29:41 PM
-
From the Senate Report released earlier....
USA Today Article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-08-iraq-report_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)
I agree with the repubs that this is election year posturing, but even the Admin is not fighting the reports conclusion.....
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=186717
-
Kinda puts a damper on Bush's "Fear and Smear" tour.
-
mt... to me... we had to fight em somewhere... it was inevitable. The sadman was a bad man.. he had worked on nukes in the past and would again.. he attacked his neighbors and would again.. the terrorists need to be concentrated in SOME area and foungt... they ducked out of afghanistan too easy.. they are dying quite well in iraq..
The soldiers there so far are ok with it and so am I.
The election to me is not about any war... it is about social ideas or... social ideas forced on me.
It is about what kind of judges will be appointed and about what kind of bills are even brought up.
In that respect... Bush has been a success. I don't like the guy but a democrat is unthinkable.
We have no choice at all at this point but to vote for whatever republicans are put out there.
lazs
-
We've succeded in creating a new power balance in the region. All is back to normal, and we can leave now. The whackos are busy fighting each other instead of us, as intended. Victory is ours! Now let's pack up and go home before they realize they've been tricked into shooting each other again.
-
hindsight is 20/20
the evidence/intelligence against Iraq was not created after Sept 11 2001, it was being gathered, discussed and BELIEVED way back into the early 90's.
All Sadam had to do to avoid the fight was to stick to the deal he agreed to when Bush Sr 1st handed him his arse after Desert Storm. Of course the next admin was slightly distracted with fat interns & a bubbling economy so they just let everything stew for 8 years and were happy to hand the entire mess off to the next group, Bush Jr.
-
Hello MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kinda puts a damper on Bush's "Fear and Smear" tour.
Way back in May, I was sent a link to a short story on Dan Simmon's blog. I knew Simmon's from way back as a sci-fi writer, the author of the Hugo award winning "Hyperion" series back when I was reading a lot of sci-fi and cyber-punk in the late 80s early 90s (Asimov, Dick, Heinlein, Herbert, Gibson, and Greg Bear being my favorites at the time).
Anyway, I was reminded of the story again yesterday and it seems like as good a reply as any to your comment:
EDIT: On third thought there is just too much bad language in the story, along with an essentially hopeless worldview, for me to feel comfortable posting a link - especially one that kids might click on. Those of you adults who are overly interested in finding out what it was can google "Dan Simmons" and "Time Traveller" and then click on the top link.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mt... to me... we had to fight em somewhere... it was inevitable. The sadman was a bad man.. he had worked on nukes in the past and would again.. he attacked his neighbors and would again.. the terrorists need to be concentrated in SOME area and foungt... they ducked out of afghanistan too easy.. they are dying quite well in iraq..
The soldiers there so far are ok with it and so am I.
The election to me is not about any war... it is about social ideas or... social ideas forced on me.
It is about what kind of judges will be appointed and about what kind of bills are even brought up.
In that respect... Bush has been a success. I don't like the guy but a democrat is unthinkable.
We have no choice at all at this point but to vote for whatever republicans are put out there.
lazs
...
Those dying in Iraq are mostly civilians AFAIK. The terrorists had a tremendous entry, managed to snatch tremendous amounts of armaments and explosives in a routed country, and now they have a tremendous time proving their terror with executions and bombings.
And as far as it goes to elections, maybe it's better that the women don't vote? At least there are some islamic countries that fare very well with subduing women's rights, yes?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
hindsight is 20/20
Indeed, but dont forget that most outside the US and UK saw this before the invasion. So what is hindsight to the Bush admin and co is not to alot of others.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello MT,
Way back in May, I was sent a link to a short story on Dan Simmon's blog. I knew Simmon's from way back as a sci-fi writer, the author of the Hugo award winning "Hyperion" series back when I was reading a lot of sci-fi and cyber-punk in the late 80s early 90s (Asimov, Dick, Heinlein, Herbert, Gibson, and Greg Bear being my favorites at the time).
Anyway, I was reminded of the story again yesterday and it seems like as good a reply as any to your comment:
EDIT: On third thought there is just too much bad language in the story, along with an essentially hopeless worldview, for me to feel comfortable posting a link - especially one that kids might click on. Those of you adults who are overly interested in finding out what it was can google "Dan Simmons" and "Time Traveller" and then click on the top link.
- SEAGOON
I don't know if MT will enjoy it but I did, thanks.
-
nelson... what exactly did those outside the country see? They seen the sadman attack his neighbor... they seen that he would gas his own people... they seen him defy the UN sanctions over and over. they seen him continue to try to get WMD's.
I don't get it... you guys get all wet over the UN but then refuse to back em up? Is it no so much how many sanctions they give a country but how you feel about it?
You are no better than us in that regard... you pick and choose what actions of the UN you will support.
angus... not letting women vote and basing your country on a religion are really two different topics.
You can simply not have a religious controlled political system and not allow women to vote. We did it for a long time here and it worked great.
lazs
-
First No WMD, and Now No Al Qaeda Contact...
(http://badattitudes.com/MT/mission-accomplished.jpg)
what Mission ????? lol
-
Mission: "Bankrupt America Financially, Morally, and Diplomatically"
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Mission: "Bankrupt America Financially, Morally, and Diplomatically"
pffffffftttt
We've been bankrupt in at least the moral category for some time. To do nothing while Sadaam continued to thumb his nose at us would have only weakened our diplomatic influence even further.
-
Hi Lukster,
Originally posted by lukster
I don't know if MT will enjoy it but I did, thanks.
For all of its unedifying verbage, I thought it had value if only for a few challenging insights like the following:
“After Nine-eleven, we’re fighting terrorism,” I began, “not . . .”
He waved me into silence.
You were a philosophy major or minor at that podunk little college you went to long ago,” said the Time Traveler. “Do you remember what Category Error is?”
It rang a bell. But I was too irritated at hearing my alma mater being called a “podunk little college” to be able to concentrate fully.
“I’ll tell you what it is,” said the Time Traveler. “In philosophy and formal logic, and it has its equivalents in science and business management, Category Error is the term for having stated or defined a problem so poorly that it becomes impossible to solve that problem, through dialectic or any other means.”
I waited. Finally I said firmly, “You can’t go to war with a religion. Or, I mean . . . sure, you could . . . the Crusades and all that . . . but it would be wrong.”
The Time Traveler sipped his Scotch and looked at me. He said, “Let me give you an analogy . . .”
...I hated and distrusted analogies. I said nothing.
“Let’s imagine,” said the Time Traveler, “that on December eighth, Nineteen forty-one, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke before a joint session of Congress and asked them to declare war on aviation.”
“That’s absurd,” I said.
“Is it?” asked the Time Traveler. “The American battleships, cruisers, harbor installations, Army barracks, and airfields at Pearl Harbor and elsewhere in Hawaii were all struck by Japanese aircraft. Imagine if the next day Roosevelt had declared war on aviation . . . threatening to wipe it out wherever we found it. Committing all the resources of the United States of America to defeating aviation, so help us God.”
“That’s just stupid,” I said. If I’d ever been afraid of this Time Traveler, I wasn’t now. He was obviously a mental defective.“The planes, the Japanese planes,” I said, “were just a method of attack . . . a means . . . it wasn’t aviation that attacked us at Pearl Harbor, but the Empire of Japan. We declared war on Japan and a few days later its ally, Germany, lived up to its treaty with the Japanese and declared war on us. If we’d declared war on aviation, on whoopeeed airplanes rather than the empire and ideology that launched them, we’d never have . . .”
I stopped. What had he called it? Category Error. Making the problem unsolvable through your inability – or fear – of defining it correctly.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Eagler
hindsight is 20/20
the evidence/intelligence against Iraq was not created after Sept 11 2001, it was being gathered, discussed and BELIEVED way back into the early 90's.
All Sadam had to do to avoid the fight was to stick to the deal he agreed to when Bush Sr 1st handed him his arse after Desert Storm. Of course the next admin was slightly distracted with fat interns & a bubbling economy so they just let everything stew for 8 years and were happy to hand the entire mess off to the next group, Bush Jr.
Actually no.......
Those in the Bin Laden unit within the CIA and others KNEW there was no link and repeatedly said so during the run up to the Iraq war.
And in the Senate Report, Saddam admitted during one of his interrogations that he was aprehensive about Al Qaeda and what it would mean to his dictatorship. He did not want radical Islam to get any traction in his country.
-
I'm not sure how this is news? This is something we have known for some time.
We did find a couple terrorist training camps in Iraq, and Saddam was supporting terrorists. I think to many people hear *terrorist* and automatically think *AL-Qaeada*.
-
sooo, you libruls want to make saddam king of iraq or something?
-
Originally posted by Stringer
From the Senate Report released earlier....
USA Today Article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-08-iraq-report_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)
I agree with the repubs that this is election year posturing, but even the Admin is not fighting the reports conclusion.....
The same Senate that gave GWFern the "okay dokie" for the war?.. so the senate is admitting they are incompetent fools too... is this really news to anyone who lives here?
-
Originally posted by lukster
pffffffftttt
We've been bankrupt in at least the moral category for some time. To do nothing while Sadaam continued to thumb his nose at us would have only weakened our diplomatic influence even further.
Pretty much every leader in the world is thumbing his nose at us now. We gonna invade them under false pretenses too?
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Actually no.......
Those in the Bin Laden unit within the CIA and others KNEW there was no link and repeatedly said so during the run up to the Iraq war.
And they were ignored in favor of Rummy and Shotgun Dick's ad-hoc PNAC intelligence agency.
Maybe ignored is the wrong word. More like suppressed.
-
I want to thank all of you who seem to feel that brutal dictatorships and mercenary-run governments like the Taliban are "ok" as long as they have no impact on you personally. You allow me to at least FEEL I have the moral high ground when I see Saddam in jail and the Taliban decimated. Perhaps North Korea, Darfur and Myanmar and all the other benighted places in the world also "deserve" what they have as well, but I don't agree. I consider the removal of Saddam justified based on his history of brutality. WMD was just a convenient excuse.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Pretty much every leader in the world is thumbing his nose at us now. We gonna invade them under false pretenses too?
Only if they shoot at our planes and try to assasinate our leaders. Oh yeah, and if they are a threat to the flow of spi, er oil. ;)
Most of'em never liked us anyhow. So long as they fear us I'm fine with that.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Most of'em never liked us anyhow. So long as they fear us I'm fine with that.
Ehh.. most of the countries didnt like you? Im pretty sure most did and still do. Intel and requests made by the US will be checked and tripple checked alot more than before. The trust is there, its just not unconditional any more.
-
You guys DID see Team America: World Police, right?
-
Fawk Yeah!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
hindsight is 20/20
Your hindsight was Europe’s (minus Bush’s lapdog) foresight. Nice of you to finally see reality for what it is.
Originally posted by Eagler
the evidence/intelligence against Iraq was not created after Sept 11 2001, it was being gathered, discussed and BELIEVED way back into the early 90's.
Same evidence everyone else had, but Europe was not so easy to con into an unjust war.
Originally posted by Eagler
All Sadam had to do to avoid the fight was to stick to the deal he agreed to when Bush Sr 1st handed him his arse after Desert Storm.
Doesn’t all this mean that Saddam actually DID stick to the deal since he didn’t have any WMD and no active programs to develop WMD and no connections to terrorism? Why yes it does! Again with your hindsight Mr. Eagler, you should be able to come to the same conclusion that Hans Blix foresight gave him. Saddam was in compliance with the UN resolutions.
I find people who still argue that the war was justified somewhat like people who argue the Holocaust never happened. Slightly amusing, but mostly just tragic.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Same evidence everyone else had, but Europe was not so easy to con into an unjust war.
so removing saddam and his two idiot sons was "unjust", maybe you should ask the kurds about that.
-
Originally posted by john9001
so removing saddam and his two idiot sons was "unjust", maybe you should ask the kurds about that.
Why should I ask the Kurds about that? Turkey, our vaunted NATO ally, has been at war with the Kurds longer than Iraq has. The Kurds are a non-issue and a perfect example of what you get for inciting a rebellion in TWO countries. Much the same the insurgents get in Iraq now.
Perhaps you should ask the insurgents how justified the war is? That would be equally irrelevant to this discussion, but then again, when your grip fails you grasp at straws.
-
ah now i see it,
Mission accomplished - Free Kurdistan!
am i wrong?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kinda puts a damper on Bush's "Fear and Smear" tour.
I think it's funny.
Bush never said that Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda. In fact, he even said that there was no link... several times.
You get your brain washed often?
-
Originally posted by Mr Nice
I think it's funny.
Bush never said that Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda. In fact, he even said that there was no link... several times.
You get your brain washed often?
Gee, guess I'm not the only one that heard that part, thank you Mr Nice for makeing that clear again :aok
BTW if you think Saddan had no WMD, then sit back and wait till the Insurgents ( Iraq's army in clvilian clother) uses some of them on sombody again.
-
Originally posted by MIShill
I want to thank all of you who seem to feel that brutal dictatorships and mercenary-run governments like the Taliban are "ok" as long as they have no impact on you personally. You allow me to at least FEEL I have the moral high ground when I see Saddam in jail and the Taliban decimated. Perhaps North Korea, Darfur and Myanmar and all the other benighted places in the world also "deserve" what they have as well, but I don't agree. I consider the removal of Saddam justified based on his history of brutality. WMD was just a convenient excuse.
First .... nice avatar!
Second .... it's really only moral high ground if it's universally applied. There were plenty of brutal dictators around at the time this administration decided there was definite proof of WMDs and terrorist ties and that diverting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq was so neccessary we had to do so with inadequate preparation and resources and no realistic plan for occupation. Cherry-picking Saddam to make a point about looking tough (whether the excuse to invade was WMDs, terrorist ties or feeling that out of all the brutal dictators of the world, invading this one was going to be easiest since he was effectively neutered a decade ago - or maybe because there was a Bush family grudge or unfinished business in the mind of one of Texas' worst businessmen) didn't impress me from the get-go.
It just sounds like administrative back pedaling to me. The "new facism" and going blind into Baghdad.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Your hindsight was Europe’s (minus Bush’s lapdog) foresight. Nice of you to finally see reality for what it is.
Same evidence everyone else had, but Europe was not so easy to con into an unjust war.
You mean the group who was making a killing by circumventing the sanctions with their own greedy side deals and did not want to ruin the good thing they had going with Saddam?
Doesn’t all this mean that Saddam actually DID stick to the deal since he didn’t have any WMD and no active programs to develop WMD and no connections to terrorism? Why yes it does! Again with your hindsight Mr. Eagler, you should be able to come to the same conclusion that Hans Blix foresight gave him. Saddam was in compliance with the UN resolutions.
Saddam was busy preventing proper inspections every which way he could, to the point the UN would pull their frustrated inspectors out of Iraq, if they were not told to go already..
Have you forgotten those two "basic" facts already?
I find people who still argue that the war was justified somewhat like people who argue the Holocaust never happened. Slightly amusing, but mostly just tragic.
I find people who, when shown the evidence gathered & studied for over a decade prior to the invasion, voted then for the war who now state we should turn tail and leave Iraq to ferment into the largest cesspool of terrorist activity in the middle east - pathetic.
-
Originally posted by dmf
BTW if you think Saddan had no WMD, then sit back and wait till the Insurgents ( Iraq's army in clvilian clother) uses some of them on sombody again.
I'm still waiting for them to use them on somebody the first time. With all this "you guys are missing the obvious" goin' on ... maybe I am. ;)
-
Originally posted by Mr Nice
I think it's funny.
Bush never said that Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda. In fact, he even said that there was no link... several times.
You get your brain washed often?
Hello Nuke.
-
A partisan Senate fact finding group airbrushes history and the Oclub democratic undergrounders go wild...Shocker.....
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hello Nuke.
Hi!
-
Originally posted by T0J0
A partisan Senate fact finding group airbrushes history and the Oclub democratic undergrounders go wild...Shocker.....
Yeah ... "artistic license" versus "airbrushing history." And I'd appreciate you putting your own bra and panties back on. The shock value seems fairly universal but no more tasteful. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Yeah ... "artistic license" versus "airbrushing history." And I'd appreciate you putting your own bra and panties back on. The shock value seems fairly universal but no more tasteful. ;)
Easy there princess! you got a run in your stocking.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
You mean the group who was making a killing by circumventing the sanctions with their own greedy side deals and did not want to ruin the good thing they had going with Saddam?
Irrelevant. More than 50% of the Oil For Food scandal were on US companies hands.
Originally posted by Eagler
Saddam was busy preventing proper inspections every which way he could, to the point the UN would pull their frustrated inspectors out of Iraq, if they were not told to go already..
Have you forgotten those two "basic" facts already?
I’m afraid I haven’t forgotten the facts. You however seem to invent your “facts”.
The UN inspectors were there until they were told to leave by the US government.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm
So in fact it was the US who ended the UN inspections before they could be completed. Wonder why? I don’t. Hard to legitimize the war if the inspections came up empty.
Originally posted by Eagler
I find people who, when shown the evidence gathered & studied for over a decade prior to the invasion, voted then for the war who now state we should turn tail and leave Iraq to ferment into the largest cesspool of terrorist activity in the middle east - pathetic.
Sorry, I wouldn’t know any. My country and people were quite clear in our opposition to the war.
-
Originally posted by T0J0
Easy there princess! you got a run in your stocking.
Leave my gear alone and check yer own, sugarplum. :D
-
Originally posted by Viking
Irrelevant. More than 50% of the Oil For Food scandal were on US companies hands.
bs
I’m afraid I haven’t forgotten the facts. You however seem to invent your “facts”.
The UN inspectors were there until they were told to leave by the US government.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm
So in fact it was the US who ended the UN inspections before they could be completed. Wonder why? I don’t. Hard to legitimize the war if the inspections came up empty.
that was right before the war started - of course they were told to get out before the bombing started, I am talking about the entire timeline the inspections were suppose to be going on from the beginning of the sanctions.
-
Fortunately Iraq's mass graves are "no big deal". The dead, tortured and raped in Kuwait were "no big deal". So are the millions starved to death in North Korea and the continuing genocide in Darfur. Pol Pot and Idi Amin must have been "ok" too since they did not represent any WMD threat. Again, any excuse to take him down was ok. What we REALLY needed was a few more years of UN resolutions until he chose to rearm, right?
-MI-
-
I think some people are begining to look back fondly on the Saddam years in Iraq because they're worried that the inevitable result of the US leaving Iraq will be another authoritarian theocracy AKA Iran Jr.
Same reason a lot look back fondly at the Shah years in Iran.
They should look back further to the Timur-e Lang years :t :t :t :t :t :O :O :D :D :rofl
-
The US sent it's own weapons inspection team, a 150,000+ soldiers... A team that wasn't going to be denied access, or 'led around on a leash'. A team that was able to uncover the truth in couple of years instead of 13+....
;)
-
Originally posted by MIShill
Fortunately Iraq's mass graves are "no big deal".
Doesn't really make any difference to todays happenings in Iraq. Nowadays Iraqis are more scared, there are many more people giving orders to kill and torture people, people have even less medicine and other goods than they had during the trade embargo and it looks like there will be a yet another dictator in the next two decades. Essentially it is beginning to look like Saddam was replaced from power only to have an another dictator step in.
I suppose the only way to maintain the peace of Islam is to torture and kill the troublemakers and their family. Only that seems to make the peaceful muslims to think twice whether to cause trouble to the regime in power.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
bs
I’m afraid not.
“In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales. “
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html
Originally posted by Eagler
that was right before the war started - of course they were told to get out before the bombing started, I am talking about the entire timeline the inspections were suppose to be going on from the beginning of the sanctions.
Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors.
From Hans Blix’ report to the UN Security Counsil 27 January 2003:
“Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.
Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.”
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
“The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items, whether from pre-1991 or later,”
-Hans Blix
“What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons.”
-Hans Blix
-
I suppose the only way to maintain the peace of Islam is to torture and kill the troublemakers and their family. Only that seems to make the peaceful muslims to think twice whether to cause trouble to the regime in power.
===========
The biggest problem facing muslims today is their oppressive enslaving religion.
Dogs deserve better.
-
Hans Blix held a news conference stating that the weapons inspectors had nearly finished the job in Iraq...That in weeks,not months,the inspections would be done.
The very next day GWB held a press conference and told the world he was going to invade Iraq and the weapons inspectors had 48 hours to get out of the country.
So either GWB is a fool for not wanting a conclusive assesment of Iraq's so-called stockpiles of WMDs..
Or he already knew there were none,and that Iraq posed NO imminent threat to the USA..And that he'd better invade the country ASAP before the weapons inspectors could finish the job.(and de-bunk his only justifyable reason to go to war.)
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Hans Blix held a news conference stating that the weapons inspectors had nearly finished the job in Iraq...That in weeks,not months,the inspections would be done.
The very next day GWB held a press conference and told the world he was going to invade Iraq and the weapons inspectors had 48 hours to get out of the country.
So either GWB is a fool for not wanting a conclusive assesment of Iraq's so-called stockpiles of WMDs..
Or he already knew there were none,and that Iraq posed NO imminent threat to the USA..And that he'd better invade the country ASAP before the weapons inspectors could finish the job.(and de-bunk his only justifyable reason to go to war.)
A third possibility:
Bush didn't trust that Hanx Blix was able to get an accurate idea of what Iraq had.
Back then, I remember everyone pretty much assumed Iraq had WMD. The argument/debate seemed to be more along the lines of what to do about it.
The "final, last chance" UN resolution was an example of how much Iraq was trusted.
If I had been in Bush's shoes, I'd be hard pressed not to do just what he did. Make sure.
-
that is ok is believe Hans .. sorry I don't .. the UN is basically useless in today's world
so you guys think Iraq was just a nice friendly place, friends with the west, bending over backwards to help the UN inspectors, not paying the families of the pal cheekbones bombers, never provided funds/training/info to any terror group? Got some land to sell you when the tide goes out ..
Saddam never had tea with bin laden, bush never said he did. the war on terror is not exclusive to AQ, never was. Saddam hid his hand at the same time acting as if he were the next threat to the west or at least he wished he was. He ain't no more ..
IMO the main purpose of overthrowing his crazy arse was to establish a base of operations in the region were we can keep the other crazies in the region (Iran/Syria) under closer eye ... not for oil as many think.
-
AQ is the only organization responsible for hitting the US.
It should be about them.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
AQ is the only organization responsible for hitting the US.
It should be about them.
It is as it is about others with the same mindset
-
Originally posted by MIShill
Fortunately Iraq's mass graves are "no big deal". The dead, tortured and raped in Kuwait were "no big deal". So are the millions starved to death in North Korea and the continuing genocide in Darfur. Pol Pot and Idi Amin must have been "ok" too since they did not represent any WMD threat. Again, any excuse to take him down was ok. What we REALLY needed was a few more years of UN resolutions until he chose to rearm, right?
-MI-
Taking out a brutal leader is one thing, returning the country to the stone age and letting it fester there is another. Our incompetent Govt officials can't even run this country, watching them fumble through re-building Iraq has been like watching a prison rape... that the Govt says is just "challenging sex".
If the US Govt was really concerned with abating bad governments, how about going after Govts that help hurt US citizens every day? screw protecting other countries citizens, protect US FIRST. Start by toppling one that affects us every day...start a war with Mexico.
Then start clobbering El Salvador, Columbia and put a boot in Hugo Chavez eye... criminal gang members from these countries, who are not called "terrorists" only because of political correctness, kill, maim and hurt more American citizens every day than Saddam ever did... and these criminals don't get their passports screened when slithering across the border.
-
Originally posted by MIShill
Fortunately Iraq's mass graves are "no big deal". The dead, tortured and raped in Kuwait were "no big deal". So are the millions starved to death in North Korea and the continuing genocide in Darfur. Pol Pot and Idi Amin must have been "ok" too since they did not represent any WMD threat. Again, any excuse to take him down was ok. What we REALLY needed was a few more years of UN resolutions until he chose to rearm, right?
-MI-
uuuhhh... was there any controversy over liberating Kuwait?
Those other places doesn not have anything worth liberating I guess ;)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
that is ok is believe Hans .. sorry I don't .. the UN is basically useless in today's world
so you guys think Iraq was just a nice friendly place, friends with the west, bending over backwards to help the UN inspectors, not paying the families of the pal cheekbones bombers, never provided funds/training/info to any terror group? Got some land to sell you when the tide goes out ..
Saddam never had tea with bin laden, bush never said he did. the war on terror is not exclusive to AQ, never was. Saddam hid his hand at the same time acting as if he were the next threat to the west or at least he wished he was. He ain't no more ..
IMO the main purpose of overthrowing his crazy arse was to establish a base of operations in the region were we can keep the other crazies in the region (Iran/Syria) under closer eye ... not for oil as many think.
No matter what evidence you're confronted with you will never yield to the truth. Sadly a flaw you have in common with many Americans. You say you don't believe Hans Blix even if your own inspectors verified his findings. Blix was right, Iraq had no WMD and saying you don't believe it only makes your position that much more farcical.
Then you say the war wasn't really about WMD, but that it was about establishing a base in the region. You actually admit that the war was not legal, but a war of aggression without justifiable legal foundation.
So you do know the truth and still you align yourself with the criminals. As Iraq slides into civil war and the US occupation’s inevitable defeat grows nearer, history will judge you for what you have done.
Continuing this discussion with you would be an exercise in futility.
-
I'd rather have our armed forces fighting the cheekboness on their turf than us chasing them around on mine
I guess the fact that we did find shells filled with wmd chemicals does not count? nor the fact the nuke program of Iraq was indeed further along than the UN or anyone thought. you are positive nothing was shipped to Syria?
I do not think Iraq will turn out as you think.
When history shows different, will you be able to admit you were wrong?
-
Originally posted by Viking
As Iraq slides into civil war and the US occupation’s inevitable defeat grows nearer, history will judge you for what you have done.
As Iraq becomes a safe democracy and the US mission succeeds, perhapse you will be judged by what you have done, which is nothing.
What has your country done for world peace?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I'd rather have our armed forces fighting the cheekboness on their turf than us chasing them around on mine
How many Iraqi terrorists have attacked America? So what you are really saying is that you’d rather push your terrorist problem on the Iraqis. Your concern for Iraqi civilians is heartwarming.
Originally posted by Eagler
I guess the fact that we did find shells filled with wmd chemicals does not count? nor the fact the nuke program of Iraq was indeed further along than the UN or anyone thought. you are positive nothing was shipped to Syria?
I have substantiated my statements and opinions with links to sources and quotes. You do nothing of the kind. No working WMD has been found in Iraq. Old non-functional pre-1991 shells that have been disposed of by being buried in dumps do not count. They are not weapons. Nothing was shipped to Syria. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please post it.
Originally posted by Eagler
I do not think Iraq will turn out as you think.
When history shows different, will you be able to admit you were wrong?
Always, but I’m afraid this will not be the case in Iraq. The civilian death toll is only increasing from month to month and the violence is increasingly sectarian of nature. The total death toll is nearing 50.000 civilians killed since “Mission Accomplished” in March 2003. The day by day average death toll has increased more than 100% since 2003.
-
Originally posted by Mr Nice
As Iraq becomes a safe democracy and the US mission succeeds, perhapse you will be judged by what you have done, which is nothing.
What has your country done for world peace?
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argumentation won’t work on me. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Hans Blix held a news conference stating that the weapons inspectors had nearly finished the job in Iraq...That in weeks,not months,the inspections would be done.
Hans Blix report to the UNSC March 7, 2003... two weeks prior to attck
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.
-
Saddam repeatedly obstructed the UN weapons inspectors after the cessation of hostilities in Gulf War 1. Saddam had them removed from his country at least twice. Saddam had at least 2 agents feeding the US false intell. Certain chemical munitions, pre-cursors and non-weaponized chemical agents have never been verified as being destroyed nor have they been found.
It has been noted after the cessation of hostilities with the Iraqi military in Gulf War 2 that Saddam was trying to keep the core of his WMD programs intact by not letting key scientists leave the country.
(iirc) There are satellite photo's of a truck convoy leaving Iraq and entering Syria just prior to the US invasion, but I suppose those trucks had no cargo on board. :rolleyes: What that cargo was we will probably never know.
Prior to the US announcing invasion plans the majority of the world thought Iraq still had WMD. It wasnt until the invasion was announced that countries that had a vested interest in Iraq via the oil for food scandal or legitimate economic ties started screaming that Saddam's WMD had already been destroyed.
US companies that were involved in the oil for food scandal should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law imo, but most will likely get off scot-free.
The UN passed resolutions that Iraq never fully complied with. If Iraq had complied there would have been no need for UN mandated economic sanctions. If the UN had been prepared to enforce those resolutions with force, there would have been no need for the US and it's coalition of the willing to invade.
Bush declared war on terrorism, not just on Al-Qaeada, a fact most here seem to forget. Iraq was supporting terrorists. At least 2 terrorist training camps were found in Iraq. Saddam gave medical aid to terrorists and paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000. After watching an airliner hit the WTC and seeing both towers collapse, Iraq's support of terrorism is good enough reason for me for the invasion of Iraq.
-
Elfie, again no corroborating information is presented. Care to back up your opinions?
Truck convoy leaving Iraq for Syria? I bet you there were hundreds of trucks traveling between Iraq and Syria. That's what we call "trade". Let's just say that your intelligence people have shown us pictures of trucks before. We were less than impressed with the results.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
You couldn't wait a few months?
-
I was pointing out an error in the previous post.
-
I see.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Your hindsight was Europe’s (minus Bush’s lapdog) foresight. Nice of you to finally see reality for what it is.
Are Spain, Poland, Italy, Ukraine, Denmark, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Norway, Portugal, and the Netherlands (among others) included in your list of 'Lapdogs'?
I like pointing out things.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Elfie, again no corroborating information is presented. Care to back up your opinions?
Truck convoy leaving Iraq for Syria? I bet you there were hundreds of trucks traveling between Iraq and Syria. That's what we call "trade". Let's just say that your intelligence people have shown us pictures of trucks before. We were less than impressed with the results.
I have posted links before in threads just like this. You can do some searches and find them. :)
I only see one statement that I posted that was just opinion.
US companies that were involved in the oil for food scandal should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law imo, but most will likely get off scot-free.
The rest is based off of what I read from links posted here, read from links during my own research, saw on the news, saw during one of Bush's addesses to the nation.
There should be plenty of links from previous threads on this subject, you are more than capable of doing your own searches GScholz, you dont need me to do them for you. :)
-
Unless you corroborate your statements with verifiable facts, they are just that – opinions.
I think you got me confused with someone else. I am not GScholz.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Unless you corroborate your statements with verifiable facts, they are just that � opinions.
I think you got me confused with someone else. I am not GScholz.
Like I said, you are just as capable of doing searches on this BBS as I am for the links, stop being lazy.
My statements have been corroborated previously on this BBS, I dont feel a need to corroborate them again. :)
Have a nice day GScholz. :)
-
uuuhhh... was there any controversy over liberating Kuwait?
Yeah there was tons of controversy, all of it from Antartica......dont you remember that? :D
-
I’m not going to do your work for you Elfie. I’d rather just dismiss your statements. :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
I�m not going to do your work for you Elfie. I�d rather just dismiss your statements. :)
I've already done the work previously, no need to do it again when you could do a few simple searches here. If you are dismissing my statements this easily, you would dismiss them even if I found links again. :)
-
Originally posted by Mr Nice
I think it's funny.
Bush never said that Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda. In fact, he even said that there was no link... several times.
You get your brain washed often?
Only by the facts..
The president answered:"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
June 2004
-
Originally posted by Stang
Fawk Yeah!
ZOMG COPYRIGHT ENFRINGEMENT!!! >wink<
-
Saddam would never have rearmed after the inspectors went away, right? He followed all of the dictates of the oil for food program, right? You know, rather than losing my uncle to free France and the rest of Europe, I'm beginning to think leaving the Nazis in power would have made Europeans happier & my family would have remained intact. Remember, Hitler stopped all of that European political infighting & kept great order. It's so easy to forget the mass graves if you have noone important to you in one.
-MI-
-
So, I take it the "redikolous" comment was spot onthen back then...
-
MT, you remember Nuke was telling us that he was writing a book that would tell us ignorant people about those undeniable 'links/facts' between Sadaam & AQ. I'm waiting for the publication.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello MT,
Way back in May, I was sent a link to a short story on Dan Simmon's blog. I knew Simmon's from way back as a sci-fi writer, the author of the Hugo award winning "Hyperion" series back when I was reading a lot of sci-fi and cyber-punk in the late 80s early 90s (Asimov, Dick, Heinlein, Herbert, Gibson, and Greg Bear being my favorites at the time).
Anyway, I was reminded of the story again yesterday and it seems like as good a reply as any to your comment:
EDIT: On third thought there is just too much bad language in the story, along with an essentially hopeless worldview, for me to feel comfortable posting a link - especially one that kids might click on. Those of you adults who are overly interested in finding out what it was can google "Dan Simmons" and "Time Traveller" and then click on the top link.
- SEAGOON
can I have the link please ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
can I have the link please ?
Don't bother, it's just more of that indiscriminate anti-muslim fearmongering. Religious people of every denomination should really think about 3 words before coming up with that kind of crap: Pot, kettle and black.
-
well I' was thinking of the Dan simmons blog :)
btw I found it since .
-
Hello takeda,
Originally posted by takeda
Don't bother, it's just more of that indiscriminate anti-muslim fearmongering. Religious people of every denomination should really think about 3 words before coming up with that kind of crap: Pot, kettle and black.
Ok I give up, you're right, it's all fear mongering. There is no Al Qaeda, no Muslim brotherhood, no Hamas, no Hezbollah, no Ansar Al-Sunnah, no Jemaah Islamiyah, no Abu Sayyaf, no Ansar al-Islam, no Taliban, no Riyadus Salihiin, no Lashkar-e-Toiba, no Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, no East Turkistan Liberation Organization, no Mujahideen Islam Pattani, no Kampulan Mujahedin, no bombing of thw WTC in 1993, no USS Cole, no Delhi bombings, no London bombings, no Madrid Bombings, no Beslan School Massacre, no Sharm-El-Sheikh bombing, no Bali Nightclub bombings, no Embassy bombings, no Phillipine or London Airliner plot, and above all, NO 9/11 ATTACK. There is nor has there ever been a Jihad, Islam is the religion of peace.
The real threat is Christian fanatics like the Amish, who have been hiding in Lancaster county for the last 300 years waiting for the signal to begin operations. Be on the look out for horse-and-buggy-bombs.
Just FYI, the article from the blog in question was not written by a "religious person" it was written by an irreligious award winning Sci-Fi author who lives in the boonies is clearly no fan of the "right-wing" but is bright enough to see the long term threat posed by the ongoing Islamic Jihad.
Also, while I am mightily tired of the "you're all the same" answer whenever a Christian discusses Islamic Jihad, I'm willing if you wish to enter into the comparison discussion once again. You should begin by indicating how it was that Jesus founded the Christian faith by launching a religious war against his religious enemies, ordered assassinations, told people they would go to heaven if they killed the enemies of Christianity, took wives from the widows of enemies whom he had ordered killed. Then you can explain how the Crusades, which spanned a little under 200 years beginning in the 11th century, and were launched in response to the Byzantine Emperor's call for help after the Seljuk Turks (who did eventually conquer the Byzantines) began gobbling up Byzantine dominions in the East including but not limited to Jerusalem, are the equivalent of the modern Islamic Jihad and the movement to establish a worldwide Caliphate following Sharia law via terrorism, murder, and intimidation.
PS: Sometimes I wonder what would happen if I responded to Libertarians or Democrats online here by saying "all political parties are equally evil because fascism is clearly a totalitarian movement that refuses to coexist with any other political movement and has directly caused the death of millions."
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Viking
I think you got me confused with someone else. I am not GScholz.
Yah, we all have you confused with that other guy, OttoJespersen.
Go figure.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yah, we all have you confused with that other guy, OttoJespersen.
Go figure.
I have to admit, at least so far.....this incarnation of GScholz is a much nicer person. :)
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello takeda,
Ok I give up, you're right, it's all fear mongering. There is no Al Qaeda, no Muslim brotherhood, no Hamas, no Hezbollah, no Ansar Al-Sunnah, no Jemaah Islamiyah, no Abu Sayyaf, no Ansar al-Islam, no Taliban, no Riyadus Salihiin, no Lashkar-e-Toiba, no Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, no East Turkistan Liberation Organization, no Mujahideen Islam Pattani, no Kampulan Mujahedin, no bombing of thw WTC in 1993, no USS Cole, no Delhi bombings, no London bombings, no Madrid Bombings, no Beslan School Massacre, no Sharm-El-Sheikh bombing, no Bali Nightclub bombings, no Embassy bombings, no Phillipine or London Airliner plot, and above all, NO 9/11 ATTACK. There is nor has there ever been a Jihad, Islam is the religion of peace.
The real threat is Christian fanatics like the Amish, who have been hiding in Lancaster county for the last 300 years waiting for the signal to begin operations. Be on the look out for horse-and-buggy-bombs.
Just FYI, the article from the blog in question was not written by a "religious person" it was written by an irreligious award winning Sci-Fi author who lives in the boonies is clearly no fan of the "right-wing" but is bright enough to see the long term threat posed by the ongoing Islamic Jihad.
Also, while I am mightily tired of the "you're all the same" answer whenever a Christian discusses Islamic Jihad, I'm willing if you wish to enter into the comparison discussion once again. You should begin by indicating how it was that Jesus founded the Christian faith by launching a religious war against his religious enemies, ordered assassinations, told people they would go to heaven if they killed the enemies of Christianity, took wives from the widows of enemies whom he had ordered killed. Then you can explain how the Crusades, which spanned a little under 200 years beginning in the 11th century, and were launched in response to the Byzantine Emperor's call for help after the Seljuk Turks (who did eventually conquer the Byzantines) began gobbling up Byzantine dominions in the East including but not limited to Jerusalem, are the equivalent of the modern Islamic Jihad and the movement to establish a worldwide Caliphate following Sharia law via terrorism, murder, and intimidation.
PS: Sometimes I wonder what would happen if I responded to Libertarians or Democrats online here by saying "all political parties are equally evil because fascism is clearly a totalitarian movement that refuses to coexist with any other political movement and has directly caused the death of millions."
- SEAGOON
Do we take our rhetoric with one or twenty lumps of exaggeration? Go decaf ... sugar substitute. :D
-
Sorry Arlo, can't do it, even the introduction of the smallest amount of blood into my Caffeine stream might cause me to crash and have to sleep for several months at this point.
I wish I could discuss this at greater length, but the voices are telling me to go and get more Espresso.
:O STRESSED? ME?
-
LOL. Well .... then enjoy the bean. :)