Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on January 26, 2003, 04:45:02 PM
-
The only reason inspectors are back in Iraq is because Bush took a hard line in dealing with them, in case anyone noticed.
Iraq's agreements for ending the gulf war will be enforced one way or another under Bush. Someone want to tell me why enforcing the cease fire agreements with Iraq is a bad thing?
As of right now, we are not at war with Iraq and inspectors are back again. This drives the liberals crazy for some reason.
By Bush having an actual set of balls, we can now speak the only language people like Saddam understand.
-
You have a short memory. Bush didn't want to go the UN route and he certainly didn't want to go with the inspectors thing.
He was persuaded otherwise by Blair and others. Given the choice, Bush would be in Iraq now.
By Bush having an actual set of balls, we can now speak the only language people like Saddam understand.
15 years ago the only language that seemed to coming out of Washington et al included a blank cheque book, crates of arms and access to biological and chemical weapons development.
My, how times have changed.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You have a short memory. Bush didn't want to go the UN route and he certainly didn't want to go with the inspectors thing.
He was persuaded otherwise by Blair and others. Given the choice, Bush would be in Iraq now.
15 years ago the only language that seemed to coming out of Washington et al included a blank cheque book, crates of arms and access to biological and chemical weapons development.
My, how times have changed.
You miss the point entirely. Bush made a no nonsense, tough stand against Iraq which then caused the matter to be discussed. The UN passed Bush's version ( pretty close) of a last chance resolution regarding Iraq. Bush put military reality behind the UN's resolutions. If not for Bush's policy of getting tough, we probably wouldnt even have a UN resolution, and if we did it would be ignored by Iraq, as was the case before Bush put muscle into the equation.
Any way I look at it, it's working. I'm very pleased that Iraq is finnally going to be bound by what they agreed to after the Gulf War.
As for 15 years ago, what does that have to do with Bush today? I said that we finnally have a President with some balls.
I guess you didn't read my whole post.
-
the main problem is that the inspections are taking too long. there's no way bush can use this war to get another term if it doesn't start soon.
-
Nuke, the war is schedueled to start next Wed... France, Germany, Pootie-Poo, and China all said they're voting no...
So he could be starting ww3 by thumbing his nose at the UN.. All kinds of complications.. On the other hand, Bush would sure look like a wimp standing down--- cost millions of dollars to keep those troops out there. The inspectors said it could take months even a year.
I'd say he's in between Iraq and a hard place.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Nuke, the war is schedueled to start next Wed... France, Germany, Pootie-Poo, and China all said they're voting no...
So he could be starting ww3 by thumbing his nose at the UN.. All kinds of complications.. On the other hand, Bush would sure look like a wimp standing down--- cost millions of dollars to keep those troops out there. The inspectors said it could take months even a year.
I'd say he's in between Iraq and a hard place.
He wouldn't be thumbing his nose at the UN, he would be enforcing it's resolution. The last resolution was very specific in regards to the steps Iraq had to take to comply. Iraq is already in breach of the agreement in many areas, including not allowing U2 over-flights, failure to list what happened to tons of chemical weapons that the previous inspectors listed.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
including not allowing U2 over-flights,
What a bunch of crap, U2 has no plans on going to Iraq.
"U2's publicist RMP London announced today that despite reports to the contrary, Bono will not be visiting Iraq. "There is no truth whatsoever to this story," a spokesperson said. "Bono continues to campaign for many issues relating to debt, AIDS and trade in Africa, but he has no involvement in this issue and no plan to visit Iraq." "
-
A telling sign is if the inspectors are told to leave the country next Tues night.
If the inspectors say they need more time say 3 months to a year, Bush won't stand for it he'll either attack Wed as schedueled or make some kind of spin about how he's a great man of peace and how many people would be killed an' all. There would be a tactful unpublicised pullout, they can't hold 153,000 troops standing around for no 6 months. That toejam cost millions a day just to keep em' on station right now.
he would be enforcing it's resolution. The last resolution was very specific in regards to the steps Iraq had to take to comply
But that's not for Bush to decide it's the security council and they already plan to vote no.. remember it's UN resolutions he's violating not U.S resolutions.
I wondered why the evil Hittelerlly voted with Bush to go along with the inspections Smart... damn smart but still evil She knew that this would place Bush in a box ;)
Bush goes ahead and attacks anyway it is he, not saddam who becomes world boggyman in the view of the rest of the world.
"But but he used gas on his own people!"
he used gas on the Kurds not Iraquies.. the Kurds want to cut out a large section of northern Iraq -- not that the use of gas is cool-- but the CIA guys, the ones that sold him the stuff wanted to see the effect.. This wasn't a news story back in '88.
"But he's an evil dictator!"
So are all those other nut cases in the middle east.. go to Saudi Arabia where they wack your hands off for stealing.. or Iran where they hang you by your gizzered... All Saddam does is poke your eyes out with spoons. Not bad for middle east standards.
-
He wouldn't be thumbing his nose at the UN, he would be enforcing it's resolution.
___________________
that’s a lot like saying a vigilante isn't breaking the law. he's enforcing the law as he sees it. doing what the courts and cops can't or won't do.
you can't go against the UN vote, and then say you are doing it in support of the UN.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
He wouldn't be thumbing his nose at the UN, he would be enforcing it's resolution.
___________________
that’s a lot like saying a vigilante isn't breaking the law. he's enforcing the law as he sees it. doing what the courts and cops can't or won't do.
you can't go against the UN vote, and then say you are doing it in support of the UN.
The UN did vote, and created the resolution. What are you talking about?
-
Since when did the US care about enforcing UN Security Council resolutions anyway? They don't seem to be going after the top 2 violators of UN Security Council resolutions - Israel and Turkey.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Since when did the US care about enforcing UN Security Council resolutions anyway? They don't seem to be going after the top 2 violators of UN Security Council resolutions - Israel and Turkey.
What - and give the rest of the world something ELSE to whine about?
-
hehe why not - things are a bit slow in the run up to the release of "Bush Vs Hussein2: The sequel of all sequels" & it's been a while since we've had a "sh*t is burning" special on CNN - I say the US should rile up a few more a few more loonies for all our viewing pleasure. The rest of the world has come to expect two things from the US since the late sixties: comedy novelty presidents and lots of really expensive firework shows. All power to you on the latest president - surrealist comedy at its finest - but you're falling behind on the fireworks: pull your fingers out! You've haven't invaded anyone for weeks! ;) There was that whiney enough for you? :D
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
"But but he used gas on his own people!"
he used gas on the Kurds not Iraquies.. the Kurds want to cut out a large section of northern Iraq -- not that the use of gas is cool-- but the CIA guys, the ones that sold him the stuff wanted to see the effect.. This wasn't a news story back in '88.
[/b]
Are you completely INSANE? Does it matter who the civilians were?
And your lame attempt at spinning this to some CIA operation is beyond pathetic.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Are you completely INSANE? Does it matter who the civilians were?
And your lame attempt at spinning this to some CIA operation is beyond pathetic. [/B]
Hortlund Maybe you should look into these allegations. They are True.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Hortlund Maybe you should look into these allegations. They are True.
Prove it.
-
:rolleyes:
-
Then dont post rediculous BS like that. If you want to claim that something outrageous like that is "the truth" then you better be prepared to show some evidence for it too.
This is not how it works:
Person #1:
"CIA ordered Saddam to gas Kurds"
Person #2:
"Oh really? Can you prove that?"
Person #1:
":rolleyes:"
-
I am tired of providing the links to the information for people like yourself and Grun.
I asked for you to look into it. Sometimes its more enlightening for someone to find information then it is to be handed everything.
Do you deny that the US is the government that supplied these weapons and the know how to use them? Then maybe you can prove that.
Saddam has long been guilty of mass murder and this includes the time that the US was actively supporting them and supplying them.
I merely asked you to research into it and I will stand by that. My time is worth more than using it to cast pearls before swine.
In a number of years, we will all be arguing the exact same thing, except it will be about the Saudi's, Pakistanis, or Indians after they Turn rogue (like they arent already).
My comments were made in haste earlier and failed to take into account that the Iraqis used WMD both when they were allowed to and then when they couldn't because they were no longer allies. But in the end it boils down to the same thing.
The US created that monster, as it supplied and created Osama.
-
Hortlund:
"A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that US intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defences against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
Link is here (http://www.dawn.com/2002/text/int11.htm)
And
DONALD RUMSFELD, the US Defence Secretary and one of the most strident critics of Saddam Hussein, met the Iraqi President in 1983 to ease the way for US companies to sell Baghdad biological and chemical weapons components, including anthrax and bubonic plague cultures, according to newly declassified US Government documents.
Link here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_123102_iraq1.html)
No references to what documents this is in, but it seems unlikely that two so different sources are mistaken.
A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee disclosed that dozens of biological agents were shipped to Iraq in the mid-1980s under licence from the US Commerce Department, including strains of anthrax. Anthrax has been identified by the Pentagon as a key component of Saddam’s biological weapons programme
That should be relatively easy for you to verify.
More:
According to information obtained by the AGWVA, there is irrefutable evidence to show that the Unites States government provided and encouraged Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States Department of Commerce and The American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) provided at least 80 shipments of biological agents that were not attenuated (or weakened) and
were capable of reproduction. These shipments included such virulent agents as Anthrax, West Nile Virus and Clostridium botulinum (S.R.103-900, May 25, 1994, pg. 264).
Here (http://monkeyfist.com/pipermail/bonobos/Week-of-Mon-20020930/000926.html) is a link to that article.
Let me know if you want more.
The truth is what the truth is. This isn't US bashing - just a recognition of past events.
I'm glad that you require references - only way to keep it factual. Otherwise it's just opinions and accusations. Of course we may differ from how we interpret the results of facts, but there is overwhelming evidence suggesting that the US aided Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. For a good reason, since Iran was a big enemy of the US after the revolution.
-
But I have never claimed that the US did not help arm Iraq. Who gave Iraq the weapons is completely irrelevant. There are several UN resolutions telling the Iraqis to surrender those weapons or face the consequences.
What I am objecting to is the allegations that the CIA somehow ordered or encouraged Saddam to use the weapons.
-
Hortlund, suggest you read Said K. Arburish's biography of Saddam Hussein entitled "the Politics of Revenge" - it's all in there, including some nice juicy bits about the US giving Saddam intel whilst knowing full well that he would use that information for the targeting of chemical weapon attacks.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Come now Mr. Hortlund. Why do you think they gave him these weapons? For safe keeping maybe?
Why do you think the US gave Israel nukes? To use against the palestinians?
-
http://www.multied.com/dates/1986.html
1986 Iran Contra Deal The Reagan Administration confirmed that it had been selling arms to Iran, which was fighting a war with Iraq, in an effort to obtain the release of American hostages in Lebanon. Money from the sales was used to help the Contras fighting the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.
1987 USS Stark Hit by Exocet Missiles The USS Stark, a US frigate, was attacked by an Iraqi air-to-sea missile and severely damaged. Thirty sailors were killed in the attack, which was apparently accidental.
Isnt International politics and World Peace confusing?
-
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
We will be arguing these same points another 20 years from now.
The only things that change are alliances.
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id280.htm
The strife in the gulf had started in 1984 when Iran and Iraq, at war since 1980, began attacking each other's ships. Inevitably, the vessels of third countries became targets. Over 200 ships had been attacked in the past three years. The Iranians were particularly keen to target the ships of Iraq's ally, Kuwait. Even though only 7% of American oil supplies came from the region, the Reagan administration insisted that U.S. strategic interests required a naval presence in the gulf. Critics complained that Western Europe and Japan, which acquired 25% and 60% of their respective oil needs from the gulf, weren't doing their part in keeping the sea lanes open. In fact, certain Western European nations had become major suppliers of military hardware to both Iran and Iraq. Damage done to the Stark had been caused by French-built missiles fired from a French-built aircraft.
The administration argued that to withdraw from the gulf would be to surrender America's role as leader of the free world, and that if oil shipments were disrupted, prices would soar, adversely affecting the U.S. economy. As one Western diplomat put it, if the U.S. backed out, it wouldn't "have enough credibility to float a teacup." Furthermore, the Soviet Union had increased its naval presence in the gulf, and the fear was that if the U.S. faltered, the Soviets would gain the upper hand in the region -- and growing Soviet influence in the region would pose a long-term threat to the West's oil supplies. "We will not be intimidated," said Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. "We will not be driven from the gulf." He described the attack on the Stark as a "horrible error," and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was quick to apologize for the "unintentional incident." Evidently, the Mirage pilot had mistaken the Stark for an Iranian tanker. Iraq promised to pay compensation to the families of the 37 slain seamen, and reparations for damages to the frigate. Officially the United States was neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict, but the administration had decided that geopolitic considerations required that Iraq not lose the war. In the aftermath of the Stark incident, the rhetoric coming out of Washington was of a forgiving nature where Iraq was concerned, while growing increasingly hostile in reference to Iran.
-
The reasons for the split (http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/01/26/dl2601.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/01/26/ixoplead.html)
This from the UK's Sunday Telegraph. You have to register to access... no charge.
Point 1:
What the German Chancellor and the French President cannot plausibly argue is that their approach works as a means of keeping the peace, or forcing the hand of dictators such as Saddam. It was not the UN's deliberations, German pacifism or French diplomacy which forced the Iraqi dictator to re-admit the UN weapons inspectors: it was the threat of US military action. If the European approach to international relations had been observed in the present campaign to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Saddam would have done precisely nothing.[/u]
Point 2:
There are heads of government who talk the language of idealism but act in response to the imperatives of domestic politics: Gerhard Schröder is driven by opinion polls more than an affinity with the moral high ground. Jacques Chirac will, in the end, do what he thinks will strengthen his rapport with the French people - and, more particularly, with French businessmen. Behind the mask of high principle, realpolitik still dictates European strategy.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You have a short memory. Bush didn't want to go the UN route and he certainly didn't want to go with the inspectors thing.
He was persuaded otherwise by Blair and others. Given the choice, Bush would be in Iraq now.
15 years ago the only language that seemed to coming out of Washington et al included a blank cheque book, crates of arms and access to biological and chemical weapons development.
My, how times have changed.
Ya know, since I found out you're just 24, your posts have made perfect sense...idiolistic rantings of youth....20 years from now your perspective will have changed greatly:)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Ya know, since I found out you're just 24, your posts have made perfect sense...idiolistic rantings of youth....20 years from now your perspective will have changed greatly:)
What a bunch of crap. At least his posts have actual substance, compared to your sanctamonious one liners.
But thanks for the brilliant example of Ad Hominen. You might want to judge the posts their actual content next time.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Given the choice, Bush would be in Iraq now.
That is speculation and it's wrong.... think logistics.
-
So wait... the US armed Saddam with all these bio/chem weapons?
Then why can the US not DISARM Iraq? They should have by now, and they still haven't.
12 years of "diplomacy" and UN resolutions has gone full circle... and arrived back at square 1.
A new way of dealing with Saddam is desperately needed, and the only language he understands is "kabooommmm".
-SW
-
"U.S. to Make Iraq Intelligence Public
Evidence of Weapons Concealment to Be Shared in Effort to Boost Support for War
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page A01
The Bush administration has assembled what it believes to be significant intelligence showing that Iraq has been actively moving and concealing banned weapons systems and related equipment from United Nations inspectors, according to informed sources.
After a lengthy debate over what and how much of the intelligence to disclose, President Bush and his national security advisers have decided to declassify some of the information and make it public, perhaps as early as next week, in an effort to garner more domestic and international support for confronting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with military force, officials said.
"The United States possesses several pieces of information which come from the work of our intelligence that show Iraq maintains prohibited weapons," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in an interview published yesterday in an Italian newspaper. "Once we have made sure it can be done safely, I think that in the next week or soon after we can make public a good part of this material.""
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52135-2003Jan27.html
-
Originally posted by Ping
Saddam has long been guilty of mass murder and this includes the time that the US was actively supporting them and supplying them
The US created that monster, as it supplied and created Osama.
i don't get your point , are you saying because the USA "created saddam" the USA should not do anything about him now?
BTW saddam "created " himself, read iraq history