Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bashwolf on March 27, 2003, 09:46:25 PM
-
I am not American born, European, or Middle Eastern but I sure like to know what others from these 3 conteintes why US at war with Iraq?? I have done my research to find the truth or so-called truth. I like to hear from you guys your opionion s etc will be greatly appreciated.
-
just read any one of the last 10 pages of threads in this forum and pick a reason.
Oil
Freedom of an oppressed people
Terrorism
upcoming election
economy
etc etc
-
Just the usual ho hum. Free nations being compelled to commit to war in an effort to drive tryanny out of the soul of a nation held hostage by a gang using techniques of utmost savagry to bind tightly by terror and fear an entire population.
Oh yeah, its about trading blood for oil.
-
hehe just like in nam .
lol
-
ok bash.. the short version..
iraq breaks treatys, begins to rearm. tosses out UN weapons inspectors, UN passes more resolutions.
then 9/11 happens. US war on terror starts. Al Quieda linked to 9/11 attacks, the AQ linked to Taliban in Afganistan. We invade afganistan, toss taliban. Some AQ operatives located in Iraq. other AQ operatives tracked to Iraq from afganistan. AQ linked terror base located in NE iraq. Iraq intel operatives known to meet with AQ supporters, organizers, operatives. US government ties possible distribution of iraqs WMD technology and/or materials to AQ. Iraq continues to back other terror orginizations, tho connection of iraq to AQ remains tenuous. No matter.. iraq is certainly a terror supporter, makes it onto top of chimpys happy hit list of bad guys. Korea is #2 on list at this time.
Under pressure from US, UN passes another resoultion demanding that iraq complies with weapons inspections, demands full accounting. US mobilizes large buildup of troops to enforce resolutions. Un gets cold feet, France leads axis of weazels to block enforcement of resolutions they signed off on previously. UN moves against iraq without UN sanction for force. Axis of Weasels protests American agression.
and there we are.. in two paragraphs.
-
you cant be serious that you still believe the lie about aq being linked to the iraqi government. even bush dosnt say it anymore.
-
frog, yer an ass. You still believe AQ was NOT operating in Iraq?
---------------------
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein for years has consorted with the al Qaeda terrorist network, often using as a go-between a shadowy figure who set up a training camp in northeast Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday.
Speaking to the U.N. Security Council, Powell offered the most detailed explanation yet of possible links between Baghdad and associates of Osama bin Laden. At its center, he said, is Abu Mussab Zarqawi, a bin Laden associate who has traveled in Iraq.
Iraqi officials have steadfastly denied that they have any links to al Qaeda, insisting such charges are part of a U.S. disinformation effort to justify a military attack. Powell dismissed their denials, and said Iraq has a record of trying to deceive the world.
"Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al Qaeda together," Powell said.
After al Qaeda and the Taliban were ousted from Afghanistan, Zarqawi, a Jordanian national, established a camp in northeastern Iraq to train terrorists in using explosives and poisons, Powell said.
The camp is in the northern Kurdish area of the country, outside the control of the Iraqi regime, but Iraq has kept track of events there by infiltrating Ansar al-Islam, a radical Islamic group that controls the area, Powell said.
Intelligence services disagree whether the camp is actually linked to Saddam's regime.
Zarqawi also has been sighted in Baghdad, Powell said. He traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment last May, staying there for two months "while he recuperated to fight another day," Powell said.
During Zarqawi's stay in Baghdad, nearly two dozen of his associates set up a base of operations in the capital to move people, money and supplies throughout the country, said Powell. "They've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months," Powell said.
The United States, using another international intelligence service as an intermediary, twice gave the Iraqi government information it could have used to apprehend Zarqawi and break the Baghdad cell, but "Zarqawi still remains at large to come and go," he said. "From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond."
Zarqawi's group is linked to a number of recent terrorist operations, Powell said. Among them:
• In October, Lawrence Foley, an official with the U.S. Agency for International Development, was gunned down in Amman, Jordan. "The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder, " Powell said. An associate of the gunman escaped to Iraq, he added.
• Last month, British police uncovered a terrorist plot to produce ricin, a deadly toxin, and Powell said the thwarted attack was linked to Zarqawi's group. Several Western intelligence agencies have said the planned attack has been tied to training provided by Zarqawi.
• At least 116 operatives connected to Zarqawi's network have been arrested in France, Britain, Spain and Italy. The network was also planning attacks in Germany and Russia, Powell said.
• At least nine North African extremists traveled to Europe in 2001 to conduct explosive and poison attacks, an al Qaeda detainee who trained under Zarqawi has told intelligence agents.
• Last year, two suspected al Qaeda operatives linked to associates of Zarqawi's Baghdad cell, including one who was trained in the use of cyanide, were arrested as they crossed the border from Iraq into Saudi Arabia.
Members of al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence "have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s," Powell said. In 1996, bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Sudan, and later that year had a meeting with the director of Iraq's intelligence service, he said.
Powell also said a senior al Qaeda member has reported that Saddam was more willing to assist al Qaeda after the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and was impressed by the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.
According to Powell, a senior al Qaeda operative, now being detained, said that a terrorist operative was sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and chemical weapons. He was dispatched after bin Laden concluded that al Qaeda labs in Afghanistan were not capable of manufacturing such materials, Powell said.
Also, said Powell, a senior Iraqi defector, one of Saddam's former European intelligence chiefs, said Iraqi agents were sent to Afghanistan in the mid-1990s to train al Qaeda members in document forgery.
-----------------------------------------------
-
Doesn't make much sense to put a camp in Kurdish territory if the Al-Qaeda is pro-Hussein.
Now... if they were anti-Hussein, it makes more sense.
Don't you think?
-
One thing that has yet to be disproven: Some of the Al Qaeda detainees in Cuba have said that Iraq was training Al Qaeda in the use of chemical weapons.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
One thing that has yet to be disproven: Some of the Al Qaeda detainees in Cuba have said that Iraq was training Al Qaeda in the use of chemical weapons.
EDIT:
NM... I was probably wrong.
-
Uhhhh no.
Irrelevant anyways.
-
nit pickin.
AQ operatives in Iraq. Iraq notified of operatives presence. iraq does nothing. AQ camp in Iraq. If we notifed the canadians that Zarqawi was in toronto and they did squat about it, would you consider canada pro-terror and pro AQ?
i am not convinced a 'formal' relationship existed, thos all those proven meetings between AQ reps and husseins intel folks is hard not to believe having some substance.
frankly, i'm pretty sure if some of you guys saw a rape you'd report a lewd display of public fornication.
do, dah, do dah, and day.
-
You're either with us, or you're against us. If there are known terrorists in Canada, and they do nothing about it, don't cry if you find SOS members entered your country and dealt with the problem for you.
-
... IIRC, the U.S. trained Iraq.
that tired 'we sold 'em, we trained 'em, he's your puppet' line of horse**** don't fly. alliances change. priorities change. it ain't 1980 anymore.
so one more time for the assmaster association..
we supported ho chi minh. we supported mao. we supported stalin. we supported noriega, castro and any number of the best and worst gawdamned monsters on the palnet at one time or another.
didn't stop the world from turnin.. and as it did we wound up having to put all those *******s on the **** list.
give up the nickeodeon diplomacy.
-
Did you mean this Sandman:
http://cleveland.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=3008
Training in 1967, mostly defensive, before Saddam was in power. Looks like it was training in theory in doctrine rather than on actual weapons systems.
-
Wel... it just serves to illustrate that the entire "with us or against us" policy is rather short sighted.
-
not through my glasses.
-
The Iraq ----> Al Q argument is right out the door. A non-starter.
Freeing an oppressed people from tyranny? Please.
Some people really got sold a bill of goods if the above has now become the basis of their reasoning. I saw a poll a while back where some ridiculously high percentage of the US population actually thinks Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Hijackers and all.
Sheesh.
A pre-emptive unilateral attack has got to be about the WMD and the threat posed by Iraq to the US. That's all. And that's justification enough.
.... if it's indeed true.
But... I think even that is only a part of the picture. I think it's naive to say it's about blood for oil. I also think it's naive to say it has nothing to do with blood for oil. If that makes any sense...
Ah well... Lotsa reasons have been tossed out there to pick from. Whatever makes ya comfortable.
-
The Iraq ----> Al Q argument is right out the door. A non-starter.
Convenient assumption, eh?
-
Originally posted by Nash
The Iraq ----> Al Q argument is right out the door. A non-starter.
Freeing an oppressed people from tyranny? Please.
Some people really got sold a bill of goods if the above has now become the basis of their reasoning. I saw a poll a while back where some ridiculously high percentage of the US population actually thinks Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Hijackers and all.
Sheesh.
A pre-emptive unilateral attack has got to be about the WMD and the threat posed by Iraq to the US. That's all. And that's justification enough.
.... if it's indeed true.
But... I think even that is only a part of the picture. I think it's naive to say it's about blood for oil. I also think it's naive to say it has nothing to do with blood for oil. If that makes any sense...
Ah well... Lotsa reasons have been tossed out there to pick from. Whatever makes ya comfortable.
You have managed to discredit both sides of the argument without providing a reason, let alone and facts or information. You should try out for the Weazel debate team.
-
Martlet he didn't say chimpy once.
-
Wel... it just serves to illustrate that the entire "with us or against us" policy is rather short sighted.
and thats more 'in 1980 he was your pal' bullcrap.
park that line sandy. it don't fly the kite.
it IS with or against us RIGHT now. not in 1980. or 1999. it's NOW.
-
I thought the Kurds were at odds with the pro AQ faction up north.
Also have seen reports by the Brits saying AQ was fighting alongside the Iraqi irregulars.
-
Oh I'd agree that there are a lot of "convenient assumptions" floating around with regard to the Al Q connection. But whose? Assumptions only cease to be assumptions when they're backed up by evidence, and I haven't seen much in that department. Hangtime himself said the "connection of iraq to AQ remains tenuous."
So whether or not the connection turns out to be true doesn't matter in the context of my reply to bashwolf. At this point we don't know for sure... therefore for this to become the de facto reason for invading Iraq doesn't wash.
Or are you going to tell me that the reason Iraq is being attacked is because the Al Q attacked you? I don't think so. And I don't think Hangtime would argue that this war is the result of tenous connections to the Al Q. Bush has even stopped saying it.
That's why I scratched it off the list. It's but one more allegation in a grab bag of 'em for you to choose from. And if the Al Q connection is enough for you to conclude that it's the reason there's a war with Iraq, well like I said... whatever you're comfortable with.
Again... WMD such that it poses a threat to your national security is a pretty compelling reason. Dunno why ya need more.
-
We don't.
But they most certainly better find them in a clear, open, internationally documented way.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Convenient assumption, eh?
We do know that the conservative "think-tank" Project for a New American Century sent a letter to WJC in 1998 urging him to initiate regime change in Iraq. The letter talks mostly about the failure of containment and the threat of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. It does not talk at all about terrorism or AQ. This letter was signed by Rumsfeld (SecDef), Wolfowitz (Dep. SecDef), and Perle (the guy who just resigned from the Defense Policy Board) - if it had been signed by Cheney (and Rice too?) it would include the most influential hawks in the current administration. It seems to me they intended to remove Saddam irregardless of any connection to AQ, and tried to cook up "intelligence" to get public support for the war.
-
"Also have seen reports by the Brits saying AQ was fighting alongside the Iraqi irregulars."
yeager
cite please, and not http://www.rush.com
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
cite please, and not http://www.rush.com
Great site! wow, they lookin old huh?
-
Originally posted by bashwolf
Please tell me why we at War??
For me ... it's simple... (http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17842)[/url]
Regards,
Badger
-
The regime under Saddam is unimaginable especially for us free people.
Now Iraq might be happy coz of a fast handling trigger happy idiot like bush.
Well at least something happens now and the jobs getting done.
And Iraqy people will be free again. This is not the only but the best reason to invade.
It costs a lot of lives but the iraqy people where already death under the regime of Saddam.
I hope the job is finished soon.
to the USA and GB
-
Originally posted by bashwolf
I am not American born, European, or Middle Eastern but I sure like to know what others from these 3 conteintes why US at war with Iraq?? I have done my research to find the truth or so-called truth. I like to hear from you guys your opionion s etc will be greatly appreciated.
After the 2000 US elections the neo-conservative hawks in Washington DC finally found an administration open to its aggressive proactive foreign policy stance.
Iraq is a stepping-stone in this policy of total global domination. Once Iraq is subdued the US administration will start its typical war drum beating rhetoric with Iran; claiming ties to Al-Qaida, liberating their oppressed people and other fabrications.
There’s a lot of information on the Internet about this but here’s a site to start with if you’re interested.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm
-
Originally posted by blur
Once Iraq is subdued the US administration will start its typical war drum beating rhetoric with Iran; claiming ties to Al-Qaida, liberating their oppressed people and other fabrications.
This sort of statement triggers my "Purest BS" alarm.
It also makes me willing to place a wager.
Would you like to place a wager on the quality of your analysis of US intentions?
Pick the time frame for your predicted US invasion of Iran and suggest and amount. I'm sure we can work something out.
Because I'm willing to wager that after this military conflict, the people of the US will turn slowly towards isolationism.
-
Why are we there?
Friday, March 28, 2003 Posted: 6:08 AM EST (1108 GMT)
BASRA, Iraq (CNN) -- Thousands of civilians trying to flee Basra Friday were fired upon by militia forces backing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, British military officials said.
They told CNN's Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour that once the gunfire started, many of the civilians turned around and ran back into the city.
Sort of highlights what Badger wrote in his link.
(BTW, Badger, well said... but you should have posted an "MG warning" with that. ;) )
-
I agree with towd, don't go quoting some canadian rock trio as a source.
-
Toad, you're certainly aware of the neo-conservative aspect of this administration -- a group that has long held the opinion that a regime change in Iraq would be beneficial for US interests in the region that are not related to terrorism or even particularly generating a more positive life in Iraq except as a means to an end. However, I have yet to see you comment on this aspect of the War.
This isn't tirlateral commission/Area 59/Skull & Bones stuff. This involves clearly documented positions held by senior foreign policy advisors (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, perhaps Cheney, Rice a number of staffers) -- the "McNamaras" of the current administration. These positions provide a roadmap for creating peace and stability in the region through a variety of regime changes, starting with Iraq. The Washington Post has reported on the neo-conservative aspect. Frontline did an excellent piece on it where William Kristol and other neo-conservatives bragged about winning the heart and mind of Bush Jr. on foreign policy over the positions of outdated fogies like Powell and Bush Sr. Even the mainstream broadcast media, ever protective of the almighty access (which disappears if you stray too far from the party line) is starting to cover it now.
Under the Wolfowitz doctrine, the regime changes should occur regardless of world support (not needed because of our current military "flexibility"); and once the frst domino falls the rest were seen to fall soon after. Voilia! Instant peace in a region that has one overriding national interest under it's soil. As a side benefit, the Palestinians would find hard line support evaporating, allowing them to see the hopelessness of their position and become willing to compromise. It should also be pointed out that this was seen as being a cakewalk. Other side benefits include:
- Freeing the Iraqi people (or at least the portions most oppressed by Hussein in the North and South). It will be interesting to see just what form of democracy comes from this, when an election is allowed to take place.
- Potentially reducing the threat of terrorists getting WMD from one of the many states in position to turn them over to such groups.
- Huge oil contracts (production and infrastructure) for the countries that are onboard. You can't squeak at the French and Russians and Chinese for this without at least acknowledging that their losses will be our gains.
- Provide an option to Saudi oil that is clearly at risk. If you want to find a few Al-Queda cells you don’t have to look very far in Saudi Arabia. It could easily pull an Iran at some point in the not-too-distant future and the world economy would likely suffer greatly. It also helps break the grip OPEC has on the market today without necessarily reducing profitability.
Now that the war has started we can't pull back. Let's hope these new McNamaras are as smart as they think they are, and that the end result truly will be better for the Iraqi people and the world with the least cost to the liberators and the Iraqis.
Charon
-
Toad: We don't.
But they most certainly better find them in a clear, open, internationally documented way.
We most certainly better find them eh Toad?
Note it was 16 posts.. Nash was the first one to mention the main pretext for invasion.. the WMD..
Fellas I've tried to direct Toad to the PFNAC site so he can read for himself.. he refuses to even acknowledge the PNAC. The next country on the list isn't Iran tho it's Syria.. Already we've been reading news reports of Syria helping Iraqis shipping arms and troops across the border.. They are developing the pretext now.
-
Oh, I read that stuff. I just don't attach as much importance to it as some do. It's really "business as usual" for DC.
Anyway, there is still the Congress. Did Kristol et al use their Jedi mind control techniques on ~ 535 of them? Because they voted to authorize this action in October...... after endless negotiations in the UN. Even Brother Clinton made similar comments about using force against Iraq at various times. Did Kristol get to him too? Or Hillary? Because she voted "yes" in October as well. So did Daschle... hmmm the Force is strong indeed in this Kristol.
Yeah, there's special interest groups out there. Suprise. Some of them have major influence in the Executive branch. Some have major influence in the Republican party. Some have major influence in the Democratic party....... go figure. Why, I'd wager there were one or two special interest groups that had major influence in the Clinton Executive years.
However, they don't make the laws, they don't pass the law and they don't send US troops off to foreign lands to fight all by themselves.
Like it or not, ALL special interest groups are allowed in this form of government. It's a part of the process and has been since day one. McCain-Feingold tried to change that..... but money and politicians have always been inseparable and always will be IMO.
Still, bottom line, Kristol & Co. can try to influence all they like. It's purely legal and it's always going on no matter what administration is in office or which party holds control in the Congress.
It is up to US to make sure they don't "buy" our Congress into doing something we don't want done.
And, as I said, I think after this exposure to "modern warfare regime change" the US public is going to be very, very reluctant to engage in it again, PARTICULARLY without International sanction (UN/SC). I predict a veer towards isolationism will follow after the toll of blood and gold is counted for this operation. America doesn't like losing her sons overseas.
I may be wrong, but I'm willing to back that opinion with a bit of gold of my own. I seriously doubt Blur will take the wager, however.
-
LOL, 10 Bears.
I read your link when u posted it the first time. I don't agree with Kristol, but just like the anti-war protestors, I accept his right to voice his opinion.
As I said, $pecial intere$t groups are allowed..... period. Of whatever ideological Stripe. Now you wouldn't try to remove Kristol & Co's right to "free speech" would you? You support that don't you? Because if you remove his right, it surely won't end there.
As I also said above, just exactly whose responsibility is it to see that the government does the wishes of the people?
IIRC, that would be us registered voters, wouldn't it?
No one's going into Iran or Syria or anywhere else unless Congress authorizes that too. IMO, after this deal something like that will require a direct, provable attack on the US.
Knowing how you love to back your opinions with a little side wager, I'll offer you the same bet as I offered Blur.
BTW, do you want to double down on the WMD bet? :D
-
Because I'm willing to wager that after this military conflict, the people of the US will turn slowly towards isolationism.
Toad
Have to agree with Toad here. Regardless of the hopes and aspirations of the neo-cons, step two in the big plan just ain't going to happen unless the "Arab Street" actually does something more than burn a few effigies. Even the administration seems to be reassesing this political experiment given Richard Pearle departure, though that could just as easily be related to the selling influence scandal.
[edit: BTW, I agree completely Toad -- business as usual in Washington. Hard to find a Mr. Smith in the bunch on either side of the aisle. As for Clinton and his special interests, couldn't agree more. The Carol Browner EPA (really more the Gore EPA) was insane, and I consider myself to be an America the Beautiful type of guy. For example, they would set contaminat reduction standards for drinking water that were too low to even be tested for compliance.]
Charon
-
i will use simple terms so anyone can understand, even the neo-liberals
saddam = torture, death
british/american = food, water, medicine
thats not my words, thats what the iraqi people say.
-
Now, if Apache's thread about Syria proves true and escalates, Syria might get themselves into it after all. But that wouldn't be because we attacked them. It'd be because they chose to militarily side with Iraq. Which would be monumental stupidity on their part.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You're either with us, or you're against us. If there are known terrorists in Canada, and they do nothing about it, don't cry if you find SOS members entered your country and dealt with the problem for you.
:D never never land my dreaming friend.....
btw....in the post that now is locked.....i was bein sarcastic myself....:D
guess ya missed that 1....:p
hmm ye not very perceptive are we.....;)
-
Originally posted by SLO
:D never never land my dreaming friend.....
btw....in the post that now is locked.....i was bein sarcastic myself....:D
guess ya missed that 1....:p
hmm ye not very perceptive are we.....;)
I'm very perceptive, I just have trouble with horrible english.
-
Originally posted by Charon
[edit: BTW, I agree completely Toad -- business as usual in Washington. Charon
So why would anyone lose sleep over Kristol? Any mature American voter knows there are guys like him all over DC, pushing their own agendas and undermining the agendas of their competitors. Any mature American voter knows big money draws special interests like sh*t draws flies.
As I said, it's up to US to monitor that process and intervene through the ballot box, letters to our reps and supporting groups that support our own particular special interests. That's how the system is supposed to work, right?
-
Nope, they'd still lose. Casualties would soar on both sides, to huge unprecedented levels. Would insure an isolationist USA in the aftermath for certain.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I'm very perceptive, I just have trouble with horrible english.
wanna teach me some of your english please....
oh wait....maybe I gotta stick a banana up my bellybutton to be uptight just like you.....then I'll be able to type good english as opposed to...hmm hmm horrible :D
hmmm think my english is improving...don't ya think.:p
-
I'd say PNAC signatories: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, and I. Lewis Libby exercise consderably more influence in the present administration (of which they are all members), than the typical "special interest group".
-
Naw Bill Kristol is the one to listen too.. he lets the truth slip out every once in awhile. He was on one of the Sunday talk shows last week he said something like "if we let the American people know the agenda of the PNAC, we'd get accused of empire building".. heh.. yeah I guess so.
But what's wrong with it?.. Lets say for example this is their plan.. just for argument sake.. Take a ruler and draw a line stright across from Syra to Afganastain.. He who controls the spiget controls the spice.. the power.. Imagine this: a million man army across the middle east.. any trouble spots are dealt with within minutes.. We deal in dollars.. the entire world would have to switch over to a doller ecomony. What's wrong with that?.. If this pans out your George Bush fella could be the greatest president ever.. It would indeed be the new American century.
What my problem is is they didn't package the truth of their agenda... they are attacking under false pretextes. If they had sugar coated the PNAC plan a little better, more Americans would have gone for it. Not the world.. they see this as a direct threat to them. Not the Arabs.. not the billion Muslums in the world.. Not the billion Chinese, not the 2,400 Russion nukes pointed our way.. Not the international lenders that raise or lower the value of the dollar.. but other than that it's a great plan.
No I don't want to double down on our bet Toad.. 45$ is enough. This might take a little longer than we thought.. come May and June this thing might not be over.. I don't know what they're going to do during the summer months.. fight on I guess.
A comment I heard the other day I thought was interesting.. The Iraqi people are not willing to fight for Saddam.. they hate him But they are willing to fight for IRAQ... And ya know.. no matter how much I dislike President Bush, some Chinese mofo's start climbing up Hapuna beach.. boy howdy.. I'd be down there with the rest of the rednecks with my 30/30..
-
I'd say it's pretty difficult to dismiss the PNAC as yer typical Washington big money special interest group. Many of those guys are *in* the administration. Like popeye said, the blueprint for the Iraq invasion was drawn up well before OBL and 9/11 by guys like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz... who've since become the Vice President, Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense.
And voila! There's now war in Iraq.
When Chief of Staff Andrew Card said (in talking about selling the Iraq war to the American public) "From an advertising point of view, you don't launch a new product line until after Labor Day"... I don't know why people would be so skeptical about the idea there was indeed a lot of selling going on. (Read that as reasons given for invading... not all of them impure, mind you.) You had Rumsfeld urging that 9/11 must be exploited to compell the public to buy into the Iraq invasion - on the very day that the WTC and Pentagon were hit.
This isn't tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff. It's all a matter of record.
It's a pretty interesting set of circumstances that brought us this new Gulf War, and I'm sure it's going to get even more interesting later as more becomes known about it...
-
Originally posted by SLO
wanna teach me some of your english please....
oh wait....maybe I gotta stick a banana up my bellybutton to be uptight just like you.....then I'll be able to type good english as opposed to...hmm hmm horrible :D
hmmm think my english is improving...don't ya think.:p
[edited for violation of forum rules]
-
From the PNAC report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses", dated September 2000:
"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Suddam Hussein."
Signed by members of the current administration: Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen, I. Lewis Libby, Stephen Cambone, Devon Gaffney Cross, and Dov Zakheim (among others).
-
EDIT: Original quote deleted.
Alert! Basic decency alert! Alert!
:D
-
That was uncalled for Martlet. Make it right please.
And Sandman, the check is in the mail.
-
I don't understand.
-
You been doing that a lot today. Maybe too far a stretch,..I'll rethink it.
-
W00t Sandman has joined me on the wanna-be assistant moderator payroll!
-
LOL! Ok,..so the stretch was not that far after all.
Your slowin down Sandman. :D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
That was uncalled for Martlet. Make it right please.
i fixed it, but I will remind you that it was a quote of his words, not mine. I don't see how it was any less right than his post.
-
Thanks Funked... I get it now...
Geez...
-
look, everybody just needs to calm down and put away their bananas before someone gets hurt.
-
peace
-
Syria is walking a fine line already.. I'm hoping they do get involved militarily and the "powder keg" blows... I'd like to see us deal with all of them while we are over there. Heck, other NATO countries that didn't get involved would miss out on splitting the spoils. We need another world war to get rid of a basket full of bad guys... might as well be now.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
No I don't want to double down on our bet Toad.. 45$ is enough.
Yep, if I had your side of the bet, I wouldn't double down either. Because it's becoming increasingly clear they HAVE WMD and probably are going to use them. Hard to explain the chem suits otherwise. Not too mention the latest intercepts to the RG units.
But I figured your
We most certainly better find them eh Toad?
might have indicated your willingness to contribute some more money to Wep's AH fund.
You know what Barnum said. Had to check. ;)
-
Hallo bash :)
I don't read that posts in here. Try it anyways.
Reasons changed on US government side from day to day.
1.UN resolutions have been broken by Saddam.
2.Iraq supports internatinal terrorist groups and especially Bin Laden
3.Regime change/the poor iraq people, we want to help them.
4. Saddam uses WMDs on his own people and is a thread to the entire world.
(5).Oil
6. hidden
Nr. 1 is true, in my eyes, as he tried to fool UN inspectors between 1991 and late 90thies.
Nr.2 is a lie. There's absolutely no proof about it. Bin Laden hates saddam as he is no religious guy.
Nr.3 Us government all of a sudden explores a love for Iraq people. Hmmm? They supported Saddam for long years when he was as bad as he's now. They feel happy with him. Strange.
Nr.4 That's right. He has used WMds on his own people in 1988,killing at least 5000kurds and he has used WMDs before in his Aggresson-war against Iran with the help of US between 1080-1988 and killed 125 000 Iranian people. Did Us government had any problems about Saddam used WMDs then? Absolutely not. They supported him. Why? Because he was a friend of US, that times. US sold WMDs to him at that time. (Saddam , please give it back ! )
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2002/1231rumsfeld.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/saddam/2002/1230buildup.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2002/0828gas.htm
Nr.5 Is this war about oil? It is, not as the only reason but as a big one. If Us gains controll about all oil fields in the middle-east thats a biiiiiiiiiig plus.
6. Paul Wolfowitz are da man. Cold war gone, Russia dead, he sees the possibility for US to rule the world.
No military power equal with US, you realy can reach it.
Use the media, use politcs, use UN, yet if it doesn't work, use military power.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Quite right Martlet. SLO,..fix it please.
-
Blitz, just as one example of how ill informed you are, "Chemical Ali", Saddam's Kurd Executioner put the total of dead Kurds at 100,000. The Kurds themselves put the estimate at 180,000.
Not quite "5000" then is it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Blitz, just as one example of how ill informed you are, "Chemical Ali", Saddam's Kurd Executioner put the total of dead Kurds at 100,000. The Kurds themselves put the estimate at 180,000.
Not quite "5000" then is it?
And all with the support of your government, damn.
THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1990 19
Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 -- On July 25,President Saddam Hussein of Iraq summoned the United States Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, to his office in the last high-level contact between the two Governments before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2. Here are excerpts from a document described by Iraqi Government officials as a transcript of the meeting, which also included the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz. A copy was provided to The New York Times by ABC News, which translated from the Arabic. The State Department has declined to comment on its accuracy.
SADDAM HUSSEIN: I have summoned you today to hold comprehensive political discussions with you. This is a message to President Bush. You know that we did not have relations with the U.S. until 1984 and you know the circumstances and reasons which caused them to be severed. The decision to establish relations with the U.S. were taken in 1980 during the two months prior to the war between us and Iran.
When the war started, and to avoid misinterpretation, we postponed the establishment of relations hoping that the war would end soon.
But because the war lasted for a long time, and to emphasize the fact that we are a non-aligned country, it was important to re-establish relations with the U.S. And we choose to do this in 1984.
It is natural to say that the U.S. is not like Britain, for example, with the latter's historic relations with Middle Eastern countries, including Iraq. In addition, there were no relations between Iraq and the U.S. between 1967 and 1984. One can conclude it would be difficult for the U.S. to have a full understanding of many matters in Iraq. When relations were re-established we hoped for a better understanding and for better cooperation because we too do not understand the background of many American decisions. We dealt with each other during the war and we had dealings on various levels. The most important of those levels were with the foreign ministers.
U.S.-Iraq Rifts
We had hoped for a better common understanding and a better chance of cooperation to benefit both our peoples and the rest of the Arab nations.
But these better relations have suffered from various rifts. The worst of these was in 1986, only two years after establishing relations, with what was known as Irangate, which happened during the year that Iran occupied the Fao peninsula.
It was natural then to say that old relations and complexity of interests could absorb many mistakes. But when interests are limited and relations are not that old, then there isn't a deep understanding and mistakes could have a negative effect. Sometimes the effect of an error can be larger than the error itself.
Despite all of that, we accepted the apology, via his envoy, of the American President regarding Irangate, and we wiped the slate clean. And we shouldn't unearth the past except when new events remind us that old mistakes were not just a matter of coincidence.
Our suspicions increased after we liberated the Fao peninsula. The media began to involve itself in our politics. And our suspicions began to surface anew, because we began to question whether the U.S. felt uneasy with the outcome of the war when we liberated our land.
It was clear to us that certain parties in the United States -- and I don't say the President himself -- but certain parties who had links with the intelligence community and with the State Department -- and I don't say the Secretary of State himself -- I say that these parties did not like the fact that we liberated our land. Some parties began to prepare studies entitles: "Who will succeed Saddam Hussein?" They began to contact gulf states to make them fear Iraq, to persuade them not to give Iraq economic aid. And we have evidence of these activities.
Iraqi Policy on Oil
Iraq came out of the war burdened with $40 billion debts, excluding the aid given by Arab states, some of whom consider that too to be a debt although they knew -- and you knew too -- that without Iraq they would not have had these sums and the future of the region would have been entirely different.
We began to face the policy of the drop in the price of oil. Then we saw the United States, which always talks of democracy but which has no time for the other point of view. Then the media campaign against Saddam Hussein was started by the official American media. The United States thought that the situation in Iraq was like Poland, Romania or Czechoslovakia. We were disturbed by this campaign but we were not disturbed too much because we had hoped that, in a few months, those who are decision makers in America would have a chance to find the facts and see whether this media campaign had had any effect on the lives of Iraqis. We had hoped that soon the American authorities would make the correct decision regarding their relations with Iraq. Those with good relations can sometimes afford to disagree.
Regards Blitz
-
PNAC was established in the spring of 1997.
Had Gore been able to carry Tennessee or whatever he needed to actually get enough electoral votes to win, they'd still be just another special interest group.
Bush won, so they have exceptional access in this administration. Some PNAC members made it into hs administration. What's your point? That PNAC members should be banned from administration jobs? That all special interest group members should be banned from any administration's jobs?
Remember Presidential Cabinet Members are vetted by Congress too.
And they can draw up all the plans they like. Congress still has the reins on US military activity.
YOU GUYS KEEP FORGETTING: IN OCTOBER OF 2002 BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS APPROVED THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ.
BOTH HOUSES, BY SOLID MAJORITIES
And Nash, we've both agreed they are toast, PNAC or not, if they don't find irrefutable evidence of Iraqi WMD.
If they do, they're justified, PNAC not withstanding.
If they don't, I'll be calling for their heads louder than you. ;)
-
Part 2
But when planned and deliberate policy forces the price of oil down without good commercial reasons, then that means another war against Iraq. Because military war kills people by bleeding them, and economic war kills their humanity by depriving them of their chance to have a good standard of living. As you know, we gave rivers of blood in a war that lasted eight years, but we did not lose our humanity. Iraqis have a right to live proudly. We do not accept that anyone could injure Iraqi pride or the Iraqi right to have high standards of living.
Kuwait and the U.A.E. were at the front of this policy aimed at lowering Iraq's position and depriving its people of higher economic standards. And you know that our relations with the Emirates and Kuwait had been good. On top of all that, while we were busy at war, the state of Kuwait began to expand at the expense of our territory.
You may say this is propaganda, but I would direct you to one document, the Military Patrol Line, which is the borderline endorsed by the Arab League in 1961 for military patrols not to cross the Iraq-Kuwait border.
But go and look for yourselves. You will see the Kuwaiti border patrols, the Kuwaiti farms, the Kuwaiti oil installations -- all built as closely as possible to this line to establish that land as Kuwaiti territory.
Conflicting Interests
Since then, the Kuwaiti Government has been stable while the Iraqi Government has undergone many changes. Even after 1968 and for 10 years afterwards, we were too busy with our own problems. First in the north then the 1973 war, and other problems. Then came the war with Iran which started 10 years ago.
We believe that the United States must understand that people who live in luxury and economic security can each an understanding with the United States on what are legitimate joint interests. But the starved and the economically deprived cannot reach the same understanding.
We do not accept threats from anyone because we do not threaten anyone. But we say clearly that we hope that the U.S. will not entertain too many illusions and will seek new friends rather than increase the number of its enemies.
I have read the American statements speaking of friends in the area. Of course, it is the right of everyone to choose their friends. We can have no objections. But you know you are not the ones who protected your friends during the war with Iran. I assure you, had the Iranians overrun the region, the American troops would not have stopped them, except by the use of nuclear weapons.
I do not belittle you. But I hold this view by looking at the geography and nature of American society into account. Yours is a society which cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle.
You know that Iran agreed to the cease-fire not because the United States had bombed one of the oil platforms after the liberation of the Fao. Is this Iraq's reward for its role in securing the stability of the region and for protecting it from an unknown flood?
Protecting the Oil Flow
So what can it mean when America says it will now protect its friends? It can only mean prejudice against Iraq. This stance plus maneuvers and statements which have been made has encouraged the U.A.E. and Kuwait to disregard Iraqi rights.
I say to you clearly that Iraq's rights, which are mentioned in the memorandum, we will take one by one. That might not happen now or after a month or after one year, but we will take it all. We are not the kind of people who will relinquish their rights. There is no historic right, or legitimacy, or need, for the U.A.E. and Kuwait to deprive us of our rights. If they are needy, we too are needy.
The United States must have a better understanding of the situation and declare who it wants to have relations with and who its enemies are. But it should not make enemies simply because others have different points of view regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict.
We clearly understand America's statement that it wants an easy flow of oil. We understanding American staying that it seeks friendship with the states in the region, and to encourage their joint interests. But we cannot understand the attempt to encourage some parties to hard Iraq's interests.
The United States wants to secure the flow of oil. This understandable and known. But it must not deploy methods which the United States says it disapproves of -- flexing muscles and pressure.
If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you.
War and Friendship
You can come to Iraq with aircraft and missiles but do not push us to the point where we cease to care. And when we feel that you want to injure our pride and take away the Iraqis' chance of a high standard of living, then we will cease to care and death will be the choice for us. Then we would not care if you fired 100missiles for each missile we fired. Because without pride life would have no value.
It is not reasonable to ask our people to bleed rivers of blood for eight years then to tell them, "Now you have to accept aggression from Kuwait, the U.A.E., or from the U.S. or from Israel."
We do not put all these countries in the same boat. First, we are hurt and upset that such disagreement is taking place between us and Kuwait and the U.A.E. The solution must be found within an Arab framework and through direct bilateral relations. We do not place America among the enemies. We pace it where we want our friends to be and we try to be friends. But repeated American statements last year make it apparent that America did not regard us as friends. Well the Americans are free.
When we seek friendship we want pride, liberty and our right to choose.
We want to deal according to our status as we deal with the others according to their statuses.
We consider the others' interests while we look after our own. And we expect the others to consider our interests while they are dealing with their own. What does it mean when the Zionist war minister is summoned to the United States now? What do they mean, these fiery statements coming out of Israel during the past few days and the talk of war being expected now more than at any other time?
* * *
I do not believe that anyone would lose by making friends with Iraq. In my opinion, the American President has not made mistakes regarding the Arabs, although his decision to freeze dialogue with the P.L.O. was wrong. But it appears that this decision was made to appease the Zionist lobby or as a piece of strategy to cool the Zionist anger, before trying again. I hope that our latter conclusion is the correct one. But we will carry on saying it was the wrong decision.
You are appeasing the usurper in so many ways -- economically, politically and militarily as well as in the media. When will the time come when, for every three appeasements to the usurper, you praise the Arabs just once?
APRIL GLASPIE: I thank you, Mr. President, and it is a great pleasure for a diplomat to meet and talk directly with the President. I clearly understand your message. We studied history at school That taught us to say freedom or death. I think you know well that we as a people have our experience with the colonialists.
Mr. President, you mentioned many things during this meeting which I cannot comment on on behalf of my Government. But with your permission, I will comment on two points. You spoke of friendship and I believe it was clear from the letters sent by our President to you on the occasion of your National Day that he emphasizes --
HUSSEIN: He was kind and his expressions met with our regard and respect.
Directive on Relations
GLASPIE: As you know, he directed the United States Administration to reject the suggestion of implementing trade sanctions.
HUSSEIN: There is nothing left for us to buy from America. Only wheat. Because every time we want to buy something, they say it is forbidden. I am afraid that one day you will say, "You are going to make gunpowder out of wheat."
Regards Blitz
-
Part 3
GLASPIE: I have a direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq.
HUSSEIN: But how? We too have this desire. But matters are running contrary to this desire.
GLASPIE: This is less likely to happen the more we talk. For example, you mentioned the issue of the article published by the American Information Agency and that was sad. And a formal apology was presented.
HUSSEIN: Your stance is generous. We are Arabs. It is enough for us that someone says, "I am sorry. I made a mistake." Then we carry on. But the media campaign continued. And it is full of stories. If the stories were true, no one would get upset. But we understand from its continuation that there is a determination.
GLASPIE: I saw the Diane Sawyer program on ABC. And what happened in that program was cheap and unjust. And this is a real picture of what happens in the American media -- even to American politicians themselves. These are the methods the Western media employs. I am pleased that you add your voice to the diplomats who stand up to the media. Because your appearance in the media, even for five minutes, would help us to make the American people understand Iraq. This would increase mutual understanding. If they American President had control of the media, his job would be much easier.
Mr. President, not only do I want to say that President Bush wanted better and deeper relations with Iraq, but he also wants an Iraqi contribution to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. President Bush is an intelligent man. He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.
You are right. It is true what you say that we do not want higher prices for oil. But I would ask you to examine the possibility of not charging too high a price for oil.
HUSSEIN: We do not want too high prices for oil. And I remind you that in 1974 I gave Tariq Aziz the idea for an article he wrote which criticized the policy of keeping oil prices high. It was the first Arab article which expressed this view.
Shifting Price of Oil
TARIQ AZIZ: Our policy in OPEC opposes sudden jumps in oil prices.
HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.
GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.
HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.
GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?
My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.
Regards Blitz
-
Originally posted by blitz
And all with the support of your government, damn.
That's nothing, Pal. We supported Stalin too.
But we also eventually fixed that problem.
-
Part 4
I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.
HUSSEIN: We do not ask people not to be concerned when peace is at issue. This is a noble human feeling which we all feel. It is natural for you as a superpower to be concerned. But what we ask is not to express your concern in a way that would make an aggressor believe that he is getting support for his aggression.
We want to find a just solution which will give us our rights but not deprive others of their rights. But at the same time, we want the others to know that our patience is running out regarding their action, which is harming even the milk our children drink, and the pensions of the widow who lost her husband during the war, and the pensions of the orphans who lost their parents.
As a country, we have the right to prosper. We lost so many opportunities, and the others should value the Iraqi role in their protection. Even this Iraqi [the President points to their interpreter] feels bitter like all other Iraqis. We are not aggressors but we do not accept aggression either. We sent them envoys and handwritten letters. We tried everything. We asked the Servant of the Two Shrines -- King Fahd -- to hold a four-member summit, but he suggested a meeting between the Oil Ministers. We agreed. And as you know, the meeting took place in Jidda. They reached an agreement which did not express what we wanted, but we agreed.
Only two days after the meeting, the Kuwaiti Oil Minister made a statement that contradicted the agreement. We also discussed the issue during the Baghdad summit. I told the Arab Kings and Presidents that some brothers are fighting an economic war against us. And that not all wars use weapons and we regard this kind of war as a military action against us. Because if the capability of our army is lowered then, if Iran renewed the war, it could achieve goals which it could not achieve before. And if we lowered the standard of our defenses, then this could encourage Israel to attack us. I said that before the Arab Kings and Presidents. Only I did not mention Kuwait and U.A.E. by name, because they were my guests.
Before this, I had sent them envoys reminding them that our war had included their defense. Therefore the aid they gave us should not be regarded as a debt. We did not more than the United States would have done against someone who attacked its interests.
I talked about the same thing with a number of other Arab states. I explained the situation t brother King Fahd a few times, by sending envoys and on the telephone. I talked with brother King Hussein and with Sheik Zaid after the conclusion of the summit. I walked with the Sheik to the plane when he was leaving Mosul. He told me, "Just wait until I get home." But after he had reached his destination, the statements that came from there were very bad -- not from him, but from his Minister of Oil.
And after the Jidda agreement, we received some intelligence that they were talking of sticking to the agreement for two months only. Then they would change their policy. Now tell us, if the American President found himself in this situation, what would he do? I said it was very difficult for me to talk about these issues in public. But we must tell the Iraqi people who face economic difficulties who was responsible for that.
Talks with Mubarak
GLASPIE: I spent four beautiful years in Egypt.
HUSSEIN: The Egyptian people are kind and good and ancient. The oil people are supposed to help the Egyptian people, but they are mean beyond belief. It is painful to admit it, but some of them are disliked by Arabs because of their greed.
GLASPIE: Mr. President, it would be helpful if you could give us an assessment of the effort made by your Arab brothers and whether they have achieved anything.
HUSSEIN: On this subject, we agreed with President Mubarak that the Prime Minister of Kuwait would meet with the deputy chairman of the Revolution Command Council in Saudi Arabia, because the Saudis initiated contact with us, aided by President Mubarak's efforts. He just telephoned me a short while ago to say the Kuwaitis have agreed to that suggestion.
GLASPIE: Congratulations.
HUSSEIN: A protocol meeting will be held in Saudi Arabia. Then the meeting will be transferred to Baghdad for deeper discussion directly between Kuwait and Iraq. We hope we will reach some result. We hope that the long-term view and the real interests will overcome Kuwaiti greed.
GLASPIE: May I ask you when you expect Sheik Saad to come to Baghdad?
HUSSEIN: I suppose it would be on Saturday or Monday at the latest. I told brother Mubarak that the agreement should be in Baghdad Saturday or Sunday. You know that brother Mubarak's visits have always been a good omen.
GLASPIE: This is good news. Congratulations.
HUSSEIN: Brother President Mubarak told me they were scared. They said troops were only 20 kilometers north of the Arab League line. I said to him that regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them. When we meet and when we see that there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death, even though wisdom is above everything else. There you have good news.
AZIZ: This is a journalistic exclusive.
GLASPIE: I am planning to go to the United States next Monday. I hope I will meet with President Bush in Washington next week. I thought to postpone my trip because of the difficulties we are facing. But now I will fly on Monday.
Regards Blitz
Bush & Co are "The Bunch of Liars "
-
And it doesn't change the fact that you continually express more sympathy for a regime that shreds humans in machines, cuts out tongues for speaking against the government, tortures children in front of their parents and machine guns its own civilians as they flee the battle zone to the coalition that is there to free them from those people.
Sorry, but to me that says an awful lot about you.
-
Originally posted by Toad
That's nothing, Pal. We supported Stalin too.
But we also eventually fixed that problem.
Yah , thats it. Your government supports all, if it fits the day.
And later they come back yelling about humanity, that's disgusting :(
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Originally posted by Toad
And it doesn't change the fact that you continually express more sympathy for a regime that shreds humans in machines, cuts out tongues for speaking against the government, tortures children in front of their parents and machine guns its own civilians as they flee the battle zone to the coalition that is there to free them from those people.
Sorry, but to me that says an awful lot about you.
I have absolutely No sympathy for Saddam Hussein, jfyi.
Same goes for your government at the moment.
'Blitz, did ya just say : Saddam & Bush are the same?'
NO, dweeb!
Regards Blitz
Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Originally posted by blitz
Yah , thats it. Your government supports all, if it fits the day.
And later ya come back yelling about humanity, that's disgusting :(
Yes, it most certainly fit THAT day, didn't it?
And we were yelling about humanity afterwards. At Nuremberg.
I have no problem that we supported Stalin at that time. It was CLEARLY the lesser of two evils.
But I see you have problem with it. :D
-
Originally posted by blitz
I have absolutely No sympathy for Saddam Hussein, jfyi.
Nor apparently do you have any sympathy for the people who suffer under his murderous rule right now.
And that, Blitz, is the bottom line, isn't it?
One person is in violation of 12 years of UN resolutions to disarm/discard his weapons of mass destruction.
This after he invaded Kuwait and practised his slaughter there.
On top of that, he is clearly a murderous dictator that visits slaughter on his own populace.
Then there's Bush. The guy that has said he WILL enforce the 12 year old UN sanctions and, in the process, remove this dictator from his throne of oppression.
In all your posts, you've made it more than clear that you find Bush to be the "more evil" of the two.
As I've said before, it seems that in our "modern" world many folks have lost the ability to distinguish the difference between good and evil. I belive, in the long run THIS is what will eventually destroy our world civilization.
The evidence is now right here in this thread too.
:D
-
Originally posted by blitz
And all with the support of your government, damn.
You bastard.
-
As we ourselves are designed to come to an end, so is the planet, the sun, the cosmos.
Eventually everything will end. No point in moving any faster than is specified in the design drawings.
Having said that, if you can distinguish bewteen a good life and a bad life, and you have the ability to decide for yourself which one you wish to pursue, shouldnt you at least try to preserve that ability, with violance if neccessary from those who would prefer to make that decision for you?
-
Chastise? No, I think not.
It's all merely history. I do find it..... something, I'm not sure of the exact word... that one with his roots finds it so easy to ignore a dictator flaunting his violation of a treaty, pursuing and hiding WMD while slaughtering a part of his own population for both ethnic and religious reasons.
In truth, it puzzles me.
-
Guess what that makes you?
go ahead. say it.
i double dog dare yah.
:D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Heh X2Lee, it's kind of funny how you all chastise poor old Blitz for actions taken by his country before he was even born. Yet when he does the same (albeit not before you were born), he's a bastard. Guess what that makes you?
I calll it like I see it.
guess that makes me a SOB.
I am subject to twist his nose off if I meet him in person.
I guess it would be OK if I had a sig line that read
" there were no
extermination camps in Germany its just redickulus"
same thing as his IMO
???????
I didnt say his grandpa was a nazi once.
Saying Americans were tied to the gassing of over 100,000
kurds and using iraqi documents to prove it makes him
worthy of the phrase IMO.
Plus he has already made fun of American POWS on this MB
I stick by my statement.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nor apparently do you have any sympathy for the people who suffer under his murderous rule right now.
And that, Blitz, is the bottom line, isn't it?
One person is in violation of 12 years of UN resolutions to disarm/discard his weapons of mass destruction.
This after he invaded Kuwait and practised his slaughter there.
On top of that, he is clearly a murderous dictator that visits slaughter on his own populace.
Then there's Bush. The guy that has said he WILL enforce the 12 year old UN sanctions and, in the process, remove this dictator from his throne of oppression.
In all your posts, you've made it more than clear that you find Bush to be the "more evil" of the two.
As I've said before, it seems that in our "modern" world many folks have lost the ability to distinguish the difference between good and evil. I belive, in the long run THIS is what will eventually destroy our world civilization.
The evidence is now right here in this thread too.
:D
I see how these people love you . Basra.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yes, it most certainly fit THAT day, didn't it?
And we were yelling about humanity afterwards. At Nuremberg.
I have no problem that we supported Stalin at that time. It was CLEARLY the lesser of two evils.
But I see you have problem with it. :D
We talkin about Saddam + Us support, not about WW2.
Like it or not.: Your government supported evil Saddam even with WMDs as it fits you.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
You bastard.
Thx :)
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Blitz is just one more anti american whiner that hops on any anti american bandwagon that comes by him. End of story. Deny it or discuss it all you want, it doesn't keep it from being the truth.
As a result, I laugh at almost everything that comes out of his mouth. Even if he happens to use a fact as opposed to his usual fiction, it is still humorous due to his positioning.
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
I calll it like I see it.
guess that makes me a SOB.
I am subject to twist his nose off if I meet him in person.
I guess it would be OK if I had a sig line that read
" there were no
extermination camps in Germany its just redickulus"
same thing as his IMO
???????
I didnt say his grandpa was a nazi once.
Saying Americans were tied to the gassing of over 100,000
kurds and using iraqi documents to prove it makes him
worthy of the phrase IMO.
Plus he has already made fun of American POWS on this MB
I stick by my statement.
Just try to read a book sometimes, it's hard but it's well worth the effort.
Movies not enough :)
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Blitz is just one more anti american whiner that hops on any anti american bandwagon that comes by him. End of story. Deny it or discuss it all you want, it doesn't keep it from being the truth.
As a result, I laugh at almost everything that comes out of his mouth. Even if he happens to use a fact as opposed to his usual fiction, it is still humorous due to his positioning.
At least you could smile
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Lets talk facts NOW:
1. Iraq is run by a brutal dictator
2. Iraq has waged war on its neighbours
3. The population of Iraq is roughly 20 Million
4. There are 4 Million Iraqi's living in exile for fear of their lives
5. Iraqs govt has waged war on minorities in Iraq which has included the use of chemical weapons
6. Iraq repeatedly violated UN resolutions it agreed too
7. Iraq was made efforts to hide its illegal weapons programs
8. A popular uprising of south Iraqi's was brutally put down by the Republican Guard
9. the Ansar Al-Islam terrorist orginisations operations in Kurd Iraq and openly wages war with the Kurds to Saddams benefit
10. Ansar Al Islam is tied to Al Qaeda
11. Ansar Al Islam and Al Qaeda operatives are allowed to travel freely through central Iraq to Kurd Iraq
12. Kurdistan claims the Iraqi military supply Ansar Al Islam with weapons and explosives
13. Saddam Hussein pays families of 'martyred' Palestian suicide bombers US$25000.
14. The UN stopped lifted all but the weapons sanctions in 2002, Iraq has had nothing stopping mainstream food and medical supplies coming in.
15. Iraq has sold food supplied by the UN and received in the food for oil program on to other countries at the expense of its people.
16. Saddam Hussein has built 100 new palaces since the last war including some of the most luxurious palaces every seen in the world.
17. Iraq's illegal oil export program is estimated at US$2billion per year
18. The Iraqi's govt blames to food shortage on the UN
19. Iraqs openly celebrated the WTC attack
Now, these are all well known facts. Well documented too.
Too me, taking out Saddam is not just about one war, its sending a signal that these terrorist nations cannot continue to exist in todays world. It'll make other nations think twice about supporting attacks, through whatever means, like 9/11.
-
Originally posted by blitz
I see how these people love you . Basra.
I don't think the people of Paris took to the streets waving US flags on D-Day +10 either. Paris wasn't liberated until August 25th, IIRC.
You won't know how they truly feel until they can speak and act without fear of the Fedayeen Saddam standing behind them in civilian clothes with a pistol pressed to their spine.
Time will tell.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Lets talk facts NOW:
1. Iraq is run by a brutal dictator
2. Iraq has waged war on its neighbours
3. The population of Iraq is roughly 20 Million
4. There are 4 Million Iraqi's living in exile for fear of their lives
5. Iraqs govt has waged war on minorities in Iraq which has included the use of chemical weapons
6. Iraq repeatedly violated UN resolutions it agreed too
7. Iraq was made efforts to hide its illegal weapons programs
8. A popular uprising of south Iraqi's was brutally put down by the Republican Guard
9. the Ansar Al-Islam terrorist orginisations operations in Kurd Iraq and openly wages war with the Kurds to Saddams benefit
10. Ansar Al Islam is tied to Al Qaeda
11. Ansar Al Islam and Al Qaeda operatives are allowed to travel freely through central Iraq to Kurd Iraq
12. Kurdistan claims the Iraqi military supply Ansar Al Islam with weapons and explosives
13. Saddam Hussein pays families of 'martyred' Palestian suicide bombers US$25000.
14. The UN stopped lifted all but the weapons sanctions in 2002, Iraq has had nothing stopping mainstream food and medical supplies coming in.
15. Iraq has sold food supplied by the UN and received in the food for oil program on to other countries at the expense of its people.
16. Saddam Hussein has built 100 new palaces since the last war including some of the most luxurious palaces every seen in the world.
17. Iraq's illegal oil export program is estimated at US$2billion per year
18. The Iraqi's govt blames to food shortage on the UN
19. Iraqs openly celebrated the WTC attack
Now, these are all well known facts. Well documented too.
Too me, taking out Saddam is not just about one war, its sending a signal that these terrorist nations cannot continue to exist in todays world. It'll make other nations think twice about supporting attacks, through whatever means, like 9/11.
Only read the last , Nr, 19
If i recall right 15 of the hijackers were from your bigtime friend Saudi Arabia, remaininig three was from LIBERATED Kuwait.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Originally posted by blitz
We talkin about Saddam + Us support, not about WW2.
Like it or not.: Your government supported evil Saddam even with WMDs as it fits you.
You're a smart guy, so you must deliberately missing the point. Or ignoring it.
Times change. People you support change. Situations change. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the reasons he was supported.
Just like Stalin in WW2. We supported evil Stalin even with the most modern weapons of warfare, food, fuel and lots of other things. Because it WAS the right thing to do.
But you ignore that times, people and situations change right? It's all black and white for you... except that you can't distinguish between good and evil.
Well, except if it's the US. That's always evil, of course. :D
-
"What's your point?" - Toad
People are giving reasons for the invasion of Iraq, so it'd be a huge omission to leave out the role of these PNAC folks and the whole Pax Americana business.
I'm not saying that it's *wrong* for those guys to now be in the government, I'm just pointing out that they are indeed there. They were a special interest group who made recommendations - now they make policy. Policy which had nothing to do with 9/11 when it was drafted, and nothing to do with saving the poor Iraqi children now.
It's actually far broader in scope than even WMD, but I grant that WMD to the extent that it poses a threat to the US would be justification in and of itself.
To sum up... You can't examine the reasons why there's troops in Iraq while ignoring the policy and its authors that sent them there.
Yeah... If they don't find WMD they're screwed. How big of a setback that will be, and how costly the repercussions... I wonder. What I don't wonder about is the fantasy that the US/World populations will be saying "Oh well, the Iraqi people are free, I guess it all worked out in the end." The stakes are much too high.
-
Originally posted by blitz
Only read the last , Nr, 19
If i recall right 15 of the hijackers were from your bigtime friend Saudi Arabia, remaininig three was from LIBERATED Kuwait.
Regards Blitz
"Only read"? Hmmm, afraid of the trurth.
Sure, and Al Qaeda included members from the US, Australia, and the UK. What does that have to do with these facts?
Are you saying because the Al Qaeda terrorists were from these countries we should serve judgement based on these individuals? Or should be we judge these countries by their overall actions and politics?
By the way Blitz, your sig. My wife is Cambodian, she often wonders why the UN and US never came and stopped her sister and father being executed by the Khmer Rouge. I answer 'oh it was in to be anti-war', and the protestors managed to put the politicians off stopping such genocides.
So my sig to you...
Cambodia - 2.5 million killed what for? Anti-war protestors conscience?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I'm not saying that it's *wrong* for those guys to now be in the government, I'm just pointing out that they are indeed there. They were a special interest group who made recommendations - now they make policy. [/b]
Yeah, that's exactly the sort of thing that happens when "your side" wins an election. A lot of "special interest" groups get rewarded. Doesn't matter whether Reps or Dems win, it's always the same.
So they had a plan and now they're implementing it. How long has SH been in violation of UN/SC resolutions? Ah, longer than PNAC has been in existence.
You see where this leads. I'm sure they see 9/11 as merely confirming their assessment. Absolute proof they are right? You can see that I think?
Unassailable facts remain that have nothing to do with NPAC.
To wit:
There's no way this could have happened without SH ignoring UN/SC resolutions since '91.
There's no way this could have happened without Congress giving its blessing as it did in October 2002.
Now, if you want to show me how NPAC used its Jedi mind control tricks to finesse those two occurances... I'll listen.
-
Originally posted by blitz
I see how these people love you . Basra.
Regards Blitz
This statement will come back to haunt you, now the Iraqi military are firing on their on civilians. Effectly trying to keep them as hostages and human shields.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't think the people of Paris took to the streets waving US flags on D-Day +10 either. Paris wasn't liberated until August 25th, IIRC.
You won't know how they truly feel until they can speak and act without fear of the Fedayeen Saddam standing behind them in civilian clothes with a pistol pressed to their spine.
Time will tell.
The brave people of Paris fought for their freedom while mighty German troops were there and they had a great victory
Could it be Basra people don't trust u after you instigate a rebellion just after first Gulf War and led them all alone for Saddam 's republican guards to slaughter them?
What about " Schweinebucht"desaster in Cuba, you led them all alone too?
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Right you are Toad... Can't argue with anything you said.
At the same time it doesn't refute anything I said.
All of it... just is.
How very zen. :)
-
You're talking about a premature uprising against a withdrawing army that was primarily street fighting at the barricades. You'll note that the Iraqi Fedayeen aren't withdrawing. As yet.
I wouldn't be suprised if they don't trust us. I said at the time that it was a big mistake not to go all the way to Baghdad and remove him in '91. In fact, I think I'm on record as saying "we'll just have to go back later".
Bay of Pigs was unsupported. That is correct. We trained them, armed them, promised them air support and then Kennedy left them without air.
It was wrong. It is a source of shame.
Of course, it also the way revolutions are supposed to occur right? Has to succeed on it's own? Otherwise, the big bully is interfereing, right?
That's what you'd say if we had taken Castro down. That's what you'd say if we had helped the Kurds and Shiites in '91.
You see, that's your position. If the US does it, it's wrong.
If we supported the Kurds in '91, that would have been the "big bully" interfering. If we did not support them, that would be wrong for leaving them alone.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You're talking about a premature uprising against a withdrawing army that was primarily street fighting at the barricades. You'll note that the Iraqi Fedayeen aren't withdrawing. As yet.
I wouldn't be suprised if they don't trust us. I said at the time that it was a big mistake not to go all the way to Baghdad and remove him in '91. In fact, I think I'm on record as saying "we'll just have to go back later".
Bay of Pigs was unsupported. That is correct. We trained them, armed them, promised them air support and then Kennedy left them without air.
It was wrong. It is a source of shame.
Of course, it also the way revolutions are supposed to occur right? Has to succeed on it's own? Otherwise, the big bully is interfereing, right?
That's what you'd say if we had taken Castro down. That's what you'd say if we had helped the Kurds and Shiites in '91.
You see, that's your position. If the US does it, it's wrong.
If we supported the Kurds in '91, that would have been the "big bully" interfering. If we did not support them, that would be wrong for leaving them alone.
It's the way US government uses people like trash to reach their goals . Ugly :(
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Originally posted by Toad
You're a smart guy, so you must deliberately missing the point. Or ignoring it.
Times change. People you support change. Situations change. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the reasons he was supported.
Just like Stalin in WW2. We supported evil Stalin even with the most modern weapons of warfare, food, fuel and lots of other things. Because it WAS the right thing to do.
But you ignore that times, people and situations change right? It's all black and white for you... except that you can't distinguish between good and evil.
Well, except if it's the US. That's always evil, of course. :D
We not talking of times that have gone by by 40 years. US goverment supported Saddam long time BEFORE he engages Iran, THE time he run his Angriffskrieg" with Iran ,using WMDs daily, nearly TO the day he invades Kuwait.
And ALL that years he slaughtered his people and your government had absolutely no problem with it! BECAUSE he was your friend.
US government shouldn't throw stones, it is sitting in the glashouse concerning Saddam Hussein !
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
This statement will come back to haunt you, now the Iraqi military are firing on their on civilians. Effectly trying to keep them as hostages and human shields.
US officials said there are 1000-2000 Saddam military in Basra.
How can they force 2 million schiit people in Basra to love Saddam with the Coalition forces knockin at their door?
They really hate Saddam but looks like patriotism factor kicks in now. Their country is invaded. Foreign Soldiers, 'Ungläubige', are next to their holy places at Kerbala and Nasaria.
Your goverment told the world Iraq people would see US as the liberaters, yet they do not.
US government will win that war but the political price is high :(
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
By people ... you mean military, right? It's a shame that the U.S. uses it's military. After all ... saber rattling is just as effective, right?
The government of the United States is comprised of representatives of the people. That includes senators, congressmen and the president himself. It exists for the people. It is elected by the people. There has never been a single administration that acted with intent directly against the will of the people of this nation. Administrations and representatives that lose the faith of the people do not get re-elected. If the people feel betrayed ... they can be impeached.
I know all of this must be foreign to you. ;)
Oh .... and your fixation on Vietnam in an ongoing attempt to correlate it to the current conflict in Iraq simply shows the ignorance within your agenda. We here are well aware of our losses there. We are well aware of the way the government handled the situation. Hell ... we were aware then.
And we are aware now. Only it isn't Vietnam. Millions haven't been killed and wounded. The goal is not only clear but attainable. And the world will be a better place for it. Think of it as a blitzkrieg to save instead of conquer. It may be hard for you to make that transition of thought. But try. ;)
Originally posted by blitz
It's the way US government uses people like trash to reach their goals . Ugly :(
-
Originally posted by Arlo
It may be hard for you to make that transition of thought. But try. ;)
I tried, didn't work :)
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Neh .... I don't buy that for a second. ;)
-
Originally posted by blitz
It's the way US government uses people like trash to reach their goals . Ugly :(
Regards Blitz
Do you think the U.S. government is the only one that looks after its own self-interest? Don't tell me you're that naive.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by akak
Do you think the U.S. government is the only one that looks after its own self-interest? Don't tell me you're that naive.
Ack-Ack
Sure, they're not the only ones to do so.
Does that make it any better?
Regards blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
It's the way Iraq government uses people like trash to reach their goals . Far, Far, Uglier.
But then you'll ignore that slaughter. Just as you say we did.
Ironic, eh? :D
-
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
You might ask a South Korean that, and why he wouldn't rather be living on the northern side. But you're right, it would be better if both sides of the DMZ were starving to death now instead of just one, because that would have saved all those lives in the 50s.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's the way Iraq government uses people like trash to reach their goals . Far, Far, Uglier.
But then you'll ignore that slaughter. Just as you say we did.
Ironic, eh? :D
That is not true Toad, i just come to different conclusions
Quote
"We not talking of times that have gone by by 40 years. US goverment supported Saddam long time BEFORE he engages Iran, THE time he run his Angriffskrieg" with Iran ,using WMDs daily, nearly TO the day he invades Kuwait.
And ALL that years he slaughtered his people and your government had absolutely no problem with it! BECAUSE he was your friend.
US government shouldn't throw stones, it is sitting in the glashouse concerning Saddam Hussein ! "
Regards Blitz
Quote
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
So we cant attack saddam husseing because at one point in the past he was our ally before betraying us?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So we cant attack saddam husseing because at one point in the past he was our ally before betraying us?
He wasn't betraying the american government, they know all about his daily use of WMDs on Iran and his slaugther of his own people. They just didn't care because he was a friend.
Bitter but true :(
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Blitz says:
Originally posted by blitz
He wasn't betraying the american government, they know all about his daily use of WMDs on Iran and his slaugther of his own people. They just didn't care because he was a friend.
Bitter but true :(
Regards Blitz
I hear:
Waaah wa wa wa waaaaaah
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Blitz says:
He wasn't betraying the american government, they know all about his daily use of WMDs on Iran and his slaugther of his own people. They just didn't care because he was a friend.
Bitter but true
Regards Blitz
I hear:
Waaah wa wa wa waaaaaah [/B]
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0117gas.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/saddam/2002/1230buildup.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2002/1231rumsfeld.htm
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Why we are at war is really very simple.
You see,in 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait.The UN then sent forces in to kick him out,which they did in short order.
Since he was a bad boy for doing this and couldn't be trusted to play with dangerous toys,sanctions were imposed.The no-fly zone,no wmd,no missiles that can travel farther than 150km,weapon inspectors,etc.Sanctions he has repeatedly violated(like the shell game he continually played with the inspectors).
Who are we to impose such sanctions?What right do we have to do so?That's also simple.
You see,the side that WINS the war gets to dictate terms to the side that lost.
The twelve years of repeated violations ALONE were enough justification.Add to that the rape camps,the torture camps,shooting at U.S. fighters enforcing the no fly zone,hundreds of thousands of people starving,many because the money from the Oil For Food Program was being was being diverted to the Iraqi military and Hussein's pockets,and last but not least his ties to terrorists groups.
He had his chance to play nice,and he blew it.
That's why we are at war.
-
Because we were his friend before we must never take action against him?
Is that it?
Or because we helped him slaughter his own people in the past, we must never take action against him?
Or because we helped create this problem we must never take action against him?
That's what you're saying?
-
Originally posted by Sox62
Why we are at war is really very simple.
You see,in 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait.The UN then sent forces in to kick him out,which they did in short order.
Since he was a bad boy for doing this and couldn't be trusted to play with dangerous toys,sanctions were imposed.The no-fly zone,no wmd,no missiles that can travel farther than 150km,weapon inspectors,etc.Sanctions he has repeatedly violated(like the shell game he continually played with the inspectors).
Who are we to impose such sanctions?What right do we have to do so?That's also simple.
You see,the side that WINS the war gets to dictate terms to the side that lost.
The twelve years of repeated violations ALONE were enough justification.Add to that the rape camps,the torture camps,shooting at U.S. fighters enforcing the no fly zone,hundreds of thousands of people starving,many because the money from the Oil For Food Program was being was being diverted to the Iraqi military and Hussein's pockets,and last but not least his ties to terrorists groups.
He had his chance to play nice,and he blew it.
That's why we are at war.
I see it's simple :)
Too bad, almost every people on this planet, overwelming number of countries at UN, The Pope, Buschs church itself, some of ya Nato partners and old friends seeing that total different :(
They are against this war!
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Because we were his friend before we must never take action against him?
Is that it?
Or because we helped him slaughter his own people in the past, we must never take action against him?
Or because we helped create this problem we must never take action against him?
That's what you're saying?
No. But the way Bush & CO talkin about morality and tryin to create a new Hitler outa Saddam Hussein is ridiculous.
Especially when they have people like good old Oil- err Rums-feld in their team, who helped creatin that problem , US wants to get rid of now.
USA goin to war with Iraq alone is awful :(
We don't need the World, we don't need UN, We don't need Nato, We care sH*t what others say or think .
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Originally posted by blitz
Too bad, almost every people on this plant,
Numbers Blitz, numbers!!!
Are we talking 2.6 billion people here? If not, you aren't even at half the world population.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Numbers Blitz, numbers!!!
Are we talking 2.6 billion people here? If not, you aren't even at half the world population.
-SW
Sorry, my friend, no numbers needed here, everyone knows that the current US government isolated your country politically in a sad way :(
You are standing all alone now, the huge coaltion against terrorism is history :(
It's a vicious circle: US government can't take the troops back now without lookin like a coward. The other way is a war which is allmost lost politically. Fantastic handling of politics, WTG Mr. Bush.
The tragedy: The only people who can help Bush now are muslim fanatics or Bin Ladens group itself...... It's sad :(
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
"everyone" is a lie.
As for terrorism, lets face it: Terrorism is a threat to everyone.
To stop fighting terrorism within your own borders invites the same terrorist attacks we saw within our borders, and in the Phillipines these past few years.
It's ignorant to stop fighting terrorism because the US went it alone in Iraq, you will be inviting terrorsts already within your own countries to freely attack wherever they choose. Within your own borders, or within your neighboring countries borders- it will happen if you stop fighting terrorism.
The war isn't lost, and in terms of politics- guess what? Chem/Bio weapons are found or used and Bush WINS politically. He hasn't lost politically yet, if no bio/chem weapons are used or found- THEN he loses.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
"everyone" is a lie.
As for terrorism, lets face it: Terrorism is a threat to everyone.
To stop fighting terrorism within your own borders invites the same terrorist attacks we saw within our borders, and in the Phillipines these past few years.
It's ignorant to stop fighting terrorism because the US went it alone in Iraq, you will be inviting terrorsts already within your own countries to freely attack wherever they choose. Within your own borders, or within your neighboring countries borders- it will happen if you stop fighting terrorism.
The war isn't lost, and in terms of politics- guess what? Chem/Bio weapons are found or used and Bush WINS politically. He hasn't lost politically yet, if no bio/chem weapons are used or found- THEN he loses.
-SW
Noone will stop the fight against terrorism. But it was a huge coalition behind US politics, now they distrust your government + are angry.
Finding WMDs will help but most likely not that much as US government sold some to him and always had knowlege when he used it against Iran and his own people but wasn't interested to blame him for that.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
Originally posted by blitz
but most likely not that much as US government sold some to him and always had knowlege when he used it against Iran and his own people but wasn't interested to blame him for that.
That is entirely left field.
Lets put it into perspective: Prior to 1991 Saddam was allowed to have WMD. Yup, we turned a blind eye to it. Guess what? So did EVERYONE else. There would of been resolutions and disarmements prior to 1991 if this wasn't true.
1991 he screws over the US (and thus loses our support) by invading Kuwait.
He is no longer our friend.
1991 to present day: Required to disarm WMDs (which he got from many countries, not just US)... he does not do it.
Future: We find WMDs or he uses them.
Whoops! Guess Bush was right.
Politically he wins.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
That is entirely left field.
Lets put it into perspective: Prior to 1991 Saddam was allowed to have WMD. Yup, we turned a blind eye to it. Guess what? So did EVERYONE else. There would of been resolutions and disarmements prior to 1991 if this wasn't true.
1991 he screws over the US (and thus loses our support) by invading Kuwait.
He is no longer our friend.
1991 to present day: Required to disarm WMDs (which he got from many countries, not just US)... he does not do it.
Future: We find WMDs or he uses them.
Whoops! Guess Bush was right.
Politically he wins.
-SW
He, he, you're da man :)
It's like sport, right? :D
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2002/0828gas.htm
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous, it's an "Angriffskrieg"
2 Million people was killed in Vietnam, 3 million injured. What for?
-
I wonder if we'll find the WMD first, or the german components used to extend the range on the scuds?
Blitz, be careful what you throw in a glasshouse.
-
Finding WMDs will help but most likely not that much as US government sold some to him and always had knowlege when he used it against Iran and his own people but wasn't interested to blame him for that.
We didn't sell him chemical weapons or biological weapons for that matter. What we DID sell to Iraq was DUAL-USE components. And we were not the only ones to do so.
http://www.e-thepeople.org/a-national/article/13686/view
There's a link to one article, there are many more. Here's a link to the search I did.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Chemical+Weapons%22+%22Iraq%22+%22USA%22
If we sold those components with the understanding that they would be used for whatever other purpose they have, then we did nothing wrong. Neither did anyone else who sold components.
Now, if we sold these components with the clear knowledge that they would be used to make weapons, then we must admit that and hang our heads in shame. Under this scenario we should be the ones who clean up a mess that was of our own making. (Along with any others who also knowingly helped with the mess)
IF certain American's helped equip Iraq with WMD's they should be arrested and tryed for crimes.
-
FYI Blitz:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/search/search_db.asp?sc=supplier&qu=German&sm=exact
Heres my view... the Germans are no less innocent then any other country (including the US), so stop pointing fingers at who sold him what and get cracking on getting him out of power.
Secondly, stop attacking the Bush administration and start cleaning up your politicians Blitz. When you're happy that your country is completely clean then you may start on the US.
-
Bash... lots of responses here... did anybody answer your question ?
-
Originally posted by chance-airwolf
Bash... lots of responses here... did anybody answer your question ?
I did.
-
Yes my question has been clearly answered. Thank You all for your input. Between all debates here, watching News abroad and in US. Looked and read up on all links posted here and research my own. I have came to conclusion whats all this war is about. Thank You all again for your input. Hehe i am not going to tell whats the reason why we at War :)
BASH
-
Originally posted by bashwolf
Yes my question has been clearly answered. Thank You all for your input. Between all debates here, watching News abroad and in US. Looked and read up on all links posted here and research my own. I have came to conclusion whats all this war is about. Thank You all again for your input. Hehe i am not going to tell whats the reason why we at War :)
BASH
You've always been a gentleman Bash. .
-
Haha
AirWolves!! Chance and the rest of you
Airhead whats up buddy how is my girlfriend Rosa doing?? lol
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
that tired 'we sold 'em, we trained 'em, he's your puppet' line of horse**** don't fly. alliances change. priorities change. it ain't 1980 anymore.
so one more time for the assmaster association..
That one gets my vote for Quote of the week. :D