Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SirLoin on April 07, 2003, 02:08:28 PM
-
Invasion,destabilisation,massive loss of life...And NO "weapons of mass destruction" found...None...Zero...
Of course if Ol' George had waited a few weeks for the weapons inspectors to finish their job,they would have found the same with out the terrible human sacrifice.
Notice it's all about "liberation" and not disarmament anymore?
-
i wouldnt claim they havnt found anything. I was against this war, but now that its started i hope i was wrong about being against it. Still wont change how i vote in 2004 though. Its the economy stupid!
-
I think its all about finishing a job that should've been finished in '91 but the Arab component of the coalition was too involved in the whole "lines of royalty" mindset to do anything about it.
-
lmfao..sirloin..im sure your joking..
chem wepaons found..ya no sheit of course they were...
I suppose you guys believe the IRAQ info guy.."America is not in Iraq"!!..lololol
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2003/apr/07/040706020.html
-
im not going to say anything either way till they remove the words "possible" and "maybe" from everything.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Still wont change how i vote in 2004 though. Its the economy stupid!
Youre not being serious, right?
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
lmfao..sirloin..im sure your joking..
"...."Testing at laboratories in the United States has to be completed before the presance of chemical weapons could(SP) be confirmed."...the officials said..."
First off (AP) Matt Kelly needs to learn how to use proper tense when reporting...
Second...Is this the same American company who made the chemical kaka in the first place?...And in turn passed it on to the Republican leadership for sale to an Arab nation(Iraq)...?
Talk about your fuking Indian giver...
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Invasion,destabilisation,massive loss of life...And NO "weapons of mass destruction" found...None...Zero...
Guess the 25 barrels found buried at an insecticide plant that tested positive for Sarin don't count. :rolleyes:
-
I can state with absolute certainty that any WMD found in iraq will be planted by the evil USA, any other idea is simply redikulus.
-
hehee sirloin is pissed... his side has been wrong from the beggining... his country wussed out behind some incoherant clown of a liberal leader and now with the victory at hand .... every allegation by the U.S. will be proven... you are looking petulant loin..
i don't believe that any iraqi citizens woulda pointed out secret labs to the keystone cop "inspectors" who most times were held up at the front door while the crap was leaving the back door. I bet the floodgates will open now that they aren't afraid of watching loved ones go into the shredder feet first...
I bet everyone who felt the we shoulda let the U.N. take care of this and leave the sadman in power will pretend that they never said anything a month from now... I bet anyone who had faith in the "inspectors" will get a reality check... a long overdue one.
I like the example this little anti terrorist excursion will set for the remaining despots of the world... I think this is the beggining of the end for them... civilization is catching up and the U.N. can no longer shield them.
I am also pleased that this little episode has shown us who is our friend and who is just envious and petulant.
lazs
-
umm.. laz, 'offically', canada is 'against' the war. unoffically, they have helped...
Cnada's contribution in Iraq (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/03/24/50136-cp.html)
-
I know that hang but... I say that "officially" the likes of thrawn and sirloin and a couple of other "canadians" are against us... in a big way.
I don't hate canadians... My brother is a canadian. MOST of the ones i met were ok... some were kinda snooty. Some of The ones on this board and the ones who boo at sporting events can bite me tho.
lazs
-
I guess I might add that fighting next to Canadians would make me proud. but...
I wouldn't mind fighting a few of the more outspoken 'critics' of the U.S.
lazs
-
It's my 2nd favorite Bordering Country :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't hate canadians... My brother is a canadian.
My brother is an American..What is your point??
-
Sirloin, here's a nice thought for you:
Saddam Hussein and his cronies HAVE chem/bio weapons.
They have them because they have used them in the past. Nobody denies that. Heck, not even France denies it (gulp!).
The issue is, did they destroy them when the UN told them to? I betcha it wasn't pesticide loaded into those missiles they found... but lets leave that aside for now, we all know Iraq has some big mutant roaches.
Imagine for a moment that hussein had indeed destroyed his weapons and the means to produce them as stated by the UN.
Then what?
He'd pull a North Korea.
As long as they have the knowledge of how to build them, that is the biggest threat there is. Sure, the UN could go in and take the toys away.. but the toymakers can show misbehaving kids (lil' ossammas) how to play!
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Notice it's all about "liberation" and not disarmament anymore?
how exactly do you liberate? how about via disarming the one that holds you down. sounds logical.
seriously though...say you were someone with WMD (and someone who wanted to keep them and use them), would you seriously "show" someone where they were? especially if you didn't want anyone to know about them or take them away? even if you did show them where they were and that you were actually "destroying" your WMD, how naive is it for someone like the UN to believe and trust that they would "really" get rid of them and not produce more or secretly produce them again?
just because i 'tell' you my name is mason, and show you my name is mason, doesn't really mean that it is.
-
the point?
the point is he's saying he likes most canadians.
execpt fer liberal pinhead yuppie french canadians that can't figure out the blazing obvious fact that they are pinheads in the eyes of the resta the canadians that don't like pissant arab nations using canadian politics and liberal pinheads like you and thrawn as propaganda talking points on al-jizzalloveryah.
get the point NOW, yah liberal french canadian pinhead?
-
Sorry Hang, it's split right down the middle here. 48% for 48% against. People who live in Quebec are Canadians to.
There has yet to be any verification of chemical weapons in Iraq.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030407/wl_afp/iraq_war_wmd&cid=1512&ncid=1480
""Smoking gun" WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide
Mon Apr 7, 1:18 PM ET
NEAR NAJAF, Iraq (AFP) - A facility near Baghdad that a US officer had claimed might finally be "smoking gun" evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons production turned out to contain pesticide, not sarin gas as originally thought.
A military intelligence officer for the US 101st Airborne Division's aviation brigade, Captain Adam Mastrianni, told AFP that comprehensive tests Monday determined the presence of the pesticide compounds.
Initial tests had reportedly detected traces of sarin -- a powerful toxin that quickly affects the nervous system -- after US soldiers guarding the facility near Hindiyah, 100 kilometres (60 miles) south of Baghdad, became ill.
Mastrianni said: "They thought it was a nerve agent. That's what it tested. But it is pesticide." "
Cripes, even Blair said the US and GB would need to get independant verification.
-
look thrawn, we both know when we find the nasty stuff over there you'll just change arguments, not sides.
why waste our time 'debating' a moot point?
-
People who live in Quebec are Canadians to.
don't you mean 'french'?
-
a pesticide is a nerve agent
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
look thrawn, we both know when we find the nasty stuff over there you'll just change arguments, not sides.
why waste our time 'debating' a moot point?
I'm not debating this point. I posted a simple fact for the information of the people in this thread. People here stated that WMD were found. That has not been verified.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
lmfao..sirloin..im sure your joking..
chem wepaons found..ya no sheit of course they were...
I suppose you guys believe the IRAQ info guy.."America is not in Iraq"!!..lololol
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2003/apr/07/040706020.html
The U.S. Army hasn't made a report of certainty. Anything the media says is premature at this point.
-
Sirloin mistakenly said "Notice it's all about "liberation" and not disarmament anymore?"
Sirloin, just for the record, the Operation was called from the beginning..."Operation Iraqi Freedom"...., freeing the people from oppression was priority 1 the day the war started, because the chemical clean-up/disarmament was obviously gonna happen as a secondary once we controlled the country. So, its been liberation from the beginning.
-
Also because using disarmement would have "splashed" mud on a lot of country ...
From allied to non-allied and allied in probation :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Also because using disarmement would have "splashed" mud on a lot of country ...
From allied to non-allied and allied in probation :)
Yep! Hopefully, the world will be more careful befriending the enemy of their enemies. ;) But, history seems to repeat itself alot, doesn't it?
-
sure :)
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Of course if Ol' George had waited a few weeks for the weapons inspectors to finish their job,they would have found the same with out the terrible human sacrifice.
lol
-Sik
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Of course if Ol' George had waited a few weeks for the weapons inspectors to finish their job,they would have found the same with out the terrible human sacrifice.
Hehe, I can see the inspectors now:
Inspector:"Where is the storage area that we suspect of WMD stored?"
Iraqi Guard:" Right behind that torture rack, take a left, go down the stairs past the giant Plastic shredder, ignore the pools of blood beneath it, go all the way thru past the Rapists Rooms, and its on your left."
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Invasion,destabilisation,massive loss of life...And NO "weapons of mass destruction" found...None...Zero...
Of course if Ol' George had waited a few weeks for the weapons inspectors to finish their job,they would have found the same with out the terrible human sacrifice.
Notice it's all about "liberation" and not disarmament anymore?
Hey Sirloin....make sure you post back here when they find WMD....be interesting to see if you have the stones to admit you were wrong.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Hey Sirloin....make sure you post back here when they find WMD....be interesting to see if you have the stones to admit you were wrong.
I will Rude.
-
Originally posted by john9001
a pesticide is a nerve agent
So is urathane among hundreds of other chemicals found in the common workplace.
-
canadians consider the french... canadians? What is the split without the frogs?
How many "inspectors" did they have to search a place the size of California? How many iraqi's do you think would come forward to point out sites while the sadmans regime was in power... I mean... what could happen to em if they helped right?
you liberals really are pinheads... do you not think that the sadman will continue to try to harm the U.S. every way that he can including funding and training terrorists? do you not believe that as long as he is in power his people will die by the thousands in torture chambers and genocide?
do you not think that getting rid of this despot sends a good message to the remaining despots of the world who laugh when they hear a u.n. council is in session?
lazs
-
Its funny how the anti-war crowd has all of a sudden decided a war is only justified if and only if it has a single objective and that it never changes or other elements become more important or see more public light.
It is about WMD.
It is about removing a destablizing and dangerous mideast tryant.
It is about liberating the Iraqi people.
It is about terrorism.
It is about creating a new more US friendly Iraq.
It is, in the big picture about oil, otherwise nobody would ever pay any attention to the arabs - and there is nothing wrong with that.
It is about fostering democracy in Iraq.
It is about political reform in the region.
It is about holding Saddam accountable to the 1991 cease fire terms.
-
well said grun.
lazs
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Its funny how the anti-war crowd has all of a sudden decided a war is only justified if and only if it has a single objective and that it never changes or other elements become more important or see more public light.
It is about WMD.
It is about removing a destablizing and dangerous mideast tryant.
It is about liberating the Iraqi people.
It is about terrorism.
It is about creating a new more US friendly Iraq.
It is, in the big picture about oil, otherwise nobody would ever pay any attention to the arabs - and there is nothing wrong with that.
It is about fostering democracy in Iraq.
It is about political reform in the region.
It is about holding Saddam accountable to the 1991 cease fire terms.
SHACK!
-
Laz you make American Imperialism shine my friend.....
As for being French...oh yes I am...even before being CANADIAN....I'm French....hope that bugs the **** outta of ya.
but Im also Canadian EH!!:p
personnelly I don't give a rats bellybutton what you think about me or the language I chose to talk....your probably limited to only 1....your loss :eek:
it will be the UN who gives legitimacy to the new Iraqis Govr.....If you decide otherwise and control Iraq.....occupation by an Imperialist nation is not well viewed in ARAB countries....actually it would be stupid....
THEY HAVE NOT FOUND ANY WMD's....hope they do find some....just a little.
I still don't agree by how your GOVR chose to start this conflict....
I don't agree today...I won't agree tommorrow either....
maybe if monkey brains woulda paid more attention to his biggest trade partner maybe we woulda been there OFFICIALLY.
I still think that once it started my govr. shoulda changed its mind and helped a friend....that I still have trouble with.
-
Thanks Sirloin:)
-
Every upstanding human with a IQ over 100 know that "weapons of mass destructions" was used as an covering of the fact that and ex alcoholic American president wanted to revenge His father :) (hey that man tried to kill my dad)
LOL this world is going down the drain :D
And if those weapons really concerns the US why the hell dont they attack North Korea, Pakistan, India and China ?
-
Originally posted by falken
Every upstanding human with a IQ over 100 know that "weapons of mass destructions" was used as an covering of the fact that and ex alcoholic American president wanted to revenge His father :) (hey that man tried to kill my dad)
LOL this world is going down the drain :D
And if those weapons really concerns the US why the hell dont they attack North Korea, Pakistan, India and China ?
This argument was lame the first 100 times I heard it.
-
I don't agree with all but some :
It is about removing a destablizing and dangerous mideast tryant.
It is about liberating the Iraqi people.
It is about creating a new more US friendly Iraq.
It is, in the big picture about oil, otherwise nobody would ever pay any attention to the arabs - and there is nothing wrong with that.
It is about fostering democracy in Iraq.
It is about political reform in the region.
It is about holding Saddam accountable to the 1991 cease fire terms.
And it's fine for me :)
I've doubt for this only :
// It is about WMD.
// It is about terrorism.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Its funny how the anti-war crowd has all of a sudden decided a war is only justified if and only if it has a single objective and that it never changes or other elements become more important or see more public light.
It is about WMD.
It is about removing a destablizing and dangerous mideast tryant.
It is about liberating the Iraqi people.
It is about terrorism.
It is about creating a new more US friendly Iraq.
It is, in the big picture about oil, otherwise nobody would ever pay any attention to the arabs - and there is nothing wrong with that.
It is about fostering democracy in Iraq.
It is about political reform in the region.
It is about holding Saddam accountable to the 1991 cease fire terms.
heay !
kill Saudi Arabia and Egypt if it was cause of WMD and terrorism :)
There will never be Democracy in the Arabian countries dont lie, they just cant cope with it.
And political reforms cant not be dictated from our western hemisphere, just cant be done withour decades of riots of the muslim world. Try read some history and learn :)
If we had not used all those money on wars, military, and weapons of mass destruction, we would not have any need for oil anyway because our engineers woulda found a better and cleaner way to warm up houses, powering cars and so on :D
-
Originally posted by falken
And if those weapons really concerns the US why the hell dont they attack North Korea, Pakistan, India and China ?
Ahh yes the other great anti-war argument. Why not attack Great Britain, France or Russia too?
Another funny thing about the anti-war crowd is how they lambasted Bush as a dim witted moron for decribing our enemies as "evil" - many said that was too simple and not nuanced enough for the complexities of the real world.
Yet now they emply some of the most ridiculous simplistic nonsensical arguments against the war, like why not attack any other unrelated country with WMD.
And finally lets not forget the samm deatil that Iraq was ordered not to have WMD as a condition of the 1991 cease fire.
I'm assuming you are troll falken so I'm not sure it really matters to even respoind to you but there it is.
-
Originally posted by SLO
maybe if monkey brains woulda paid more attention to his biggest trade partner maybe we woulda been there OFFICIALLY.
What does China have to do with this?
-
Originally posted by straffo
And it's fine for me :)
I've doubt for this only :
// It is about WMD.
// It is about terrorism.
We've given you credible sources and links showing indeed he was harboring terrorist, what more do you want? With all due respect...Sounds like you just have a fear of being wrong.
-
Straffo:
Saddam is largely dangerous and destablizing becaouse of WMD - you cannot seperate the two.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sirloin, just for the record, the Operation was called from the beginning..."Operation Iraqi Freedom"...., freeing the people from oppression was priority 1 the day the war started.... So, its been liberation from the beginning.
Well,lets make a list of the top 15 "Evil Regimes" in the world based on oppression,civil rights violations,murder,weapons of mass destruction..etc.
Saddam wouldn't even make the top 10.
-
Originally posted by falken
heay !
kill Saudi Arabia and Egypt if it was cause of WMD and terrorism :)
There will never be Democracy in the Arabian countries dont lie, they just cant cope with it.
And political reforms cant not be dictated from our western hemisphere, just cant be done withour decades of riots of the muslim world. Try read some history and learn :)
Theres a difference between a stable Gov't that tries to prevent terrorism (though weakly) and those that promote it.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Well,lets make a list of the top 15 "Evil Regimes" in the world based on oppression,civil rights violations,murder,weapons of mass destruction..etc.
Saddam wouldn't even make the top 10.
What closet you been hiding in up there in Canada? Oh, I get it, its all "propoganda" right?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
What does China have to do with this?
Unless you are joking Rip we do actually trade most with Canada...
We love to help the less developed nations of the world, god bless the USA... :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
I've doubt for this only :
// It is about WMD.
// It is about terrorism.
I guess you just have to live here to understand.
Call it paranoia if you'd like, because to a certain extent it is. The US doesn't like to be pushed around. We have big muscles, and we don't mind flexing them.
To a good portion of Americans it IS about terrorism. We don't want people we view as a threat to us around. Does this mean we are going to attack every nation a terrorist comes from? Not at all.
What we want is countries that have terrorist working inside their borders to work at fixing that. The Taliban wouldn't, so we went in. Saddam wouldn't, so we went in.
Sure, other countries have terrorists too. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, but all those countries are "working" on a political level to fix that. As long as they are, we won't do anything about it. Sure, some of them are just paying us lip service, while doing nothing, but when politics stop, we'll take action.
I don't expect you to understand what many Americans think or feel, because you aren't here. But it isn't right to say it isn't about terrorism too, because it is. That's why WMD in Saddam's hands is a big deal to us. Not because we think he's going to gas the US, but because he IS friendly with terrorists, and it is a legitimate fear to think those WMD might fall into their hands.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Ahh yes the other great anti-war argument. Why not attack Great Britain, France or Russia too?
Another funny thing about the anti-war crowd is how they lambasted Bush as a dim witted moron for decribing our enemies as "evil" - many said that was too simple and not nuanced enough for the complexities of the real world.
Yet now they emply some of the most ridiculous simplistic nonsensical arguments against the war, like why not attack any other unrelated country with WMD.
And finally lets not forget the samm deatil that Iraq was ordered not to have WMD as a condition of the 1991 cease fire.
I'm assuming you are troll falken so I'm not sure it really matters to even respoind to you but there it is.
because most of them are friendly (well pakistan might is but just a wannabe)
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Well,lets make a list of the top 15 "Evil Regimes" in the world based on oppression,civil rights violations,murder,weapons of mass destruction..etc.
Saddam wouldn't even make the top 10.
Wow!!! Let me ask you something, do you belive there are any american tanks in Baghad? :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Theres a difference between a stable Gov't that tries to prevent terrorism (though weakly) and those that promote it.
so what your sayin is putting a viel over the truth looks much better then not putting 1....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Unless you are joking Rip we do actually trade most with Canada...
We love to help the less developed nations of the world, god bless the USA... :D
Our biggest trade deficit is with China, we import more Chinese goods than any other nation, or so I thought...time for research...
-
Originally posted by SLO
so what your sayin is putting a viel over the truth looks much better then not putting 1....
There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia probably has WMD, but do they have a ruler that would actually USE them? Saddam has used them...he's invaded other countries, fought other countries, he was not a stable person to posess these weapons. Neither is NK, but hey, one step at a time ;)
-
Originally posted by falken
because most of them are friendly (well pakistan might is but just a wannabe)
We are friendly with India and have good relations.
America is too important a trade partner for China to make serious trouble IMHO - they would stand to loose a lot if our relationship went down hill, so would we but its a mutual thing.
Finally China and America are serious big boy countries who understand how to play the game and are aware of the reprecussions of misbehaving too much - think of it how neatly the cold war worked out between USA/USSR with tons and tons of WMD.
Pakistan is OK for now. musharraf is a good guy and they are amking an honest effort to help us out. I doubt they will mishbehave too much because they have a country at stake and have reponsibilities with regards to India. Basically if Pakistan messes up in a big way India will take advantage of the sitiation in some devious way.
North Korea is the biggest concern of course. They are pretty bad on all counts. Ironically I think the only thing thats keeping them safe from a big attack is the fact that they can destroy Seoul withing minutes of the start of any war. This means we must treat them more carefully. Its not a simple answer like yoiu would like but I feel its reasonable considering how things usually work out.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I wouldn't mind fighting a few of the more outspoken 'critics' of the U.S.
lazs
You chickened out of dueling WildThing,why should I think you're serious now?
-
Martlet ,it's just we don't have the muscle to play the game like USA can do,so we have to rely on other tricks.
But I agree that current war on Iraq don't look to end like I was affraid to see (no pan-arabism explosion for now).
Currently the outcome of this war look to be pretty good, but it was not what I expected.
The ROE of the US army were smart enougtht to permit advance of the troop without creating tons of martyr (even with some psychological error like sending the brit to Basra).
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Our biggest trade deficit is with China, we import more Chinese goods than any other nation, or so I thought...time for research...
But trade is multilatteral, we sell a lot more to the canadians so there is not such a proununced trade defecit or surplus - not sure which one wr have with Canada but either way I know the difference is nothing like china. a big trade defecit simply means we import more from them then they from us.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
We are friendly with India and have good relations.
America is too important a trade partner for China to make serious trouble IMHO - they would stand to loose a lot if our relationship went down hill, so would we but its a mutual thing.
Finally China and America are serious big boy countries who understand how to play the game and are aware of the reprecussions of misbehaving too much - think of it how neatly the cold war worked out between USA/USSR with tons and tons of WMD.
Pakistan is OK for now. musharraf is a good guy and they are amking an honest effort to help us out. I doubt they will mishbehave too much because they have a country at stake and have reponsibilities with regards to India. Basically if Pakistan messes up in a big way India will take advantage of the sitiation in some devious way.
North Korea is the biggest concern of course. They are pretty bad on all counts. Ironically I think the only thing thats keeping them safe from a big attack is the fact that they can destroy Seoul withing minutes of the start of any war. This means we must treat them more carefully. Its not a simple answer like yoiu would like but I feel its reasonable considering how things usually work out.
well it was a good answer :)
But it still smells a little cowardism :) (darwin ?)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Martlet ,it's just we don't have the muscle to play the game like USA can do,so we have to rely on other tricks.
But I agree that current war on Iraq don't look to end like I was affraid to see (no pan-arabism explosion for now).
Currently the outcome of this war look to be pretty good, but it was not what I expected.
The ROE of the US army were smart enougtht to permit advance of the troop without creating tons of martyr (even with some psychological error like sending the brit to Basra).
Well, that's what kind of keeps our gov't in check. The president can't just declare war. He has to have the backing of congress, and congress is representative of the people. Most of the people honestly have good intentions. This is no different than anywhere else in the world, only our gov't is designed to support the will of the people. This is one of the reasons most of our conflicts have high popular support. If we honestly thought the Iraq citizens didn't want us there, we probably wouldn't go. The other arab countries will grumble, but not do much else. Partly because they are afraid of Saddam as well, and partly because they want to stay in coalition favor for political reasons.
Our troops are overall probably some of, if not the, best trained in the world. One of the reasons we suffered so few casualties (as well as civilian) is we have the power, so don't take chances. Lure the enemy out, then bomb the piss out of them before they get close enough to do anything.
-
I'm assuming the cowardism comment is about North Korea.
Yea there is that reality that they could very quickly kill a bunch of people in seoul and I think this affords them the kids glove treatment. However the point to decide between cowardice/appeasement and detrmined action hasnt yet arived. it would only happend I think if the North began to push its luck and try to cash in on that factor. Basically if they push it too far at some point we will be forced to consider if those very real deaths in seuol are less of a danger than the aleternative - and thats where the choice between appeasement and action will occur in Korea. IMHO of course.
-
well I'm surprised too straffo....
the americans an brits are doin a very fine job up too now...hope it continues on like this....
-
Sirloin is Lazs closet brother??? Am I getting this right?
-
I didnt read any of this crap...
YO SISSIES!!!!!
I bet $100.00 AMerican totally tubular dollars that Iraq has WMD's...
If any you say no and want to stand behind it with money..BRING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I bet $100 .....WMD s' Iraq yes...
-
Sirloin, its "for the children" ;)
Agence France-Presse | April 8, 2003
BAGHDAD (AFP) - More than 100 children held in a prison celebrated their freedom Tuesday as US marines rolled into northeast Baghdad amid chaotic scenes which saw civilians loot weapons from an army compound, a US officer said.
Around 150 children spilled out of the jail after the gates were opened as a US military Humvee vehicle approached, Lieutenant Colonel Fred Padilla told an AFP correspondent travelling with the Marines 5th Regiment.
"Hundreds of kids were swarming us and kissing us," Padilla said.
"There were parents running up, so happy to have their kids back."
"The children had been imprisoned because they had not joined the youth branch of the Baath party," he alleged. "Some of these kids had been in there for five years."
The children, who were wearing threadbare clothes and looked under-nourished, walked on the streets crossing their hands as if to mimic handcuffs, before giving the thumbs up sign and shouting their thanks.
It was not clear who had opened the doors of the prison.
Civilians also took advantage of the collapse of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's authority to grab weapons from an army base, said Group Sergeant Jeff Treiber.
As marines were alerted by radio that civilians had seized weapons, Treiber warned that anyone seen to be armed could be a target of US-British coalition forces.
"With the weapons they are becoming combatants," said Treiber. "If they don't take the weapons they will be fine."
Other residents stole air conditioning units, television sets and furniture from government buildings in an echo of the looting that was seen in the southern city of Basra.
A 19-year-old called Haider said people had been ransacking government compounds since the morning to steal weapons and furniture.
"Since the morning, nine o'clock, they have been looting. They are stealing weapons and I took three doors," he said.
At one stage the marines opened fire after coming under attack from snipers, leaving at least two civilians wounded.
One man needed treatment for gunshot wounds to his stomach and left arm.
But his friend, Abdul Amir Jaffa, said he did not resent the Americans despite the shooting.
"Americans are coming to free us," he told AFP.
The marines became increasingly edgy as crowds of people took to the streets to observe their progress.
"It's a problem with so many people in the area. Its hard to tell if there are enemy forces among them. You have to be careful returning fire with civilians all over the place," Lieutenant Anthony Sousa said.
Troops from the Marines' 1st Expeditionary Force also entered Baghdad on the east of the city Tuesday as thousands of armoured vehicles and Humvees poured into the capital for a showdown with Saddam Hussein's troops.
-
Now the anti-war types will blame us for all the looting and civil unrest.
"You killed all of Saddams enforers and now they streets are rife with crime, with Saddams gentle police all the people were peaceful and calm. Told ya so violence doesntr solve aqnything, violence only begets violence.. You see the agressive warlikne nature of the US troops showed the doe-eyed iraqi population that one could use violence to achieve goals - this just reflects the violent American culture..
Ohh I'm getting too upset, I must enhance my calm, where's my latte?"
-
hey sirloin... I said I would duel with wildthing any time he wanted... have his second meet with mine... I believe I have choice of weapons?
so... all you guys that think we shouldn't be there... How would us not being there help get rid of saddam? how would us not being there help the people of iraq and the world community in general? How would the frigging worthless un have gotten rid of saddam and..... how many more years do you think the keystone cops inspectors needed to search a country the size of California when they could expect no help from people in fear of their families ending up feet first in a shredder?
I don't believe that with the self interest of a lot of countries we could have ever gotten a un mandate to do what we are doing now and... I can't think of one thing that is bad about whzt we are doing now.
I believe that if you are against us in this then you are against all that is right... I would also have you look at the history of the U.S... we are not imperialists and we allways leave countries better off than when we came... The un is a frigging joke to be tolerated only if it is not too meddlesome.... a pacifier for the impotent and envious countries and those with too many skeletons in thier closet.
I say that this whole thing also showed us who are friends are and who's judgment is tainted by envy and guilt.... who cares not a whit about what is right.
lazs
-
What it boils down to for me is this...
War is a last resort...If there is an option for avoiding this and achieving similar results(disarming Iraq),then that option must be explored before you start firing cannon balls...There were weapons inspectors all over Iraq,looking everywhere and anywhere...Perhaps more where needed,maybe an army of them with the conditions that any impedance or interference would be the trigger for instant military action.
The cheif weapons inspector in his final report to the UN stated that Iraq could be disarmed through continued inpections,not in years or months..but weeks...As soon as this was reported, GWB gave the 48 hours warning to weapons inspectors to leave Iraq.That pissed me off...The inspections were working..Saddam was humiliated and was handing over long range missles etc...They coulda then stepped it up 10x,squeezed his regime with these inspectors crawling over palaces,religious sites..etc..This might have been enought for the Iraqi's higher up's to take out Saddam themselves...Or,a long term effective UN weapons inspection task force could also have been inplemented.This would have sent a clear message to "Axis of Evil" nations that it is about disarmament after all..Not "Regime Change" through war.
Resolution 1441 was a UN resolution to which Saddam was not complying.The UN is the judge for "serious consequences for non complience",not the United States.
A little more time was all the UN wanted to exaust a last measure to avoid war...perhaps it's findings would have determined that Iraq indeed required immediate military action...This was not explored...That is my beef with GWB.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
What it boils down to for me is this...
War is a last resort...If there is an option for avoiding this and achieving similar results(disarming Iraq),then that option must be explored before you start firing cannon balls...There were weapons inspectors all over Iraq,looking everywhere and anywhere...Perhaps more where needed,maybe an army of them with the conditions that any impedance or interference would be the trigger for instant military action.
The cheif weapons inspector in his final report to the UN stated that Iraq could be disarmed through continued inpections,not in years or months..but weeks...As soon as this was reported, GWB gave the 48 hours warning to weapons inspectors to leave Iraq.That pissed me off...The inspections were working..Saddam was humiliated and was handing over long range missles etc...They coulda then stepped it up 10x,squeezed his regime with these inspectors crawling over palaces,religious sites..etc..This might have been enought for the Iraqi's higher up's to take out Saddam themselves...Or,a long term effective UN weapons inspection task force could also have been inplemented.This would have sent a clear message to "Axis of Evil" nations that it is about disarmament after all..Not "Regime Change" through war.
Resolution 1441 was a UN resolution to which Saddam was not complying.The UN is the judge for "serious consequences for non complience",not the United States.
A little more time was all the UN wanted to exaust a last measure to avoid war...perhaps it's findings would have determined that Iraq indeed required immediate military action...This was not explored...That is my beef with GWB.
12 years wasn't long enough for ya?
-
HOW CAN YOU explain 12 years!!!..AND THEY DECLARED THEY HAD NOTHING!!!
THE UN WAS NOT THERE TO SEARCH!!!!!!!!!!!
GET THAT thru your SKULL!!!!
They were there to see the PROOF!!! PLAIN AND SIMPLE
Soddom offering "token" banned weapons is BS..owell
Why even mention it now..
Unbeleivable peopl say "more time"
Ok..SirLoin..tell us this...WHEN would it be time to break his gang up then?? 3o years?? We in America who are the Target fro crazy bstrds with WMDs will not wait for another mass attak
-
AGAIN!!!!
THE UN was there to see the PROOF that they were gone...NOT SEARCH for them!!!!! BULLLSHIITTTTT
-
The cheif weapons inspector in his final report to the UN stated that Iraq could be disarmed through continued inpections,not in years or months..but weeks...
LMFAO..YOU prove the point against yourself!!!
IRAQ declared they had nothing!!!!!..as soon as 1 frikn thing was found...tiem to break and destroy..VERY SIMPLE...
THE reso said ..Give it up or "serious sht will hit the fan"
I bet next resolution US signs....the country will think twice before doing a Soddom...llololol
This WAr is GREAT....Its being RUn near perfection....A GREAT tribute to American and Coaltion Soldiers/commanders..and citizens...SALUTE!!!!!
Love
BiGB
xoxo
-
I would love to see how these foreigners would feel if it were their country that was the most wonderful and powerful nation on the planet and then it was attacked by a bunch of dirty bums?
they would be pissed too.
:rolleyes:
-
What the hell does it really matter if WMD is found or not. As long as the result is an Iraqi people free from fear and terroism, who can vote in free elections for the people of their choice. Can you imagine the terror they have lived with for thirty years and would have to live with for much longer if Saddam and family continue on. If you do not live under those conditions and want to prolong that agony you will say that dialogue will end it and there is no reason to go to war. Well dialogue did not end it in WW2 and only American, British, Canadian, NZ, Polish and Dutch blood did. The policy of liberate, rebuild and establish democracy worked then and it should work now.
And the U.S. has not taken any territory and kept it. Why would any one think we would start now. The troops we have stationed in other countrys are there with the agreement of that country. If they tell us to leave, we will. France did and we left.
Maybe this is the time to end all dictatorships and terrorism for once and for all time.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Originally posted by BGBMAW
lmfao..sirloin..im sure your joking..
"...."Testing at laboratories in the United States has to be completed before the presance of chemical weapons could(SP) be confirmed."...the officials said..."
First off (AP) Matt Kelly needs to learn how to use proper tense when reporting...
Second...Is this the same American company who made the chemical kaka in the first place?...And in turn passed it on to the Republican leadership for sale to an Arab nation(Iraq)...?
Talk about your fuking Indian giver...
May I have a word of Topic. How does taking the C out of the F-Bomb make it any different it still mean the same thing. Its still offensive. Why?