Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on May 18, 2003, 11:15:58 AM
-
When President Bush addressed the American people, and the world, two days before initiating a U.S.-led attack against Iraq, he said: "We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater." The implication was that military action would make the United States safer. Now that the United States has won the war, deposed Saddam, and embarked on democracy-building in Iraq, it is worth re-examining the president's assertion...
http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/dailys/05-18-03.html
-
I think you're passing judgement a bit early here. There's still plenty of time to wait a while and yet make those accusations in time for the next election.
-
Yup. this cat is not skinned yet. There are still very big advantages that could be brought to the average person in Iraq that would justify the invasion. certainly when ballanced against very low casualties on each side.
But one has to wonder to what extent history will differenceate the fabrication of cause for the invasion of Iraq with the fabrication of cause for the invasion of poland in 1939. Both were cases of the world trying to placate an overtly aggressive nation, Both were laughable excuses. Both were increadably successfull militarily for the aggressor. Both led to the aggressor thinking the world would let them do anything they wanted and thier military was unstoppable. Wonder if the simularities will continue?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Yup. this cat is not skinned yet. There are still very big advantages that could be brought to the average person in Iraq that would justify the invasion. certainly when ballanced against very low casualties on each side.
But one has to wonder to what extent history will differenceate the fabrication of cause for the invasion of Iraq with the fabrication of cause for the invasion of poland in 1939. Both were cases of the world trying to placate an overtly aggressive nation, Both were laughable excuses. Both were increadably successfull militarily for the aggressor. Both led to the aggressor thinking the world would let them do anything they wanted and thier military was unstoppable. Wonder if the simularities will continue?
Yes, we are going to invade Canada next month. It is called Operation Leaf Blower.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Yup. this cat is not skinned yet. There are still very big advantages that could be brought to the average person in Iraq that would justify the invasion. certainly when ballanced against very low casualties on each side.
But one has to wonder to what extent history will differenceate the fabrication of cause for the invasion of Iraq with the fabrication of cause for the invasion of poland in 1939. Both were cases of the world trying to placate an overtly aggressive nation, Both were laughable excuses. Both were increadably successfull militarily for the aggressor. Both led to the aggressor thinking the world would let them do anything they wanted and thier military was unstoppable. Wonder if the simularities will continue?
Yes, America is pretty much the same as Nazi Germany, I see your point now.
-
The only rewarding part about doing nothing is the ability to sit back and criticize every aspect of those that did something.
We did nothing for 9 years leading up to this point and look where that got us.
MiniD
-
only problem is last time you invaded canada we royally kicked your ass...dont make us do it again...
-
LOL! Good point! Dont Mess with Canada! :D :D
"Of course, the real threat, according to the administration, was not Iraq's military, but its weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to the al Qaeda terrorist network."
What a fruit loop that author. He says that because no weapons have been found yet, then it must mean they didnt have them or the invasion was done on shaky foundations.
For someone claiming to be "director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.", he sure is a clueless imbecile.
Iraq HAD chemical and biological weapons, Hussein used them against the kurds on countless ocassions. Its not the weapons that pose a threat its the know-how thats the real danger. And the only way to remove that know how is to get in there and take out the scientists or otherwise neutralize them. Remember Penemunde!
-
So you're saying that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of chemical weapon use against the Kurds in 1991?
Was that the justification?
Bush accused Iraq of having enough material "to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people ... more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin - enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure ... as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
If Iraq had any WMD, they would have used it.
-
LOL, you really have lost it Pongo. Seek help.
SOB
-
I find it a bit ironic that those who would let Hans Blix and the UN search Iraq for years on end for WMD demand that WMD be shown by the U.S. now or they will label the war unjust!
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
If Iraq had any WMD, they would have used it.
What leads you to believe that Saddam would use WMD in this war?
-
Originally posted by OZkansas
What leads you to believe that Saddam would use WMD in this war?
If he did have it, I guess he could have been saving it for the next war.
yeah... that's it...
-
Originally posted by OZkansas
I find it a bit ironic that those who would let Hans Blix and the UN search Iraq for years on end for WMD demand that WMD be shown by the U.S. now or they will label the war unjust!
Well... Bush wasn't willing to wait for Blix to find it. With his intelligence sources, he expected Iraq to simply admit to it. There was no search necessary.
From here, it looks as if the intel was wrong and Blix was right. There are no WMD.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
If he did have it, I guess he could have been saving it for the next war.
yeah... that's it...
Did Hitler use his nerve gas at the end of ww2?
If your answer is "no" then why not? Was he saving it for the next war?
Drop the attitude, get an education, and post smarter stuff Sandman.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Did Hitler use his nerve gas at the end of ww2?
If your answer is "no" then why not? Was he saving it for the next war?
Drop the attitude, get an education, and post smarter stuff Sandman.
Hardly a point there Steve. As a matter of fact Hitler used a lot of gas near the end of the war. He just limited the usage to the most practical delivery system he had at the time... "showers".
-
Originally posted by vorticon
only problem is last time you invaded canada we royally kicked your ass...dont make us do it again...
Glory days ... oh .. pass you by ....
glory days ... in the wink of a young girl's eye ...
Glory days ...
Glory daaaaays ...
Oh Canada! ;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hardly a point there Steve. As a matter of fact Hitler used a lot of gas near the end of the war. He just limited the usage to the most practical delivery system he had at the time... "showers".
You cannot possibly be serious. At the time, Germany was the only nation with nerve gas. If they had used it, they would have inflicted enormous losses on the allies. Especially since it is doubtful whether the allied gas masks would have been effective at all. Delivery systems? Ever heard of something called V2? V2 for strategic delivery, or Ar 234 bombers and/or arty for tactical delivery...the allies would not have a chance to stop that.
Fact is, Hitler could have obliterated London, or Paris, or Kiev or any other city within V2 range...but he didnt. Even though he had the opportunity and he sure as hell had the insanity.
The holocaust has got nothing to do with that, nothing whatsoever. Stop trying to score cheap points and focus on the real question. The fact that Saddam did not use his wmds does not mean that he didnt have any. It is as simple as that.
-
It's still questionable whether or not Saddam was still alive or in control of Iraq past the first week of the operation.
If he was either dead or not in control anymore, then he couldn't very well order the use of any WMDs he may or may not have.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
It's still questionable whether or not Saddam was still alive or in control of Iraq past the first week of the operation.
If he was either dead or not in control anymore, then he couldn't very well order the use of any WMDs he may or may not have.
-SW
And neither could anyone else, so there! :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
If Iraq had any WMD, they would have used it.
it isnt that simple. within hours of start of attack on iraq i doubt if senior leadership could have got order thru to nbc capable troops without using runners. their comms were shot before they even knew it. and no way is a nbc unit commander going to launch without direct orders from the top and even if he got such orders if he thought war was gonna be over soon and hes gonna be pow no way hes gonna fire those weapons hed be hanging himself. the wwii comparison has some merit didnt hitler order flooding of sewers where lots of civilians located and order was ignored? i also read somewhere that hitler not gonna use gas because he was hit by gas attack in wwi. had strong feelings on gas as weapon. screwy i know how hed not gas troops but gas civilians but he didnt consider jews and such to be human right? also for unit to prep for firing of nbc takes some time and there are numerous obvious indicators unit is prepping to fire those weapons. safe bet that if iraqi arty unit looked like it was prepping every jdam in the sky would have been on them inside of an hour. also a safe bet that iraqi gunners knew this. you guys jumping the gun in a big way maybe five years from now people on the outside will have an idea of exactly what went down in terms of the attack on iraq. but for certain if hussein had said "i want them all fired at tel aviv" two hours after start of attack on iraq it not close to a done deal that nbc units actually manage to fire their stuff in efficient manner.
-
Think about it realistically Arlo, I know it may be difficult- but try it, Saddam was destined to be killed early on in the war... he may have been killed before coalition troops got onto Iraqi soil.
All other high ranking officials were more than likely valued high enough to keep alive, so their death sentence wasn't written in bright neon colors like Saddams were.
If they launched WMDs, I highly doubt many Iraqi army prisoners would of been taken... atleast not alive, and certainly none of the high ranking military officials would have made it out of there.... pretty sure they knew that.
-SW
-
Pongo you have joined the blitz America Haters Premiere (AHP)club! Congratulations, your membership packet and party identity card are in the mail.
-
iraqis at offshore oil facilities of al faw had orders to demo the whole deal pump oil into gulf and such. the explosives were there. they delayed execution of demo orders on purpose. if guys going to follow those orders because they know war is gonna be over and hussein is gonna be gone imagine the second guessing a nbc capable arty commander would have been doing.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You cannot possibly be serious. At the time, Germany was the only nation with nerve gas. If they had used it, they would have inflicted enormous losses on the allies. Especially since it is doubtful whether the allied gas masks would have been effective at all. Delivery systems? Ever heard of something called V2? V2 for strategic delivery, or Ar 234 bombers and/or arty for tactical delivery...the allies would not have a chance to stop that.
Fact is, Hitler could have obliterated London, or Paris, or Kiev or any other city within V2 range...but he didnt. Even though he had the opportunity and he sure as hell had the insanity.
The holocaust has got nothing to do with that, nothing whatsoever. Stop trying to score cheap points and focus on the real question. The fact that Saddam did not use his wmds does not mean that he didnt have any. It is as simple as that.
I've read somewhere that being traumatized by the gaz during WWI Hitler explicitly forbid their use dureing WWII
I seriously question this hypothese as the nazi were making research for the A-bomb ...
About the V2 range I've not the map availlable but if I remember correctly Brussel and Paris got recieved some V1 and V2 but onlu convetionnal one (don't ask me why I'm writing this sentence at this point I've no idea ...=> going to bed :) )
-
Weapons programs are more difficult to remove than weapons, and more important .
Jeeze didn't you guys read The Cardinal in the Kremlin ?
I think everybody knows that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program for almost two decades right ? Ok then.
So it was a question of containment vs removal.
Bear in mind containment meant the deployment of an armored division and inspection teams on a permanent basis, meanwhile Saddam get's to be a complete maniacal tyrant to his people .
Removal means a short war, and big expensive restablization .
Overall I think we made the most economical decision, both in terms of humanity and money. And I think the removal option yielded the most happiness, for Iraqis, neighbors of Iraq, and most importantly us .
-
Who cares what others think at this point, Iraq has been delt with and it's people are free from Saddam.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
it isnt that simple. within hours of start of attack on iraq i doubt if senior leadership could have got order thru to nbc capable troops without using runners. their comms were shot before they even knew it. and no way is a nbc unit commander going to launch without direct orders from the top and even if he got such orders if he thought war was gonna be over soon and hes gonna be pow no way hes gonna fire those weapons hed be hanging himself.
So instead... the "nbc unit commander" just hid the weapons so thoroughly that the U.S. can't find them?
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Think about it realistically Arlo, I know it may be difficult- but try it, Saddam was destined to be killed early on in the war... he may have been killed before coalition troops got onto Iraqi soil.
All other high ranking officials were more than likely valued high enough to keep alive, so their death sentence wasn't written in bright neon colors like Saddams were.
If they launched WMDs, I highly doubt many Iraqi army prisoners would of been taken... atleast not alive, and certainly none of the high ranking military officials would have made it out of there.... pretty sure they knew that.
-SW
Relax, Wulfie .... I'm not attacking your stance on WMD in Iraq ... merely your logic that Saddam was the only fanatic capable of giving the green light. I seriously doubt that there were standing orders that if Saddam bought it, that all others in the command structure were to stand down because they "were valuable" (nor did we value sparing them all that much). Chances are there were standing orders that involved as much destruction and death as possible but the C&C structure was in such disarray and the lower ranks in the military so poorly trained and inaccessable to anything more dangerous than Russian anti-tank rockets that it didn't happen. But that's only my theory. Time will tell how firmly based on reality it is. ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Who cares what others think at this point, Iraq has been delt with and it's people are free from Saddam.
BUt its a huge dister, just wait defeat is still most certinly just around the corner. Wait wait you'll see - the evil USA must fail, they have to, how on earth could they be soo succesful when a bunch of idiotic black or white thinking cowboy americans are actually running their own country and much of the world instead of us fine cultured educated gray area nuanced thinking ______ (pick one: eurostudmuffins, UN loving - I'm a world citizen first types, and last and least (as usual) canadian) superhuman world leaders in perpetual waiting.
-
No sandman. Read previous Penemunde reference.
Or let me put it in simple terms for you:
Hussein=crazy arab dictator with deep hatred of the USA and who ordered the development and deployment of chemical weapons against human beings and was trying to develop nuclear weaponry.
Bin Laden=see above, remove the dictator part, replace it with "terrorrist" and replace "ordered" and "trying to develop" with "trying to get his hands on"
Iraq= place where Hussein houses his weapons programme. Also home to all the scientists that developed said weapons programme.
Now that you have the basics...
Q:How would you get rid of the threat of WMD's falling into the hands of those like bin laden?
A: You find the source/likely source of WMD's that has a high probability of providing said WMD's to the likes of bin laden and you ELIMINATE said threat.
And the only way to eliminate the threat is not by demanding the destruction of the current stockpile of WMD's that they KNOW exist (as proven by their use on humans a few decades earlier) and relying on some love muffin international organization to make it happen. No, the threat is only eliminated by taking over their facilities and neutralizing their scientists. You can bet your wiener that dozens of those scientists found in Iraq are no longer breathing or if they are they are *very* well incarcerated in the US mainland.
And if you were Hussein, knowing that the most powerful military in the world is coming a-knockin' on your door after making a drama worthy of a 10 year long soap opera about how evil you are by having WMD's stockpiled up and you knew there was no chance in hell your pathetic conscripted 3rd rate military could stop them...
how do you win? Hussein is not stupid. The only victory he could pull was to bring down US credibility by destroying his WMD's and making it appear he was just an innocent little dictator swatted because chimpy in the white house wanted his oil. boohoo. Never mind it would also rattle all the other arab states and such.
So far, Hussein is winnning the Public Relations war, which is the only one the average citizen in the world with access to TV sees. The REAL war, the one to eliminate the threat of terrorrism, is so far being won by the US and its true allies.
I say, turn off the fuking TV and THINK about things. So far you've only been regurgitating the crap the boobtube has fed you.
You may now return to your regular flamefest!
-
My belief about Iraq's WMD hasn't come up. I do believe they have them, I don't know how much they have and how readily available they were to be put into actual use in a coordinated effort through long range delivery methods.
I do believe that if Saddam was taken out by one of those bunker busters, he had a good number of high ranking officials who had the know-how to put the WMD to use, or how to get it prepared for use, with him when he met his fate... so they likely met theirs with him.
The remaining military officials more than likely were going to fight back using conventional means because they knew they faced certain death if they used WMD, and without Saddam giving them "do this or death" orders- then the whole WMD scenario, if one existed, more than likely never entered into their military actions.
-SW
-
lol nm :D
-
Maybe it's just me, but I don't get the feeling that Powell was talking about "know-how" when he stated:
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling.
Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.
Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan.
This one is especially rich:
Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein has used such weapons. And Saddam Hussein has no compunction about using them again, against his neighbours and against his own people.
And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorised his field commanders to use them. He wouldn't be passing out the orders if he didn't have the weapons or the intent to use them.
The above question is a pretty good answer to OZKansas. Colin Powell said so.
-
Ah... Thin-skinned, defensive and ever sarcastic post number two from Grun which again fails to really address the topic. No thread is complete without at least a couple.
-
At the time, Germany was the only nation with nerve gas. If they had used it, they would have inflicted enormous losses on the allies. Especially since it is doubtful whether the allied gas masks would have been effective at all. Delivery systems? Ever heard of something called V2? V2 for strategic delivery, or Ar 234 bombers and/or arty for tactical delivery...the allies would not have a chance to stop that.
The V2 couldn't deliver nerve gas during the war.
Nerve gas requires an airburst, because a V2 with a contact fuse will destroy the chemical agent on impact (fireballs aren't good for nerve gas). The Germans simply didn't have a suitable fuse.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Ah... Thin-skinned, defensive and ever sarcastic post number two from Grun which again fails to really address the topic. No thread is complete without at least a couple.
But why should I waste the time to adrees these america hater all is lost, doom is near posts in a more constructive manner? Here you guys are criticizing and hating the USA for removing the very nasty and evil dicator you were criticizing the USA yesterday for supporting him the past...
So again I simply must just give in admit, that yes, America is the greatests evil of all time - nothing comes close... :rolleyes:
Up yours your evil dememted freaks, shut up allready we all know where you stand on the whole Saddam vs. USA thing...
-
u.s. had gas ( mustard ect) in ww2 and was ready to use it.
and we still have it. funny that.
-
Damn I forgot, you people are so sensitive..
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
u.s. had gas ( mustard ect) in ww2 and was ready to use it.
and we still have it. funny that.
Mustard gas is "nice", but its nowhere near as deadly as nerve agents and of course it was well known how to defend against mustard and the other classic chemical weapons after WW1. The Germans were the only ones with nerve agents during WW2 and nobody had much defense against them, typical face only gas masks are entirely ineffective IIRC you need specialized full body clothing and all vehicles must be carefully washed down after attack as any pysical contact with the chemical can be lethal and lets not forget no WW2 tank was overpressurized so the stuff would get inside as well.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
So instead... the "nbc unit commander" just hid the weapons so thoroughly that the U.S. can't find them?
The weapons left Iraq weeks before the invasion. Sadaam knew the US would invade and instead of getting caught red handed and further justifing US Action, Arab leaders pressured him too make them dissapear, so this type of action would not happen against them. So, he got around it by selling them to his neighbor Syria and terrorists. Fear not, they will be found in time. Unfortunately, some will be found when they are used on innocents. BUt the good thing is, the regime that continued to manufacture them is gone, and that alone justifies the invasion.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
So instead... the "nbc unit commander" just hid the weapons so thoroughly that the U.S. can't find them?
look at it this way dude. surveillance from many different source showed sign of activity that had one possible motive and that motive was production of chem and bio weapon agent in as stealthy a manner as possible. even with wmd and tangos its still true to say "if it looks like a duck swims like a duck quacks like a duck odds are pretty ****in good its a duck and needs to be killed by tonight at the latest". :) this is not a situation where the report is gonna be delivered with unassailable proof to un three month after end of war. Powell was cleared for and saw data that he couldnt use with un. Powell is not mindless slave of cic. if Powell went before un its because he saw raw data and believed what other expert believe it show. if two years pass and zero evidence then there will be price to pay for cic and others. but all this talkin can go nowhere. iraq a big place and there isnt enough guys who track down wmd to scour the place in even six months time. i guess it could be possible that hussein "faked" trying to develop wmd in secret to make US look bad but look at behavior of iraq officials if no attempt to make wmd then why not total cooperation with un and why attempts to foil un inspectors?
-
I like Europe a lot, the lifestly there is comfortable and love the Meditarranian and Adriatic. However I hate how so many in western Europe has become weak and gutless and how jelous and resentful they have become of the USA that first saved them and then for 50 years protected them against their friendly peace loving soviet neighbors. So when I say eurostudmuffins I mean those people in particular - those millions of degenerates who protested to save Saddam Husseins government earlier this year. May they all rot in hell for that disgrace.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The only rewarding part about doing nothing is the ability to sit back and criticize every aspect of those that did something.
We did nothing for 9 years leading up to this point and look where that got us.
MiniD
Bingo
-
Hmmm... so... ten plus years of sanctions in Iraq got us what exactly?
-
So the sanctions were bad too? I thought you guys wanted the inspections and sanctions thing to go on indefinitely - remember a decade of that stuff was simply not enough time for saddam to realize he just gotta stop his misbehavior..
-
Let's apply a little logic here, if Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq from the start and lied about it we would already have "found" them by now, right?
-
Thats true, you see we allready know any WMD found in iraq will be planted by the CIA..
-
More towards the point of this topic, the *war* got us what exactly?
-
We stole the oil - duh...
And yes thats all your idiotic question deserves - I cant belive you are asking something so stupid. Tell me what did you get out of the US civil rights movement in the 1960s or the fall of the Soviet tyranny in 1991, or the fall of the east germany in 1989?
-
Originally posted by Nash
More towards the point of this topic, the *war* got us what exactly?
We're certainly not any safer.
-
Maybe we'll gain a friend in the region. If not that then perhaps at least a country not suffering from delusions of gandeur thinking they will destroy the "Great Satan."
Glad there are some in authority willing to look at the long term picture.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
We're certainly not any safer.
How do you know, maybe you get the top secret briefings but I dont... Are you really telling me that you dont belive that Saddam was not doing anything in any form to harm america and americans?
-
What did it get us exactly?
Too early to tell, isn't it?
How long ago did they declare the combat phase over? Refresh my memory.
Jeez, next somebody will chime in about the "US never takes the long view".
Guess it obvious why we can't. We're addicted to McResults. No, not now.. I wanted 'em YESTERDAY!
-
It fits... Bush claimed that Hussein was an immediate threat.
-
Supporting terrorists was his claim that Hussien was an immediate threat to the US. The large quantities of WMD were considered more of a threat to his neighbors.
Taking him out was the first step towards a less threatening middle east. In case you've forgotten, we've been attacked by middle easterners many times over the last decade.
-
What's so stupid about it Grun, really?
Now... This is going to require you to just *imagine* for a second that WMD never turns up... that the weapons program did not exist to anywhere near the extent to which the world was led to believe...
As per the article in Sand's post (and in not so many words), the war was sold as making the US safer by ridding Hussein of his WMD. If there isn't any WMD, what exactly did it accomplish? What did the US gain?
If your answer involves the liberation of the Iraqi people, is it ok to you that the pretext for the war is oddly nowhere to be found in the final justification for it? It's ok to admit it if so. But if that's where you stand, would you have ever bought into the war to this degree if you were asked to make the sacrifices involved, solely to liberate a people who only last year you held somewhere between ambivalence and contempt?
If you're going to reply with yet another sarcastic remark or ask me about the 60's civil rights movement, don't waste your breath.
-
"Supporting terrorists was his claim that Hussien was an immediate threat to the US."
Not entirely true AKIron... At one point in the lead up to the war, Iraq was appearently some 90 days from nuclear capability.
-
WMD capable equipment and WMD scientists are all around iraq, what exactly do you think saddam would have done with that capabilty once sanctions were lifted after hans blix failed to find any WMD during his kyoto treaty compliance surveys of iraqi industrial facilities?
-
Toad, maybe it is too early to tell. I'm going at this from the "what if they aren't found, ever" angle... but not ruling out the fact that they still may be found. To most people here, the time frame is irrelevant anyway... as whatever does or doesn't turn up makes no difference to them.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It fits... Bush claimed that Hussein was an immediate threat.
Haven't there been some direct links to terrorists found? They captured the Achille Lauro guy, right? Some others? Also indications that they were linked to a degree with Al Quaeda? I'd say that's a threat.
I know that even a VCR tape of Saddam and Bin Laden butt-bumping with 17 living witnesses wouldn't be proof enough for some of you guys, of course.
:D
I'm willing to see how this plays out. I don't think the WMD have to be found faster than Ronald can fry up a Happy Meal for it to be "validated".
If they find them in a reasonable amount of time, that's fine by me.
If they don't, that would be different.
For now.. I'll just relax a while.
-
Grun, turns out there was an omission at the bottom part of my post; allow me to fix it:
If you're going to reply with yet another sarcastic remark, ask me about the 60's civil rights movement, or reply with only a question while answering none of mine, don't waste your breath.
There... that's better. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... so... ten plus years of sanctions in Iraq got us what exactly?
NOTHING.
Sanctions doesnt work. Iraq is a very good example of this.
-
Originally posted by Nash
"Supporting terrorists was his claim that Hussien was an immediate threat to the US."
Not entirely true AKIron... At one point in the lead up to the war, Iraq was appearently some 90 days from nuclear capability.
Not just one point, they were at this point a few times, going back to the 80s . You might be interested in searching up some interviews with the former head of Iraq's nuclear program, I don't know his name, he escaped Iraq in the 90's I think .
-
Here's a link to an article about an interview with the guy I was talking about. His name is Khidhir Hamza .
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/articles/hamza011222.htm
Some quotes of interest:
Iraq tested two radiological weapons in 1987 and 1988.
From August to November 1990, as the allies built up their forces for the Gulf War, Hamza was ordered into an intense effort to construct an atom bomb. By November his Atomic Energy Department had nearly completed a nuclear device. But, at about the size of a refrigerator, it was far too big to fit into a missile warhead-and it lacked the core of highly enriched uranium. Hamza and his colleagues had 31 kilograms of uranium from their Osiraq reactor that had been destroyed by Israeli bombers in 1981, from which they could distill 18 kilograms enriched enough to form the core. But they also knew that any such move would set off alarms at the International Atomic Energy Agency
-
Suave - to finish the quote which you cut off mid-sentence:
"But they also knew that any such move would set off alarms at the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitored Iraq's use of uranium, and that Iraq would be stopped from developing any more enriched uranium. Thus, Iraq would be able to build only one oversize bomb. Informed of this, Hamza says, Saddam agreed to shift to concentrating on using chemical and biological weaponry to halt the allied forces of Desert Storm."
So, contrary to the point you're trying to make, this doesn't support the idea of any Iraq nuclear weapons program post-'91. In fact it doesn't support *anything* post-'91.
Regarding the "immediate threat" case for war - Bush et al clearly argued it:
(Sept. 2002) "Last month, Bush told reporters that an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) study had concluded Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was "six months" away from obtaining nuclear capabilities. "I don't know what more evidence we need," concluded Bush. Yet the IAEA never issued any such report with those findings about Iraq.
Condoleezza Rice warned that Saddam might unleash a "mushroom cloud," and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested Saddam might soon attack America and kill "tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children."
Ladies... this wasn't *that* long ago.... If you've got the inclination and about 2 minutes you would come up with hundreds of quotes/examples.
-
If they find them in a reasonable amount of time, that's fine by me.
If they don't, that would be different.
For now.. I'll just relax a while.
Tick - Tock - Tick - Tock.
-
Originally posted by Nash
So, contrary to the point you're trying to make, this doesn't support the idea of any Iraq nuclear weapons program post-'91. In fact it doesn't support *anything* post-'91.
Straw man fallacy, that wasn't the point I was trying to make by posting that link. In fact I even stated that the man escaped in the 90s . He was the head of the nuclear program untill he defected in 1994, at which time he was replaced. To point out the obvious, 1994 is after 1991, I'm not sure why you find that year so significant though.
The rest of that sentence does state that Iraq continued it's chemical and biological weapons program with redoubled vigor though. Actually it says using, not producing. It does not imply that the nuclear program was halted.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Regarding the "immediate threat" case for war - Bush et al clearly argued it:
(Sept. 2002) "Last month, Bush told reporters that an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) study had concluded Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was "six months" away from obtaining nuclear capabilities. "I don't know what more evidence we need," concluded Bush. Yet the IAEA never issued any such report with those findings about Iraq.
Who made this ascertation ? And are they privy to highly classified IAEA national security information like the President is ?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Condoleezza Rice warned that Saddam might unleash a "mushroom cloud," and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested Saddam might soon attack America and kill "tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children."
Yeah that's what nbc weapons do when they go off . You doubt this ?
-
Dowding, you want a piece of the betting action that 10Bears and Nash have? :D
I'm sure we can arrange something.
As you know, WpnX is 13th TAS just back from Iraq. After chatting with him, I feel pretty confident I was right. Iraq's a big place; they might not find it in 90 days but I think they'll find it.
We're talking about folks that bury squadrons of Migs, amongst other things, in a desert as big as all of California.
Of course, it HAS been a bit over two entire weeks since they declared the combat phase over.............
-
But lets all look at bright side of all of this. Even the USA haters recognize how much more competant the USA is compared to the gutless chatting UN - they were asking for an indefinite timeframe for Blix and co but wont even give the good old USA a week to find the stuff.
God Bless America! :D
-
From here, it looks as if the intel was wrong and Blix was right. There are no WMD.
You hope and pray....none of you guys will buck up and just tell it like it is....you can't stand Bush....you feel he stole the election, you hope for failure in Iraq and regarding our domestic economy, a recovery under the Bush administrations control would only cause you grief.
No matter who is running our country, I would think we as citizens would hope for an outcome which is best for America...in my years of living, I've never seen such bitter, hateful and consistent partisanship.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... so... ten plus years of sanctions in Iraq got us what exactly?
Nothing
-
How many of you have ever stood in the middle of a desert?
If so, can you tell me it would be easy to find anything buried in that same desert?
It's not that easy.
Who here believes in no possibility of the WMD's being removed from the country while we square danced in the UN?
-
Originally posted by Rude
How many of you have ever stood in the middle of a desert?
If so, can you tell me it would be easy to find anything buried in that same desert?
It's not that easy.
Who here believes in no possibility of the WMD's being removed from the country while we square danced in the UN?
Hell, just drive from Phoenix to Los Angeles and look across those 350 miles of desert and tell me you couldn't hide something out there that might never be found.
-
Grunherz. The usual tripe about US haters. The usual "I'll argue with everyone and tell them what they think because it's easier that way". You were doing so well too.
Toad - my money if going towards more worthy things right now. I'm not saying your BBS bet over some petty argument isn't worthy... :D
The truth is I'm not sure either way. There is evidence for and against. The most telling evidence is the preventative measures the Iraqis were equipped with. But that is circumstancial and there was supposed to be weaponized WMD available for deployment within 45 minutes. Hype? Probably. There was alot of that before the war.
What most disquietens me about the conflict was the switching of motivation before and during the war. It started to be about WMD, then it became humanitarian. It seemed to me that the whole thing was built on shaky foundations supported by flavour-of-the-moment popularist reasoning.
-
Dowding, it's simply how an individual chooses to interpret the situation.
The war was initiated on a WMD basis.
Now, a bit more than 2 weeks after the announced end of combat, some folks want instant service on the WMD proof. McDonald's syndrome. It's going to take some time, I think. Further, if 5,000 liters of anthrax WERE found, these same folks would say "so what.. that's not REAL WMD... that's just a little bit". They'll excuse anything.
I still personally require WMD proof for me to back Bush in this war. The difference is that I'm a bit more patient and realistic.
If there are no WMD shown, at some point one must conclude he lied or misled us about that. If that is the case, I will hold him responsible and accountable.
You see, a lie by a President is a lie. About a BJ or about WMD, a lie is a lie. And my reaction will be the same.
Unlike a host of others that can excuse lying by their favorite, I can't tolerate it on either side.
Hope that clears things up.
-
I am very sarcastic abouut all this crap dowding, but hell just look how you "we need more time for inspections 8 years was not enough" guys are now demanding that the USA find it all immediately or else... How exactly am I supposed to view that bizzare reversal of attititudes?
-
.
-
Mass graves with 10,000+ victims found last week...I guess humanitarian purposes doesn't fit in well with the Left trying to make GWB look foolish though. ;)
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
u.s. had gas ( mustard ect) in ww2 and was ready to use it.
and we still have it. funny that.
Just to clear up the above.
We have very very old (from as early as 1918) stocks of unstable mustard gas in artillery shells that for the most part can not be moved. We are slowly destroying them but it is a very unsafe and tedious process. The weapons used to fire the shells are long gone and were mostly obsolete in WW2 (IE the French 75mm). The bombs were actually designed for biplanes in WW1 and the shackles would not work in WW2 with out modifications. These "weapons" are really not weapons but are toxic wastes, and are coasting a ton to get rid of. Please don't say we have mustard gas weapons, as we don't (they are and have been useless as a weapon for over 60 years) I have heard that we have N.B.C. many times lately and I just wanted to clear this up. There is a big difference in having old unstable stocks of junk and having weapons. The newer stuff was easier to destroy after WW2 and has been. We maintained a deterrence in chem. weapons to prevent the enemy from using the same but for the most part it was more of a bluff then anything (we had no real chem. suits or gas masks to give our troops) we could not fight if we used it so really it was never planed to be a weapon we could use.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
If he did have it, I guess he could have been saving it for the next war.
yeah... that's it...
Sandman,
To use N.B.C. weapons you need several things.
1. A stationary enemy, nice to have a stagnant front like WW1 but you need the other guy to hold still for a bit. We moved way to fast to use them on us.
2. Weather needs to cooperate, no wind and surely not one blowing toward you. The weather in the early days of the war would have rendered the weapons useless.
3. The enemy needs to be unequipped to handle the threat. if he is trained and equipped you will only piss him off and he may use with justification his WMD i.e. tactual nuclear as we have said we will respond to WMD in kind and that’s the only kind we have. They knew of our MOP capabilities. I am also sure they were advised not to use them by a large number of the advisers they employed.
4. The delivery system to get the weapon on target when the stationary target is located. Iraq had only artillery to do this so the warheads had to be brought to within 20 or so miles of us to do that. We were not there long enough to even think about the getting the weapons to the tubes even if they could communicate this information. We destroyed their ability to communicate at most every level, but most certainly at the field level. They could not really use long range rockets as to the problem with targeting and the threat to the interception of said rockets.
5. The will to use the weapons at the field level. I believe the prewar propaganda program may have been at work here as well, there is evidence of oil rigs that were set with explosives but they had been sabotaged so they would not go off. I think many higher ranking officers knew the gig was up and really didn’t want to take the risk for no real payoff militarily.
Many of these items are I believe also true as to why Germany did not use any Chemical weapons in WW2.
Biological weapons are not a weapon to use in a wartime environment, as they are to variable in there use and effectiveness and they are slow in their mortality.
To say that "if they had them they would have used them" is really an over simplification, we had weapons that we did not use for a verity of reasons.
The facts about the possession of Chemical and Biological weapons are not disputed by anyone, they had them in the past and used them, this is a fact. To think that Saddam just decided to get rid of them out of the goodness of his hart is laughable. The inability of them to show where and how the were destroyed is what speaks to the deception of the regime. If I lived next to you and you wanted me to show you I had disarmed like I said I did would not be hard, if I really did and I wanted to prove it. If you told me something and it was true and you wanted (or needed) to back it up I thing you would go balls out to show my the truth. Look at South Africa as an example. They did and wanted to prove it and did.
It is really Simple,
Regards and thanks for letting me put in my 2 cents.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Mass graves with 10,000+ victims found last week...I guess humanitarian purposes doesn't fit in well with the Left trying to make GWB look foolish though. ;)
Really? I don't remember this being one of the key reasons that made Iraq such a threat to the U.S.
Now... if this is the reason we're going to be sending U.S. troops to war in the future, get out your checkbooks, tighten your belts and get ready for the long haul. Cleaning up the planet is going to be expensive.
And when it's all over, don't be surprised if the people you liberate still resent you.