GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Sep 15 2003, 06:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Sep 15 2003, 06:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Contrary to popular belief, the sanctions weren't in place to strangle the iraqi people. In fact, the stuff saddam was allowed to sell was SUPPOSED to go to only food and medicine for his people. They did not.
Instead of feeding them, giving them medicine, etc. he lived high on the hog with his 6 palaces- and why <i>should</i> he help them? All he's got to do is tell his people that america is responsible for their suffering, and is not letting him get anything for the people to help them. Bad america. Hate america and we'll change that!
He didn't tell them he was spending goo-gobs of money smuggling in fiber optic missile network technology from china. He didn't tell them that money could have been used to "smuggle in" food and medicine.
His people DIED in DROVES and all he did was let the media, which he controlled, sap it for all it was worth. He could have stopped it one of three ways (complying and getting sanctions lifted, giving his people the food and medicine that he was supposed to be providing and had the means to provide, or even smuggling in food and medicine as a last resort if it wasn't "enough". He didn't do any of that).
I concede that the sanctions weren't very productive, don't get me wrong. They did nothing but ensure saddams power. The guy ain't stupid. He saw an oppertunity and used it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> When the Iraqi government DID respond to requests from the US in the UN, we invaded anyway.
Or to put it another way:
<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Optima'>The US and the UK invaded a sovereign country without being attacked.</span></span></span>
All other considerations pale by comparison. We invaded another country. Just like it was Poland or something. How is that meant to bring about world peace?
Nothing saddam hasn't done before. I'm not saying we are correct in going into Iraq, what I am saying is that I'm tired of many people being hypocratic by saying it's bad if we do something, but its ok if someone else does it. Or at least excuseable.
Overall though I'd oust saddam too if I had the capability. But thats another issue. Some believe it's wrong to go into a nation without being attacked first, period. Others believe it's ok at times, that each situation is unique and it depends. Thats why there is no one correct answer, because each person has their own view- but regardless, we are there now and are committed; the worst thing we can do at this point is just pull out like nothing happened. If we're going to do it, whether or not I agree with it or not, we should not be doing it half assed. Get the job done and get out. A few of the democratic candidates feel this way too- although they wouldn't have gone into Iraq, they believe they need to get the job done.
<!--QuoteBegin--Grendel+Sep 15 2003, 09:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Sep 15 2003, 09:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Optima'>The US and the UK invaded a sovereign country without being attacked.</span></span></span> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What exactly is your point here? USA also invaded German borders in WW2, and Saddam attacked Iran without being attacked, Israel was attacked by all the freaking countries around it without provocation. There are countless examples, so please, try harder when you try to refute something.
please, like I said before, dont think im trying to paint a picture of Iraq as incapable of wrongful acts. and I agree that the US has no option now but to stay (if it didnt want its reputation damaged still further).
but really, is it THAT wrong of me to try and voice the so called liberal view points <b>at this point in time</b>, when we are activly engaged in a full on occupation and at home subjected to a massive output of propaganda.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but really, is it THAT wrong of me to try and voice the so called liberal view points at this point in time, when we are activly engaged in a full on occupation and at home subjected to a massive output of propaganda. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not wrong for him to voice his opinion on the matter- we may not agree with him, but about half the country believes that invading iraq never should have happened. I'm not one of them, but that does NOT mean they don't care for our troops. Some don't I'm sure, and I dislike those people as much as you, but saying that we shouldn't have gone in does not mean that you are suddenly a bad person.
The other side should always be able to state their views. Not only is that what this country is founded upon, but its also a nessisary element to restrain us in those times where we need restraining.
I personally support going into Iraq and I support our troops now. I don't agree with how we are going about re-building the nation (way too slow, a danger to the troops who have to stay), but without someone SAYING that, how will we ever improve? Well thought out constructive critisicm on our policies I don't mind- but bashing americans with statements that apply to other countries, not only america, and not even mentioning that fact, I do mind. That type of double standards tells me that they are just looking for a reason to hate on Americans.
<b><u>OK KIDS!....LETS REVIEW!</u></b> So far the winning side goes to everybody but "absentic". "absentic" is not too far behind, but he is a *!* **%*%* !@#$%$# @$@$& who doesnt understand the meaning of a life. He thinks that we as americans can waltz upon ANYTHING as if it is less than us just because it sdoesnt have everything that we have. POINT-"absentic" DOES NOT CARE FOR ANYBODY, HE LIVES AT HOME WITHOUT ANYBODY AND DOESNT KNOW THE MEANING OF "HUMAN".
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Did we actually find and kill Saddam? NO<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea... But he isn't in power anymore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Did we find weapons of mass destruction? NO<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Did ALL of the Iraqis really want us in Iraq? NO<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The ones under Saddams regime. The ones who fled to America did. Kinda funny...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4. When the Iraqis started burning the oil fields, he told the troops to save as many as they could.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Common sense, you have any idea how much those fields are worth.. less of a sting in our wallet to rebuild Iraq.
Also, I'd like to make one thing clear.
I'm neither for or against war.
I just support our men and women in uniform.
I will be one of them one day.
A Green Beret hopefully.
Most soldiers really do not care about the politics, all they want to know is if they have a job to fufill or not.
And don't you be going "You n00b!!! I have family in the Military"
So do I.
3 great uncles in WW1, 2 were at the Battle of the Argonnes forest, one was an Artillery Officer In WW2, Grandfather was in Army AirCorps in South America and a great uncle was in the 101st Airborne An Uncle was a Recondo in Vietnam, mother was in WACs (Women Army Corps) in Vietnam Uncle in the 10th Mountain, and was at Mogadishu in the incident know as "Black Hawk Down" I know at least 7 friends from my old school in Texas that went on to become US Army Rangers.
No one likes war, but it is a nessicary evil, many medical developments would not exist today if there weren't any wars.
Not to sound pessimistic but, I believe that peace is impossible to achieve. The human race is prone to conflict with each other.
(OT: But, I realized, my family hasn't anyone that's been in the Marine Corps O_o. But yet, I know a lot of jarheads!!)
<!--QuoteBegin--Skidzor+Sep 14 2003, 04:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Skidzor @ Sep 14 2003, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm about to eat dinner, so I'm going to get right to the point.
On all of George Bush's adresses, he was always justifying the War on Iraq. However, I have a few problems with his War on Iraq.
1. Did we actually find and kill Saddam? NO 2. Did we find weapons of mass destruction? NO 3. Did <i>ALL</i> of the Iraqis really want us in Iraq? NO 4. When the Iraqis started burning the oil fields, he told the troops to save as many as they could.
So, I tell you my comrades, decide for yourself what the war accomplished. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. No. However, USA never wanted Saddam dead, only out of power... if you remember, USA gave Iraq a 3 day deadline in which Saddam was to leave.
Also, where's Hitler? If you have half a brain you will recognize the importance of this simple question.
2. WMD's... relax, they will be found, one way or another.
3. Saddam was an Iraqi, he didn't want us in there... guess that makes the war unjustifiable.
4. That's because they are an invaluable resource to the world, not just the USA. Don't you drive cars?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, where's Hitler? If you have half a brain you will recognize the importance of this simple question. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hitler's body was burnt and buried just outside his bunker in Berlin. Forensic tests have proved that his body was located. What, you thought the Soviets wouldn't move mountains to find that body? Hitler died on 30th April 1945 and his remains have been identified.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2. WMD's... relax, they will be found, one way or another. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't get it do you. The US has been there for months now. They said before the war that they had pinpointed over 900 WMD sites in Iraq. It doesn't take that long to investigate at least some of those sites. And you're still trying to convince us that there are WMD to be found? Sorry, but when the nation has been occupied for almost 6 months and no-one can find WMD anywhere then it may be high time to start thinking "well heck, maybe there weren't any"
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Grendel+Sep 15 2003, 09:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Sep 15 2003, 09:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> When the Iraqi government DID respond to requests from the US in the UN, we invaded anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, the original resolution on Iraq stated that in order to comply, Saddam had to produce proof that he had destroyed the weapons program that we knew him to have. He didn't show any evidence that the program had been dismantled, but simply said that he didn't have any anymore. So to be technical, the US was enforcing the UN's resolution against the will of the UN. The signatories of the original resolution were just reneging on their original commitment because apparently it wasn't politcally convenient.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saddam was not only a threat to surrounding countries and possibly to the US; but also to his own people.
I guess I'll go gas me a kurd now! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Give Donald Rumsfeld a call. Best case scenario, he'll help hook you up with some prime chemicals; at worst he'll just wink and shrug while your bulldozers roll bodies into mass graves.
Act now, and he'll throw in a lifetime supply of crocodile tears.
<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>Usage may result in unintended invasion if and when its exploitation becomes politically advantageous. Offer only available to violent, totalitarian dictators currently holding favor with the United States Government.</span>
We sold them precursor chemicals, well precursors to precursors. Phosphoric acid and junk like that. All legitimate provided you are intending to use them for manufacturing or farming. Many firms outside the U.S. make and sell them as well. It was less regulated back then because the secrets to the manufacture of stable agents were still, well, secret.
Now, the one thing we did sell them that was directly an "agent" was biological samples. They were available to any country for medical research really, and they were supposed to be inert. And we weren't the only country to sell them to Iraq. Heck, I'm pretty sure Canada even contributed. Believe it or not, they conduct decently advanced medical research on the biological agents side.
That being said, what we did not do was put sanctions or a hold on sales when we learned that chemical agents were being used in the Iran-Iraq war. And we continued to provide tactical support in the form of surveillance. Could have been a major F up if a strong strain of something like Cholera were used.
Was wrong to do, but I wasn't even self-aware at that time so I honestly can't say what anyone was thinking.
We sold them (supposedly) precursors and cluster bombs through CIA fronts in South America.
We allowed <i>other</i> American companies to sell them chemicals--albeit those ostensibly for pesticides-- which we knew could very easily be repurposed for chemical weapons.
The biological agents included anthrax, and those same samples which were supposed to be 'inert' were the basis for our recent invasion.
We knew they were using them, but we also believed that Iraq <i>had</i> to triumph over Iran, no matter the cost. Rather than argue right or wrong, I'd rather just say that it takes <i>major</i> balls to try to use that as a rationale to go in <i>now</i>.
"Uh, they gassed their own people. That's how crazy and evil they are! He <i>has</i> to be removed!"
"Pardon me, but how crazy and evil were <b>we</b> to ignore it <i>when</i> it was happening?"
You can argue dates and availability (the fact that we would have sold these to <i>any</i> country who requested it), but the fact of the matter is that we had reports that WMDs (mustard gas initially, nerve agents later) were being used <i>daily</i> by Iraq in their war against Iran, and yet we still supported them. Then, many years later, the exact <i>same people</i> suddenly cry foul.
The CIA did not have to go through a front in South America because it was not the United States government selling the chemicals, or the biological samples. The government granted the *permits* to sell them, and since there were no sanctions in place at that time it was SOP. Again, companies in other countries sold them some of the same chemicals and processing equipment.
The Cardoen affadavit was the uncorroborated testimony of one man, and it was promptly taken off record and buried by the Clinton administration. Final finding was that the evidence finished products were shipped to Iraq was lacking.
We are also not the only country to have sent biological samples to Iraq. They were also not weapons grade samples, were supposed to be inert, and did not come with the knowledge of weaponization. Several of the samples obtained by the first round of inspection were not American or Iraqi in origin. The UK, France, China, and Germany join a small list of other countries who were cited for selling these samples to them along with the US.
If we want to count companies that sold chemical weapon precursors, there are at least as many in Germany. Many of whom continued to do business with Iraq, where by and large the US stopped following the end of the Iran-Iraq war. Some European companies even went so far as to sell one half of binary Sarin.
Another factor in going to war would be the sale of large volumes of those same dual-use chemicals people chastise the U.S. for by France and China. This was all done under the table and in violation of sanction. Luckily, the Iraqis were good enough to charge them tariffs for the illegal imports and we have the bills of lading.
When we asked the Iraqis about them they said "Vee know nuhsink!". When we showed them the bills, they said the shipments were lost. When we showed them photos of the shipments being offloaded they said "Oooohhhh *those* chemicals. We dumped them out in the desert like good little chillins".
<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html' target='_blank'>Too tired to leave more links</a>. . . At any rate, I stand corrected on one point-- the CIA front was selling munitions (cluster bombs, specifically) and not chemical weapons.
We can argue the specifics back and forth (indeed, read any two sources on the subject, and you'll find some disagreement) so again, I'd rather abstract it and leave it at this--
You can add all the mitigating factors that you like, but unless they were completely and comically ignorant, several of this administration's members <i>knew</i> that chemical weapons were being used by Iraq, when they were in a position to do something about it <i>as it happened</i>.
As such, it makes little sense that <i>suddenly</i>, a decade down the line, this suddenly evolves from (perhaps) a necessary evil into a hideous afront to humanity (and a precedent for their ruthlessness with WMD), and part of our rationale for invading.
Come on . . . we knew what was going on. And the 'Well, everyone else was doing it' defense doesn't hold water-- As I recall, Rummie has no problems giving disobedient European countries a good dressing down in public-- if it was such a terrible crime (as they now claim), where was the outrage back then?
Never said it wasn't a dumb a** idea to continue the supply when we found out what they were doing. Actually, I specifically said that a couple posts up.
That link from the guardian is just a rehash of what I just said. And if you want to include Clinton and his Attorney General in the mix over the cluster bomb issue, feel free to. They saw fit to exclude the man's testimony as non-relevant and then classified it. It was the only presented evidence that the parts were even used for cluster munitions.
I'm not sure what we know was going on, but if you mean we know what they had because we sold them some of it then that is correct. We also know what other people sold them more recently. There is no way that they were able to store mustard or sarin from the 80s until now. They could never manufacture stable nerve gas, hence their interest in the less efficient but more stable binary agents.
We're probably more or less arguing the same point-- or similar points.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And if you want to include Clinton and his Attorney General in the mix over the cluster bomb issue, feel free to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no problem doing that . . . I'm not a partisan lackey. Go ahead and toss them into the mix.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not sure what we know was going on, but if you mean we know what they had because we sold them some of it then that is correct. We also know what other people sold them more recently. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My main point here-- which was a huge tangent from everything that was being argued on this thread, and for that I apologize--was simply that it irks me when people automatically invoke the 'He gassed his own people!' line on Saddam.
Yes, of course he did. Yes, that certainly makes him evil. But many of the people in our government who act dramatically indignant about it actually chose to ignore it while it was happening (and when something-- aside from fist-shaking-- could have been done about it), because it was politically necessary to support him.
Well, you can moan, but it doesnt really help anything now does it.
You can spend all year pointing out American hypocracy and only be halfway through it, but that is hardly productive.
The facts are now, the Americans have seen fit to invade Iraq. They have plenty of moral justifications to cloud what they are really after. Whether they are hypocrites or not is irrelevant.
They have bombed, fought and won, and now Saddam can no longer slaughter his own people. The Iraqi's are being offered a chance at freedom. Unless this is a just a debate about whether the US really had the moral higher ground or not, it all seems good so far.
Saddam DID gas his own people. Sure we didnt stop him, sure we supplied him, but the fact remains that HE was the trigger man, he did it despite us not wanting him to. Its very much like blaming Remington for a massacre. They gave him the gun but they are not to blame. If Remington goes and takes the gun off him, or at least ensures that he certainly hasnt got a gun, that can only be a good thing.
Saddam is evil, he gassed his own people. He pulled the trigger, and so I will continue to use the Saddam gassed his own people line.
EDIT And I also am furious that we sold him the chemicals, but I'm glad we wont let a past mistake stop us from rectifying this, or at least making sure he doesnt have them any more. We WERE evil to stand by and watch this happen, we ARE evil that our countries continue to export weapons to third world countries, and we SHOULD be flogging the living daylights out of filth like Robert Mugabe.
Fair enough. I wish there was more info available on that cluster bomb issue, but it's so old and was closed by folks that didn't want it open again.
I think the "gassed his own" people line was also a large part of why Turkey was not interested in supporting us in Iraq. They don't exactly like the Kurds either.
We have found some graves since the end of hostilities, but as they were not known before the thing started they aren't entirely relevant.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, you can moan, but it doesnt really help anything now does it.
You can spend all year pointing out American hypocracy and only be halfway through it, but that is hardly productive.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then what exactly is the point of the discussion forum? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 19 2003, 02:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 19 2003, 02:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, where's Hitler? If you have half a brain you will recognize the importance of this simple question. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hitler's body was burnt and buried just outside his bunker in Berlin. Forensic tests have proved that his body was located. What, you thought the Soviets wouldn't move mountains to find that body? Hitler died on 30th April 1945 and his remains have been identified.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2. WMD's... relax, they will be found, one way or another. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't get it do you. The US has been there for months now. They said before the war that they had pinpointed over 900 WMD sites in Iraq. It doesn't take that long to investigate at least some of those sites. And you're still trying to convince us that there are WMD to be found? Sorry, but when the nation has been occupied for almost 6 months and no-one can find WMD anywhere then it may be high time to start thinking "well heck, maybe there weren't any" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hitler's body was confrimed by a Stalinistic regime.
And we all know that Stalin hated to lie.
Wow, the US has been there for a month? Compared to a decade for the U.N.? Yep, we are so slow.
It didn't matter what we pin-pointed, they could have easily sold/hidden/destroyed the evidence in the meantime.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hitler's body was confrimed by a Stalinistic regime.
And we all know that Stalin hated to lie. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stalin would never have stopped looking for Hitler. He would never have let Hitler escape him. Hitler's body was confirmed to have been burnt by the man who did the burning, Hitler's driver, plus numerous other witnesses at the time who ended up in Soviet captivity. The fact that Stalin accepted that Hitler was dead is proof that Hitler was really dead. The records of the USSR clearly show that Stalin believed Hitler was dead. Are you seriously suggesting that Hitler is still alive? Well seeing as we have plenty of proof that he IS dead, I'd like to see some proof that he ISN'T.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wow, the US has been there for a month? Compared to a decade for the U.N.? Yep, we are so slow.
It didn't matter what we pin-pointed, they could have easily sold/hidden/destroyed the evidence in the meantime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I said the US has been there for month<b><u>s</u></b>. And the UN found plenty of WMD back in the early 1990s, so we know perfectly well that they can find them. And yet when they went back, they didn't find anything, despite going into all these places that the US assured us were filled to the brim with WMD. Before calling the inspections a failure, perhaps you might consider that there wasn't anything to find. And exactly how easy is it to "hide" 10,000 tons of anthrax which the US assured the world Saddam had? Every day that goes by without anything being found keeps on weakening the case for WMD. Face it: Bush said major combat was over in May. That leaves 3-4 months at LEAST of complete, absolute, no questions asked 100% guareenteed freedom for the US to go whereever to hell it wants to in Iraq. The US has ten times more resources than the UN had and yet the US can't find anything. If they were sold, why can't we find any records, or any witnesses, or any buyers, or any proof that WMD were being shipped around.
You seem to have locked yourself into the mindset that there are weapons to be found. If tommorow the US says "We have found a massive underground warehouse filled to the roof with WMD" I will say "Wow, looks like the US was right". But even 20 years from now with nothing being found I get the impression that you will still be insisting that there are WMD to be found. How much time do you want to give the US before you too realise that there's just nothing to find?
Comments
Instead of feeding them, giving them medicine, etc. he lived high on the hog with his 6 palaces- and why <i>should</i> he help them? All he's got to do is tell his people that america is responsible for their suffering, and is not letting him get anything for the people to help them. Bad america. Hate america and we'll change that!
He didn't tell them he was spending goo-gobs of money smuggling in fiber optic missile network technology from china. He didn't tell them that money could have been used to "smuggle in" food and medicine.
His people DIED in DROVES and all he did was let the media, which he controlled, sap it for all it was worth. He could have stopped it one of three ways (complying and getting sanctions lifted, giving his people the food and medicine that he was supposed to be providing and had the means to provide, or even smuggling in food and medicine as a last resort if it wasn't "enough". He didn't do any of that).
I concede that the sanctions weren't very productive, don't get me wrong. They did nothing but ensure saddams power. The guy ain't stupid. He saw an oppertunity and used it.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
When the Iraqi government DID respond to requests from the US in the UN, we invaded anyway.
Or to put it another way:
<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Optima'>The US and the UK invaded a sovereign country without being attacked.</span></span></span>
All other considerations pale by comparison. We invaded another country. Just like it was Poland or something. How is that meant to bring about world peace?
Overall though I'd oust saddam too if I had the capability. But thats another issue. Some believe it's wrong to go into a nation without being attacked first, period. Others believe it's ok at times, that each situation is unique and it depends. Thats why there is no one correct answer, because each person has their own view- but regardless, we are there now and are committed; the worst thing we can do at this point is just pull out like nothing happened. If we're going to do it, whether or not I agree with it or not, we should not be doing it half assed. Get the job done and get out. A few of the democratic candidates feel this way too- although they wouldn't have gone into Iraq, they believe they need to get the job done.
What exactly is your point here? USA also invaded German borders in WW2, and Saddam attacked Iran without being attacked, Israel was attacked by all the freaking countries around it without provocation. There are countless examples, so please, try harder when you try to refute something.
and I agree that the US has no option now but to stay (if it didnt want its reputation damaged still further).
but really, is it THAT wrong of me to try and voice the so called liberal view points <b>at this point in time</b>, when we are activly engaged in a full on occupation and at home subjected to a massive output of propaganda.
No, it isn't wrong.
Tip #1: USA does equal a baby eating monster.
The other side should always be able to state their views. Not only is that what this country is founded upon, but its also a nessisary element to restrain us in those times where we need restraining.
I personally support going into Iraq and I support our troops now. I don't agree with how we are going about re-building the nation (way too slow, a danger to the troops who have to stay), but without someone SAYING that, how will we ever improve? Well thought out constructive critisicm on our policies I don't mind- but bashing americans with statements that apply to other countries, not only america, and not even mentioning that fact, I do mind. That type of double standards tells me that they are just looking for a reason to hate on Americans.
So far the winning side goes to everybody but "absentic".
"absentic" is not too far behind, but he is a *!* **%*%* !@#$%$# @$@$& who doesnt understand the meaning of a life. He thinks that we as americans can waltz upon ANYTHING as if it is less than us just because it sdoesnt have everything that we have.
POINT-"absentic" DOES NOT CARE FOR ANYBODY, HE LIVES AT HOME WITHOUT ANYBODY AND DOESNT KNOW THE MEANING OF "HUMAN".
Yea... But he isn't in power anymore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Did we find weapons of mass destruction? NO<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.geocities.com/tacoheadman/iraqiwmd.html' target='_blank'>Mhmm..</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Did ALL of the Iraqis really want us in Iraq? NO<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The ones under Saddams regime. The ones who fled to America did.
Kinda funny...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4. When the Iraqis started burning the oil fields, he told the troops to save as many as they could.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Common sense, you have any idea how much those fields are worth.. less of a sting in our wallet to rebuild Iraq.
Also, I'd like to make one thing clear.
I'm neither for or against war.
I just support our men and women in uniform.
I will be one of them one day.
A Green Beret hopefully.
Most soldiers really do not care about the politics, all they want to know is if they have a job to fufill or not.
And don't you be going "You n00b!!! I have family in the Military"
So do I.
3 great uncles in WW1, 2 were at the Battle of the Argonnes forest, one was an Artillery Officer
In WW2, Grandfather was in Army AirCorps in South America and a great uncle was in the 101st Airborne
An Uncle was a Recondo in Vietnam, mother was in WACs (Women Army Corps) in Vietnam
Uncle in the 10th Mountain, and was at Mogadishu in the incident know as "Black Hawk Down"
I know at least 7 friends from my old school in Texas that went on to become US Army Rangers.
No one likes war, but it is a nessicary evil, many medical developments would not exist today if there weren't any wars.
Not to sound pessimistic but, I believe that peace is impossible to achieve. The human race is prone to conflict with each other.
(OT: But, I realized, my family hasn't anyone that's been in the Marine Corps O_o. But yet, I know a lot of jarheads!!)
On all of George Bush's adresses, he was always justifying the War on Iraq. However, I have a few problems with his War on Iraq.
1. Did we actually find and kill Saddam? NO
2. Did we find weapons of mass destruction? NO
3. Did <i>ALL</i> of the Iraqis really want us in Iraq? NO
4. When the Iraqis started burning the oil fields, he told the troops to save as many as they could.
So, I tell you my comrades, decide for yourself what the war accomplished. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. No. However, USA never wanted Saddam dead, only out of power... if you remember, USA gave Iraq a 3 day deadline in which Saddam was to leave.
Also, where's Hitler? If you have half a brain you will recognize the importance of this simple question.
2. WMD's... relax, they will be found, one way or another.
3. Saddam was an Iraqi, he didn't want us in there... guess that makes the war unjustifiable.
4. That's because they are an invaluable resource to the world, not just the USA. Don't you drive cars?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hitler's body was burnt and buried just outside his bunker in Berlin. Forensic tests have proved that his body was located. What, you thought the Soviets wouldn't move mountains to find that body? Hitler died on 30th April 1945 and his remains have been identified.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
2. WMD's... relax, they will be found, one way or another.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't get it do you. The US has been there for months now. They said before the war that they had pinpointed over 900 WMD sites in Iraq. It doesn't take that long to investigate at least some of those sites. And you're still trying to convince us that there are WMD to be found? Sorry, but when the nation has been occupied for almost 6 months and no-one can find WMD anywhere then it may be high time to start thinking "well heck, maybe there weren't any"
Actually, the original resolution on Iraq stated that in order to comply, Saddam had to produce proof that he had destroyed the weapons program that we knew him to have. He didn't show any evidence that the program had been dismantled, but simply said that he didn't have any anymore. So to be technical, the US was enforcing the UN's resolution against the will of the UN. The signatories of the original resolution were just reneging on their original commitment because apparently it wasn't politcally convenient.
I guess I'll go gas me a kurd now! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Give Donald Rumsfeld a call. Best case scenario, he'll help hook you up with some prime chemicals; at worst he'll just wink and shrug while your bulldozers roll bodies into mass graves.
Act now, and he'll throw in a lifetime supply of crocodile tears.
<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>Usage may result in unintended invasion if and when its exploitation becomes politically advantageous. Offer only available to violent, totalitarian dictators currently holding favor with the United States Government.</span>
Now, the one thing we did sell them that was directly an "agent" was biological samples. They were available to any country for medical research really, and they were supposed to be inert. And we weren't the only country to sell them to Iraq. Heck, I'm pretty sure Canada even contributed. Believe it or not, they conduct decently advanced medical research on the biological agents side.
That being said, what we did not do was put sanctions or a hold on sales when we learned that chemical agents were being used in the Iran-Iraq war. And we continued to provide tactical support in the form of surveillance. Could have been a major F up if a strong strain of something like Cholera were used.
Was wrong to do, but I wasn't even self-aware at that time so I honestly can't say what anyone was thinking.
We allowed <i>other</i> American companies to sell them chemicals--albeit those ostensibly for pesticides-- which we knew could very easily be repurposed for chemical weapons.
The biological agents included anthrax, and those same samples which were supposed to be 'inert' were the basis for our recent invasion.
We knew they were using them, but we also believed that Iraq <i>had</i> to triumph over Iran, no matter the cost. Rather than argue right or wrong, I'd rather just say that it takes <i>major</i> balls to try to use that as a rationale to go in <i>now</i>.
"Uh, they gassed their own people. That's how crazy and evil they are! He <i>has</i> to be removed!"
"Pardon me, but how crazy and evil were <b>we</b> to ignore it <i>when</i> it was happening?"
You can argue dates and availability (the fact that we would have sold these to <i>any</i> country who requested it), but the fact of the matter is that we had reports that WMDs (mustard gas initially, nerve agents later) were being used <i>daily</i> by Iraq in their war against Iran, and yet we still supported them. Then, many years later, the exact <i>same people</i> suddenly cry foul.
Bah.
The Cardoen affadavit was the uncorroborated testimony of one man, and it was promptly taken off record and buried by the Clinton administration. Final finding was that the evidence finished products were shipped to Iraq was lacking.
We are also not the only country to have sent biological samples to Iraq. They were also not weapons grade samples, were supposed to be inert, and did not come with the knowledge of weaponization. Several of the samples obtained by the first round of inspection were not American or Iraqi in origin. The UK, France, China, and Germany join a small list of other countries who were cited for selling these samples to them along with the US.
If we want to count companies that sold chemical weapon precursors, there are at least as many in Germany. Many of whom continued to do business with Iraq, where by and large the US stopped following the end of the Iran-Iraq war. Some European companies even went so far as to sell one half of binary Sarin.
Another factor in going to war would be the sale of large volumes of those same dual-use chemicals people chastise the U.S. for by France and China. This was all done under the table and in violation of sanction. Luckily, the Iraqis were good enough to charge them tariffs for the illegal imports and we have the bills of lading.
When we asked the Iraqis about them they said "Vee know nuhsink!". When we showed them the bills, they said the shipments were lost. When we showed them photos of the shipments being offloaded they said "Oooohhhh *those* chemicals. We dumped them out in the desert like good little chillins".
We can argue the specifics back and forth (indeed, read any two sources on the subject, and you'll find some disagreement) so again, I'd rather abstract it and leave it at this--
You can add all the mitigating factors that you like, but unless they were completely and comically ignorant, several of this administration's members <i>knew</i> that chemical weapons were being used by Iraq, when they were in a position to do something about it <i>as it happened</i>.
As such, it makes little sense that <i>suddenly</i>, a decade down the line, this suddenly evolves from (perhaps) a necessary evil into a hideous afront to humanity (and a precedent for their ruthlessness with WMD), and part of our rationale for invading.
Come on . . . we knew what was going on. And the 'Well, everyone else was doing it' defense doesn't hold water-- As I recall, Rummie has no problems giving disobedient European countries a good dressing down in public-- if it was such a terrible crime (as they now claim), where was the outrage back then?
That link from the guardian is just a rehash of what I just said. And if you want to include Clinton and his Attorney General in the mix over the cluster bomb issue, feel free to. They saw fit to exclude the man's testimony as non-relevant and then classified it. It was the only presented evidence that the parts were even used for cluster munitions.
I'm not sure what we know was going on, but if you mean we know what they had because we sold them some of it then that is correct. We also know what other people sold them more recently. There is no way that they were able to store mustard or sarin from the 80s until now. They could never manufacture stable nerve gas, hence their interest in the less efficient but more stable binary agents.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And if you want to include Clinton and his Attorney General in the mix over the cluster bomb issue, feel free to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no problem doing that . . . I'm not a partisan lackey. Go ahead and toss them into the mix.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not sure what we know was going on, but if you mean we know what they had because we sold them some of it then that is correct. We also know what other people sold them more recently. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My main point here-- which was a huge tangent from everything that was being argued on this thread, and for that I apologize--was simply that it irks me when people automatically invoke the 'He gassed his own people!' line on Saddam.
Yes, of course he did. Yes, that certainly makes him evil. But many of the people in our government who act dramatically indignant about it actually chose to ignore it while it was happening (and when something-- aside from fist-shaking-- could have been done about it), because it was politically necessary to support him.
That's all. I'm done moaning . . .
You can spend all year pointing out American hypocracy and only be halfway through it, but that is hardly productive.
The facts are now, the Americans have seen fit to invade Iraq. They have plenty of moral justifications to cloud what they are really after. Whether they are hypocrites or not is irrelevant.
They have bombed, fought and won, and now Saddam can no longer slaughter his own people. The Iraqi's are being offered a chance at freedom. Unless this is a just a debate about whether the US really had the moral higher ground or not, it all seems good so far.
Saddam DID gas his own people. Sure we didnt stop him, sure we supplied him, but the fact remains that HE was the trigger man, he did it despite us not wanting him to. Its very much like blaming Remington for a massacre. They gave him the gun but they are not to blame. If Remington goes and takes the gun off him, or at least ensures that he certainly hasnt got a gun, that can only be a good thing.
Saddam is evil, he gassed his own people. He pulled the trigger, and so I will continue to use the Saddam gassed his own people line.
EDIT And I also am furious that we sold him the chemicals, but I'm glad we wont let a past mistake stop us from rectifying this, or at least making sure he doesnt have them any more. We WERE evil to stand by and watch this happen, we ARE evil that our countries continue to export weapons to third world countries, and we SHOULD be flogging the living daylights out of filth like Robert Mugabe.
I think the "gassed his own" people line was also a large part of why Turkey was not interested in supporting us in Iraq. They don't exactly like the Kurds either.
We have found some graves since the end of hostilities, but as they were not known before the thing started they aren't entirely relevant.
You can spend all year pointing out American hypocracy and only be halfway through it, but that is hardly productive.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then what exactly is the point of the discussion forum? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The bottom line to me however is this...
+20 million people in this world are now free.
It really is that simple to me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hitler's body was burnt and buried just outside his bunker in Berlin. Forensic tests have proved that his body was located. What, you thought the Soviets wouldn't move mountains to find that body? Hitler died on 30th April 1945 and his remains have been identified.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
2. WMD's... relax, they will be found, one way or another.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't get it do you. The US has been there for months now. They said before the war that they had pinpointed over 900 WMD sites in Iraq. It doesn't take that long to investigate at least some of those sites. And you're still trying to convince us that there are WMD to be found? Sorry, but when the nation has been occupied for almost 6 months and no-one can find WMD anywhere then it may be high time to start thinking "well heck, maybe there weren't any" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hitler's body was confrimed by a Stalinistic regime.
And we all know that Stalin hated to lie.
Wow, the US has been there for a month? Compared to a decade for the U.N.? Yep, we are so slow.
It didn't matter what we pin-pointed, they could have easily sold/hidden/destroyed the evidence in the meantime.
And we all know that Stalin hated to lie.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stalin would never have stopped looking for Hitler. He would never have let Hitler escape him. Hitler's body was confirmed to have been burnt by the man who did the burning, Hitler's driver, plus numerous other witnesses at the time who ended up in Soviet captivity. The fact that Stalin accepted that Hitler was dead is proof that Hitler was really dead. The records of the USSR clearly show that Stalin believed Hitler was dead. Are you seriously suggesting that Hitler is still alive? Well seeing as we have plenty of proof that he IS dead, I'd like to see some proof that he ISN'T.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wow, the US has been there for a month? Compared to a decade for the U.N.? Yep, we are so slow.
It didn't matter what we pin-pointed, they could have easily sold/hidden/destroyed the evidence in the meantime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I said the US has been there for month<b><u>s</u></b>. And the UN found plenty of WMD back in the early 1990s, so we know perfectly well that they can find them. And yet when they went back, they didn't find anything, despite going into all these places that the US assured us were filled to the brim with WMD. Before calling the inspections a failure, perhaps you might consider that there wasn't anything to find. And exactly how easy is it to "hide" 10,000 tons of anthrax which the US assured the world Saddam had? Every day that goes by without anything being found keeps on weakening the case for WMD. Face it: Bush said major combat was over in May. That leaves 3-4 months at LEAST of complete, absolute, no questions asked 100% guareenteed freedom for the US to go whereever to hell it wants to in Iraq. The US has ten times more resources than the UN had and yet the US can't find anything. If they were sold, why can't we find any records, or any witnesses, or any buyers, or any proof that WMD were being shipped around.
You seem to have locked yourself into the mindset that there are weapons to be found. If tommorow the US says "We have found a massive underground warehouse filled to the roof with WMD" I will say "Wow, looks like the US was right". But even 20 years from now with nothing being found I get the impression that you will still be insisting that there are WMD to be found. How much time do you want to give the US before you too realise that there's just nothing to find?