Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Countrydave55

75% Of Al Quida Killed Or Captured

Recommended Posts

US support is a non issue in the matter. Its like blaming the gun manufacturer for a murder or Ford for the holocaust.

 

and in case your wondering you must take my post in context. It wasnt condemnation, it was correcting Pauls factual error that he didnt use them against his enemies because he did.

Edited by one2gamble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"But wait a minute....why inspect if you truly believe that they don't exist?"

 

Because some nations wanted PROOF that they did not exist - or (more cynically) they wanted to show that there was no way to prove the lack of their existence, say "therefore they exist, otherwise why....." and so justify a move against Saddam.

 

The sad part is that if theyuy had had the political savvy to wait a few more weeks for the final report to be published...unfortunately the art of politics seems to be far less subtle nowadays in the west than it used to be. Maybe Clinton would have waited, maybe Reagan, too.

 

"The fact is they did NOT prove they were not there, they were prevented by Iraq from conducting proper inspections. The only reason we know as much as we do now is because we invaded!"

 

Absolutely - we invaded. and that invasion was for what? To prove that WMD existed? To "inspect"? I seem to recall bombs being dropped on Baghdad - if that's how you look for WMD I worry - I don't know much about WMD but wouldn't dropping bombs on them make them a little unstable?

 

I agree Iraq prevented, obfuscated and gfenerally made anuisance of themselves. They hardly helped matters.

 

"So I ask again, if they knew or believed there was no WMD why inspect at all?"

 

And again - to show the doubters in the team that WMD did not exist OR , to show the others that they DID - in other words to settle the question once and for all.

 

 

"In fact they did believe there was WMD, they just didn't wish to follow the US course of action. "

 

Maybe they did - I never read any interviews saying as much so I am not privy to this fact. Maybe you are....but I worry on this board the amount of "facts" that are nothing of the kind - and how they are used in making points. Seems genuine debate gets lost in the dogma that passes for debate.

 

"Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because they did not support invasion that they did not believe the intelligence."

 

Now you are making assumptions about me. Perhaps the pot is calling the kettle black.

 

"I don't recall them refuting the intelligence at the time, only the course of action."

 

Ah - something we agree upon.

 

You asked why inspectors were sent in - I gave you a hypothetical reply (well the reply wasn't hypothetical, the situation was). I don't recall writing my opinion as to the facts in this - and yet you seem to assume that I am on the UNs side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US support is a non issue in the matter.  Its like blaming the gun manufacturer for a murder or Ford for the holocaust.

 

and in case your wondering you must take my post in context.  It wasnt condemnation, it was correcting Pauls factual error that he didnt use them against his enemies because he did.

US support is a "non issue" ? :huh:

 

Big difference between a gun manufacturer, and or Henry Ford and the US government.

 

Gun manufacturers, and Henry Ford do not make foriegn policy for our country, nor do they start wars, nor do they control who uses their products. The US on the other hand has control over all those things. It is hypocritical to give the weapon, watch as they use those weapons, then pat the criminal on the back, shake his hand, and then come back 21 years later and say you know what, we changed our minds, your a bad man and we are going to take over your country and charge you with war crimes.

 

Those involved at the time should be charged along with him.

 

If there was no expectation that he would use chemical weapons then why the need to supply them to him?

 

These are not hunting rifles, or automobiles, they are weapons that the world has outlawed, as have we, yet we gave them to him. Why would we give someone illegal weapons? :rolleyes: It is an issue, one that should be considered when and if he is ever tried in a world criminal court.

 

They are hoping he will die before that can happen, because such a trial would be devastating to many in the current administration.

Edited by Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US support is a non issue in the matter. Its like blaming the gun manufacturer for a murder or Ford for the holocaust.

 

and in case your wondering you must take my post in context. It wasnt condemnation, it was correcting Pauls factual error that he didnt use them against his enemies because he did.

A non-issue? It is like a company making a nuclear weapon and giving it to someone they know will use it for evil and then denying they had any part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

res publica from the Latin meaning matters concerning the people

 

democracy from the Greek meaning of the people

 

 

Seeing how neither was a democracy in the modern sense but only a template and an inspiration, I don't see how they contradict each other.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they made a guess that Iraq did not have WMD and Bush guessed they did. The UN is 1/1 and Bush is 0/1, bad guess by Bush costs 10,000+ Iraqi's their lives. Maybe people should stop playing games with people's lives and just do it right initially.

No, as far as I remember they did not refute the intelligence, they did not make the "guess" you propose, they differed on the course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now you are making assumptions about me. Perhaps the pot is calling the kettle black.

 

"I don't recall them refuting the intelligence at the time, only the course of action."

 

Ah - something we agree upon.

 

You asked why inspectors were sent in - I gave you a hypothetical reply (well the reply wasn't hypothetical, the situation was). I don't recall writing my opinion as to the facts in this - and yet you seem to assume that I am on the UNs side.

I am not making assumptions about you, I am refuting any statements that the UN believed there were no WMD before the war. That is all.

 

The difference between the UN and the US was on the course of action. The UN was willing to take the risk and the US was not.

 

The most recent report to Congress shows the US was correct and that Iraq had a plan in place to play the UN for fools through negotiating dishonestly in order to restart their weapons projects. The mere fact that the UN was willing to negotiate with them in the face of their sanctions being violated demonstrates that the UN course of action was doomed and incorrect in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

res publica from the Latin meaning matters concerning the people

 

democracy from the Greek meaning of the people

 

 

Seeing how neither was a democracy in the modern sense but only a template and an inspiration, I don't see how they contradict each other.

 

I

In fact you are very correct, and they are not in conflict. We are in fact a Democratic Republic. There are many additional twists and modifications at various levels but that is essentially what our form of government is.

 

"government of the people, by the people, and for the people"

 

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/gadd/4403.html

 

From the Gettysburg Address. It is often used to define our form of government and please note it satisfies the definition of both of the roots you posted.

 

 

Well done, well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US support is a non issue in the matter. Its like blaming the gun manufacturer for a murder or Ford for the holocaust.

 

and in case your wondering you must take my post in context. It wasnt condemnation, it was correcting Pauls factual error that he didnt use them against his enemies because he did.

The dealings of the US in the Middle East leave a great deal to be desired for sure, it is not a non issue.

 

I believe the US should not be dealing in arms at all, not even with our best allies. I simply do not like it.

 

 

It is not like blaming a gun manufacturer at all. It is more like blaming an adult for giving a child a shotgun when he knows the child is violent and immature. We do hold the adult responsible when that kid kills a few people with it. That's the way I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraqs enemies? Name them. I remeber Saddam Hussein using chemicla weapons against his own people (JKurds as I recall) but not agianst "Iraq's enemies".

 

IRAN is one of Iraqs enemies and still is.

 

Kuwait was 1 of Iraqs enemies and Saddam forcefully took over this country.

 

Israel is 1 of Iraqs enemies and any of the scud missiles that were launched at Israel could have contained any number of WMD components available to Saddam.

 

I'm sure sure we can find many more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRAN is one of Iraqs enemies and still is.

 

Kuwait was 1 of Iraqs enemies and Saddam forcefully took over this country.

 

Israel is 1 of Iraqs enemies and any of the scud missiles that were launched at Israel could have contained any number of WMD components available to Saddam.

 

I'm sure sure we can find many more.

So- of Iran , Israel and Kuwait, which ones suffered from attacks from WMDs?

 

Kuwait was "foircefully" tkaen over, but where were the WMDs?

 

Of course any of the scud missiles launced at Israel COULD have contained WMD components (btw what's a WMD compnent? maybe he could have fired a bunch of timing mechanisms at Israel?), it also COULD have contained KFC.

 

Are you claiming the reason they didn't was because of the US/UK/ Australian action?

 

"I'm sure we can find many more"

 

Tacke don the end of your post this sounds reasonable - however, I suggest you are out of options here - maybe you are sure, but why not name them if you are so sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not making assumptions about you, I am refuting any statements that the UN believed there were no WMD before the war. That is all.

 

The difference between the UN and the US was on the course of action. The UN was willing to take the risk and the US was not.

 

The most recent report to Congress shows the US was correct and that Iraq had a plan in place to play the UN for fools through negotiating dishonestly in order to restart their weapons projects. The mere fact that the UN was willing to negotiate with them in the face of their sanctions being violated demonstrates that the UN course of action was doomed and incorrect in this case.

"Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because they did not support invasion that they did not believe the intelligence."

 

 

I suggest THAT is an assumption (i.e. that I think the UN did not believe the intelligence).

 

Did the report to Congress explicitly state the UN were being "played for fools"? That sounds a little emotive . Who wrote the report for congress?

 

What UN course of action are you referring to? The UN (as I understand it - please note I am not stating this is a fact, simply my understanding of the situation) was waiting to ghear form the Inspectorate before passing a resolution that might have legitimised the US/UK/Oz action and may have gained wider international support.

 

The UN (as I see it) was trying to everything within reason to stop a war - so negotiating wth a country that had bribed UN members to break the sanctions was, to my mind legitimate IF it prevented unnecessary slaughter - and as I understand it the sanctions themselves had cost half a million childrens lives already.

 

 

Please note - I am not saying that that is the fault of the US/ UK who initiated the sanctions - I am aware that leaders inside Iraq could have transferred monetary assets to help the poor (oops, sounds like socialism) but chose not to, so nobody comes off clean imo. I just tihnk the sanctions-busting argument has little merit.

 

Yours typographically

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, the fact that he killed his own people with gas is enough for me.

 

If a person has killed his own son in his front yard will you just not worry about it until he kills somebody in another yard?

 

Frankly I am concerned that the world is not more offended by that fact.

 

 

If he always stuck with killing his own people is there a point at which (a number or percentage) you would think it was warranted to make him stop or is it all good with you?

 

Does not the fact that the terror in the Middle East was that Iraq would use chemical weapons mean anything to you?

 

Look at it this way, the US has more WMD than they could ever dream of and nobody was terrified that we were going to use it. In fact we have used it on a larger scale than any other nation in history yet nobody was really worried we would do it, but they were very worried Iraq would. Why? Because it was a realistic and warranted fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasnt condemnation, it was correcting Pauls factual error that he didnt use them against his enemies because he did.

Sorry for the confusion - I was trying to say I Don't remember him using them against his enemies - that IS a fact, i.e. that I don't remember - I wasn't saying he didn't use them - that was why I ased people to name them.

 

ergo I made NO factual error - Quod erat demonstratum (I think)

 

I know this sounds like hair-splitting but I tihnk it's more important than that. I read a lot of assumptions being made in these posts and I am trying to be clear about what I understand to be facts and what are my own recollections /tohughts/ beleifs etc. I hope others will do the same...

 

Typogrpahically Yours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally

Bad move.

 

The cornerstone of modern civilisation is the elimination of personal vendettas. As hard as it is, you gotta get rid of that thought.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who wrote the report for congress?

 

 

The chief US weapons inspector. It is the one that made all the headlines of "No WMD". The problem is the headlines ignored the substance of the report in favor of the sensationalism of the headline. The fact is, we already knew they had not found WMD, we didn't need the report to tell us that and in fact that was not the purpose of it.

 

Iraq Survey Group had uncovered Iraqi plans for ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000 kilometers and for a 1,000-kilometer-range cruise missile, farther than the 150-kilometer range permitted by the United Nations, the senior official said.

 

Hussein was pursuing an aggressive effort to subvert the international sanctions through illegal financing and procurement efforts

Hussein had the intent to resume full-scale weapons of mass destruction efforts after the sanctions were eliminated, and details Hussein's efforts to hinder international inspectors and preserve his weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

 

Interesting report, isn't it? As I said, the report (by the inspectors you speak of) is clear on the matter.

 

 

Please note - I am not saying that that is the fault of the US/ UK who initiated the sanctions - I am aware that leaders inside Iraq could have transferred monetary assets to help the poor (oops, sounds like socialism) but chose not to, so nobody comes off clean imo. I just tihnk the sanctions-busting argument has little merit.

 

 

 

Yes I see that. I simply give that point a great deal more merit than you do.

 

 

Regarding any assumptions, I cautioned against them, I didn't say you made them. It was poorly stated on my part.

 

What UN course of action are you referring to? The UN (as I understand it - please note I am not stating this is a fact, simply my understanding of the situation) was waiting to ghear form the Inspectorate before passing a resolution that might have legitimised the US/UK/Oz action and may have gained wider international support.

Yes, that is the contention, the UN wanted to wait. The US was clear that they were not willing to wait.

 

The contention that waiting would have prevented war may not be correct. In fact I don't believe it is. The intelligence indicated that the reports of the inspectors were in error and that Iraq had successfully evaded the inspecors. In that light, I think the US would have wanted to move anyway.

 

We will simply never know as we cannot play out that scenario.

 

 

Yes, the fact that the UN was trying to stop a war is a noble cause. It's a shame that it was simply the incorrect course in this case. I respect them for trying though.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, the fact that he killed his own people with gas is enough for me.

 

If a person has killed his own son in his front yard will you just not worry about it until he kills somebody in another yard?

 

Frankly I am concerned that the world is not more offended by that fact.

 

 

If he always stuck with killing his own people is there a point at which (a number or percentage) you would think it was warranted to make him stop or is it all good with you?

 

Does not the fact that the terror in the Middle East was that Iraq would use chemical weapons mean anything to you?

 

Look at it this way, the US has more WMD than they could ever dream of and nobody was terrified that we were going to use it. In fact we have used it on a larger scale than any other nation in history yet nobody was really worried we would do it, but they were very worried Iraq would. Why? Because it was a realistic and warranted fear.

I just composed a long reply to this - but it was maybe a little OTT so I will leave it at this.

 

Many of my Russian friends were terrified that the USA would destroy us all - and they don't remember Reagans little radio mic error as a joke - they remember it as a terrifying reminder of the type of person who ran the most powerful nation on the planet.

 

Many people in the UK felt the same way.

 

So please be aware that asseritng that nobody was worried about Americas WMD capability will get you corrected. Plenty were and many still are.

 

India and Pakistan - nuclear proliferation - why hasn't that got people as stirred up? Is it because the MEDIA don't report it as much? Why not? Think about it in the context of Afghanistan...

 

EVERY death is an affront against humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cornerstone of modern civilisation is the elimination of personal vendettas.

I tihnk we need to rid t he world of all scooters - vendettas , lambrettas, the whol kaboodle - maybe trhese are VMAs (vehicles of Mass Annoynace)?

 

Typogrpahically yours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just composed a long reply to this - but it was maybe a little OTT so I will leave it at this.

 

Many of my Russian friends were terrified that the USA would destroy us all - and they don't remember Reagans little radio mic error as a joke - they remember it as a terrifying reminder of the type of person who ran the most powerful nation on the planet.

 

Many people in the UK felt the same way.

 

So please be aware that asseritng that nobody was worried about Americas WMD capability will get you corrected. Plenty were and many still are.

 

India and Pakistan - nuclear proliferation - why hasn't that got people as stirred up? Is it because the MEDIA don't report it as much? Why not? Think about it in the context of Afghanistan...

 

EVERY death is an affront against humanity.

I meant in the middle east during this particular problem dealing with Iraq.

 

Yes, we all know there was a great deal of fear during the cold war. Are you saying you are still afraid the US isabout to launch missiles over and from Europe into Russia?

 

Please, we are talking about this event, let's define it as everything that has happened since Iraq invaded Kuwait.

 

 

Of course we were all afraid during the cold war. Many of us here grew up with it, we participated in the bomb drills in school. I remember it well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tihnk we need to rid t he world of all scooters - vendettas , lambrettas, the whol kaboodle - maybe trhese are VMAs (vehicles of Mass Annoynace)?

 

Typogrpahically yours

:roller::rofl3::rofl3::rofl::rofl::funny:

 

 

Oh that's funny! :woot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant in the middle east during this particular problem dealing with Iraq.

 

Yes, we all know there was a great deal of fear during the cold war. Are you saying you are still afraid the US isabout to launch missiles over and from Europe into Russia?

 

Please, we are talking about this event, let's define it as everything that has happened since Iraq invaded Kuwait.

 

 

Of course we were all afraid during the cold war. Many of us here grew up with it, we participated in the bomb drills in school. I remember it well.

You scaled it down to my neighbor when it suited your ends, now you want to scale it back to Iraq? Ok, moving goalposts but ok...

 

No - I do not sit here in fear of the US launching nuclear missles - but if you are going to imply that nobody was or is worried about the US launching nuclear strikes now you are incorrect - I still know many people who believe America is an aggressive nation - and maybe if you stop and think about it for a few minutes you will see why....the US does not stop to wait for the Weapons Inspectors report to be published but simply attacks Iraq....

 

...some of them ask me "if the President of the USA is not prepared to wait, what else is he capable of?"

 

Then again it's a circular argument - and I'm off....see you later

 

Gryptotragically yYours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you implying that there was warranted fear in the Middle East that the US would use Nukes against Iraq?

 

 

I do understand that some fear the US,. but that is usually for good reason. I don't believe there was any real fear that the US was going to use nukes.

 

 

 

 

As far as scaling up or down, I was using the example to represent the situation for simplicity, not moving goal posts.

 

I don't believe that fear of a US nuclear attack is truly representative of the situation.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be overly shocked if America used a nuke of some description in the next 4 years should GWB be re-elected. He is after all a 'The end justifies the means' kinda guy, isn't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I would be shocked.

 

If there were an attack using WMD on US soil I could see it happening though, but that has little to do with who is president. It is the policy of the US to use Nukes only in response to a similar attack.

 

Though it may be entertaining to say that GWG might be more likely to use a nuke I don't really believe it is true.

 

Though there are other nuclear powers, we are the only one that understands the responsibility from the standpoint of having used them. Frankly, it is some of the others that worry me.

 

I don't believe the US would ever use a nuclear device as a preemptive strike unless it were a last resort to defend the nation against certain fall.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My argument is that you have (in mine and that of many others opinions) used them without just cause before and have recently been proven only too willing to end thousands of innocent lives through unwarranted pre-emptive strikes. I believe that so long as the people can be convinced that it would be an action that has to be taken, it will. Just as happened with the attack on Iraq, the spin merchants started adding Saddams name to all of the presidents speeches alongside that of Osama, until the 2 became 1 and the same in the collective conscience. I don't think there is anything this president wouldn't do if he could again manage to trick the population into believing his propoganda. Iran is a good example. He has slowly, yet surely demonised the country over the last 3 years and is softening up your populace for the inevitable strike. I hope I am wrong and that the strike isn't nuclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...