If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Arthur Hagen" wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... Frode wrote: out the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iraq though....? It clearly could have been handled better. We saw what 12 years of "handling it better" accomplished: A brutal dictator playing perpetual WMD hide and seek with an impotent U.N.. Impotent? During that period, the U.N. and individual states managed to have hostilities between Iraq and Iran cease and arrange for prisoner exchanges, stop the Iraqi ABC weapons program, launch the "food for oil" program (which the U.S. several times obstructed, causing suffering to the Iraqi people -- not their dictator), and keep Iraqi tempers down. Note how free those 12 years were of Iraqi agressions. The US protested the food for oil program many times due to the fact Hussein was using almost all funds for himself and his regime and not for buying food and medicine for his people. Also it was immensly benfitting Germany and particularly France . Funny it was those two countries who raised the biggest stink about losing those contracts for oil. See, brute force isn't always the only solution, and abstaining from using brute force doesn't always mean impotence. If anything, I would think it's the biggest impotents are those who feel a need for dick waving contests using weapons as a symbol of their perceived potency. Surrender, retreat , and many other "I give up" words originated for the french language, Yes, Saddam Hussein and his sons were evil dictators. NO, the US had no right to attack Iraq. While the government of Iraq was evil, it was THEIR government, and not subject to US judgment. Iraq was in FULL violation of over 18 UN resolutions, half of which mandated and even required UN action for iraq's failure to remove weapons or allow inspections. I will find the specific resolution and post it later , but one specifically "requires" all member states in the resolution to act militarily and with sanctions against iraq if they fail to behave. |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
NO, WMD was one of the justifications, the primary given reason
(originally, and throughout) was the removal of the Sadam regime. .. Besides which, when the world is in trouble, it asks the USA for help. When WE are in trouble, who helps? England has been the only one to stand by us time and again. Ironic, since at our inception, they were bitter enemies. As for how the rest of the world views us, I don't really care. When they help instead of put their hands out, I'll pay more attention to them. IN ANY CASE, THIS IS AN OVERCLOCKING FORUM, TAKE THIS GARBAGE TO THE POLITICAL FORUMS. On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:54:11 +0100, "rstlne" wrote: Terrorists have been wantonly murdering people for decades and Saddam, besides murdering his own population in droves, started two wars, threatened Saudi Arabia, refused to comply with U.N. mandates, and pursued illegal WMD programs. And you are worried we will 'provoke' them? To do what? What they're already doing? Wow you can say alot of ****, But really the big argument is the same, no proof given to the WMD and that's why the USA went to war, and asked the rest of the world to go to war with them.. |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
Frode wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Maynard wrote: Sounds like what the US administration did when it comes to Iraq's WMD programs and their supposed evidence for it. No, they're your "let's pretend we're idiots and don't know a bloody thing" speculations about Saddam. (Added after completing: These posts are taking up more time than they're worth to me so I won't be pursuing this part of the thread any further. Feel free to respond if you like but unless you want to waste your time I recommend you just read it or ignore it as to your preference) Where is the speculation in requiring evidence prior to waging war? That isn't the kind of 'speculation' you were engaged and to which I responded. If they didn't dream it up they shouldn't have had a problem disclosing the evidence by now, should they. the intelligence apparatus and personnel. For example, something as innocuous as disclosing an intercepted message might reveal, to those who might not know, that you can intercept messages on the type of equipment that was used. Then I'm sorry, if you can't disclose your evidence it is useless to you in your case. No, it isn't useless and this is not 'special' to U.S. intelligence. It's the way the real world works. No court passes judgement based on evidence you will not show the court even in closed session. I got news for you, pal. When it comes to U.S. national security YOU ain't 'the court' and neither is the U.N.. The evidence was shown to the 'court of jurisdiction': the U.S. Congress. Disclosing the location of ready to use WMDs hardly compromises the intelligence methods used to reveal the location. All you do is make yourself look foolish by making absurd claims on matters you obviously haven't a clue about. Not to mention that your 'set up' question is invalid as the U.S. never claimed to have specific knowledge of where "ready to use" WMD were located at any point in time. And if it was that big of an issue it could've easily been shown in closed session to neutral and friendly governments. More evidence of your ignorance on how the real world works. As but one publicly known example, Britain can't tell the U.S. where their intelligence on the Africa matter came from because many countries, and apparently that source, have requirements that the source not be disclosed to another party. If you had 10 governments all stating "we've reviewed the evidence, but due to security reasons we cannot divulge the entirety of it nor how it was collected" the case would be infinetly stronger than if all you had on your side was a desperate Blair that keeps getting plastered when confronted with discrepancies in what little evidence has been disclosed. Like I said, your side is compelled to perpetually misrepresent the facts. The fact of the matter is, Britain is NOT "all [the U.S.] had on [their] side. While Britain was the largest military contributor, if you include the newest EU members a majority of the EU was on the U.S. side. Plus others, such as Japan, Australia, and more. Again, it hasn't been proven he's had one since the first gulf war. You miss the point. The cease fire and U.N. terms do not require we 'prove' anything. Saddam was to disclose, destroy, and show that he did. He didn't. And this links him to terrorism, how? Your question is irrelevant as the issue here was the U.N. disarmament mandates. And your disingenuous attempt to characterize his actions as 'reluctant' is like saying Hitler was 'nothing but reluctant' to abandon his desire for world domination. If Saddam was bombing DC at the time of the US attack, you would have a valid point. That is an absurd statement and my point stands that your characterization of Saddam's actions during the 12 years he lied, defied mandatory U.N. resolutions, and did everything conceivable to obstruct the U.N. inspection regime as mere 'reluctance' is disingenuous ka-ka. But that makes it an equal probability of 1) hiding weapons and 2) destroying them. Ridiculous. How so? Because you make claims with no basis for doing so. In particular, that you have a clue what the 'probability' of the only two choice you can think of are and that those are, indeed, the only choices. The WMD may have been moved to another country, which is distinct from hiding them in Iraq. Also, the U.S. may have succeeded in destroying them, or at least a fair amount, in the intensive bombing campaign. Targeting suspected/potential WMD locations WAS a priority, you know. Perhaps you can guess why. If they weren't hidden nor destroyed, why can't you find them when prior to the war your administration claimed they knew exactly where to look? Try to ask a question sometime without basing it on a lie about what the administration said. The 'third time' had come and gone prior to 1998. And the only way "coalition forces" could 'roll in' and 'level a few palaces' was the way it was done this year. But that wasn't the reasons given for doing so. Nor was it done with international support. I was responding to your untenable, impractical, suggestion of absurd 'alternatives'. Of course it 'wasn't the reason given' as no one, but you, would have made the suggestion in the first place. And 12 years later one can't just decide "well, we should've done this 10-12 years ago, Sure you can. Giving 12 years of chances to comply doesn't remove the option of direct remedy. The option, no. The need and justification for it, possibly. That's why you need to re-establish that it is a necessary action. There was nothing to "re-establish." The requirements were the same yesterday as they were 12 years ago. He didn't comply then, or the following year, or the following year, or the following year...... time's up. Unless Saddam was brewing up for war you didn't have any except for "we wanna finish the job". And that's not enough to start a war. You're ability to make up absurdities that were never said and never took place is irrelevant to the matter. Saddam repeatedly claimed to have abandoned ALL nuclear weapons program activity. The 1994 "we found it" incident I refer to was the discovery of the bomb design, and materials, he claimed did not exist. What was located was evidence they had it. There was no evidence it had been active post war. Simply not true. There's obviously no doubt the expertise was still present, and if given free reigns it would resume. But there was no present danger proven. Your 'standard' for 'proven danger' is new piles of dead bodies. We do not agree that is the best one. And the danger of WMDs at the ready along Wrong. The potential for WMD ready enough to be used, or disseminated to others to use, within an unacceptable time frame and the demonstrated propensity to do so was the danger. with a vague reference to terrorist ties is what the US went to war based on. Yes, we all know how 'vague' terrorist ties in the Middle East are. And have been unable to prove before and after. You still do not understand. It was up to SADDAM to 'prove' he was complying. He not only didn't, he didn't even try. In fact, he did everything conceivable to protect and keep his WMD, as every U.N. inspection team has testified and scored of mandatory U.N. resolutions, the last one being UNANIMOUS, agreed. You take one sentence out of context and misinterpret it. They do not state "he's doing nothing now;" they concentrate on the primary point which is that he DOES intend to end up with nuclear weapons, one way or the other. And the sanctions and inspections were effectively preventing him from doing so. You simply cannot know that. All you know is that you're ignorant of there being a 'problem'. The historical record, however, is that every estimate of there 'not being a problem' with Saddam's WMD programs have been later proven, by direct discovery, to be either wrong or a gross under-estimation of how far he had gotten and what he had. There was plenty of time to explore other options apart from outright war. Yes, 12 years of time exploring "other options." Time's up. It does not say that. But even if you wish to claim so, it would be simply 'on faith' that the inspection regime could contain it. As opposed to going to war 'on faith' that the US actually had evidence to indicate it was necessary. Go ahead, beat the dead horse. I've got the UNSCOM/UNMOVIC reports and unanimous U.N. mandates to show. An active program during sanctions and inspections would have been very very hard to keep up. Hogwash. All I need do is not tell you about it while your inspectors inspect bogus locations. And if you get close I take a day off to move the stuff. And I didn't have to think hard about it because UNSCOM documented him doing that over and over. Not to mention disguising trial detonations from surveillance and seismometers. You mean the sensors around, say, the New York 'test site'? You say we'd retaliate? How would we know who carried it into the city? Besides, you'd never accept the 'lack of evidence' and keep demanding 'proof'. But that would be fun, wouldn't it? I mean, if that one worked then the others probably would too. So ya got a nice little nuclear war for Saudi, Kuwait, and Israel to contend with if anyone get's in his way. failed. We sent the troops over and that was when the 'last chance' inspectors were reluctantly allowed back in but you can't keep troops there forever and that is what Saddam was counting on. Just a 'little time' and the U.S. would have to withdraw forces. How so? I don't have the time to teach you how deployment of military forces works. They're still there and likely more money has been spent on the dropped bombs recently than it would've taken to keep them there for considerably longer as a peace keeping force. You make declarations about things you have obviously not put any time into learning about. As I said before, I more than agree on the UN being more than a tad too lenient. And the consequences are just tough luck, eh? However the US has not provided any proof to indicate there was no more time to pursue other options for crushing the regime of Saddam or completely annihilate his nuclear research capability. I've explained it to you but you accept NO criteria. To you this is a 'word game'. It's a bit more important to the U.S. and others. Consider: If you're wrong there are dead bodies all over the place, even without an attack as Saddam had his own population to ravage. If the U.S. is wrong then the consequences are a brutal, mass murdering, maniac is removed and a country of 20 million liberated for 'no good reason' (as you might put it). Oh my, can we live with the shame? The 'imminence' was that, if it was not resolved at that time, the entire inspection regime, and containment, would fall apart; leaving Saddam free to openly and unrestrictedly pursue his WMD. Focus belonged on the inspection and containment, not war. 12 years of 'focus'. Just how long does it take for you to get the picture? If the US was all that worried it could've forced inspections to continue with its own personell. It certainly has the expertise and military power to put behind it as well as the money. LOL. Not a chance, pal. That's called "war." Saddam wasn't going to let U.S. military personnel roam around his country forcing inspections. Are you nuts? It chose war for very dubious reasons however, and claimed to have clear proof the WMD programs were active and dangerous and thus immediate action was needed. That's what remains to be proven. Not the intent of Saddam since that was not the reason given for going to war. No. Saddam was a known killer and a known threat. That's why two wars had already been fought. He was known to have WMD because he USED them. It was known he had more, from what inspections had uncovered. However he refused to comply with any disarmament, including the means to verify anything. Now YOU want to play blind man, forget everything he's ever done, and say "well, maybe he destroyed them anyway. You can't 'prove' he didn't." That is a fool's analysis. But there were certainly options left, apart from war, if given some time. You folks love to say that but never provide even a hint of what those other "options" were. It's because "we folks" take it for granted people have enough brains to see them without prompting. That's clever but hilarious. If it was so 'easy' you'd be listing them off. I recently mentioned one as well. The only things you've mentioned so far are hysterically absurd. That you're unable to imagine any means to hide, for example, artillery shells filled with WMD chemicals from U.N. inspectors, who's movements Of course not. But nor does it mean they did it. The inspection reports show they did. They found missiles with WMD warheads ready to go? They found chemical WMD that Saddam said didn't exist, yes. No problem then is there. Just show everybody the evidence to the loaded weapons ready to fire and everybody's happy. They were. Of course, if what you just said was true we wouldn't be having this conversation. The U.N inspection teams destroyed them when found, that WAS their job you know, and you don't consider anything more than 5 minutes in the past to 'count' as 'evidence', remember? You're going to be very surprised when the report comes out in 6 to 9 months. That's what the US have been saying since day one of the war. First it was "a few days" then "a few weeks" then "a few months" Not so and the 'impressions' and 'feelings' of the talking heads on whatever news propaganda channel you favor doesn't mean the U.S. 'said it'. Whatever else you may think is 'unclear', the one thing the administration and military have NEVER said is any time scale like 'soon'. From day 1 it's always been 'difficult', 'as long as it takes', and "we're a patient people." then "we need to realize we may never find them". Certainly a possibility. We're still waiting for anything but crop dusters to be reported. If you'd ever LISTEN to anything you would have heard about the mobile labs but, oh wait, they're really for weather balloons even though they are identical to the intelligence reports, eh? If Saddam had weapons at the ready chances are every high he would've used them. Even the Iraqi population believed he'd reduce Iraq to rubble using every means at his disposal before abandoning power. Odds are he would have used them at some point in time, if capable of doing so. I realize you probably can't imagine anything that could get in the way but perhaps the lightning advance of coalition forces plus bombing the living daylights out of anything we suspected might harbor WMD could've had a teensy bit to do with it. Not to mention we were in direct contact with many Iraqi commanders and made it clear that if they pushed any of those buttons we would not be happy, and PROVE it when we caught them. direct intercepts from Saddam's central command TO his field commanders ordering them to launch chemical weapons at U.S. forces. Where can I get those intercepts and proof of their origin? Why bother? All indications, including that question, show there is NO way to 'prove' it, or anything else, to you. That it didn't happen is a known fact. Why is another question. But your conclusions are, of necessity, drawn from ignorance as no one, publicly at least, knows. And until they do the US remains the aggressors without having shown just cause. Wrong. That's how it works. No it doesn't, pal. And just because you won't accept the obvious doesn't mean the U.S. is going to jeopardize it's security till you, the unsatisfiable critic, are satisfied. If you honestly believe there are security concerns weighing so heavily that the US would rather take the international and domestic political bounding it has during all this, than show its proof, I think you're overly optimistic. It's not a matter of optimism. It's knowing how the intelligence community, in any country, operates. But I'll be the first to cheer if the proof should ever surface and independently verified to not be US fabrications. It would also go a long way to restoring the US' crumbling credibility. Hell, it has no real effect on U.S. credibility. Those who bash the U.S. will do so regardless. This is just an 'excuse' and if it didn't exist they'd invent something else. Always have and always will. So where are these weapons, all set and ready to fire longrange missiles with WMD warheads? The US administration prior to the war claimed they knew exactly where to find proof. No they didn't. That is another lie promulgated by your side. "My side" is the side that demands the US show clear proof to back its actions before accepting said actions. Nice try at diversion but the issue was the lie, and not the only one, that your side continuously promulgate while claiming to be 'just wanting evidence'. This isn't a religious discussion. It's one of evidence to support actions. It is most certainly a 'religious like' matter for you as you've demonstrated you won't accept any evidence whatsoever that the U.S. presents. You will always claim it's either faked, non-existent, or some other excuse to ignore it. And I base that on the behavior I've seen you exhibit in this discussion. They specifically and repeatedly said the stuff was hidden and perpetually moved around to PREVENT discovery. Indeed. After they first claimed they had certain information that turned out to be false time and time again. Flat wrong. At best it has been proven the US intelligence amounted to complete hogwash. At worst it's been proven the US administration knowingly lied to try to deceive the world. No, that's simply your 'wish' because you 'wish' to discredit the U.S. Wrong. I wish the US to provide proof Iraq either had anything to do with terrorist acts against the US, or had active WMD programs that were ready to launch. Those were the claimed reasons. No they weren't. I won't take your word for it, I want independently verified proof. And that's what the remainder of the world is waiting for as well. I'm satisfied with the unanimous U.N. security council determination, a majority of the EU, and the rest of the coalition, on our side. It's a tricky prospect, of course. However it had worked for 12 years. No it hadn't. Just because he hadn't launched a major tank attack again into Kuwait doesn't mean he was 'harmless' and doing 'nothing'. Prove it. Saddam proved it by his behavior, from the moment he murdered his childhood teacher all the way to the present. After the last war it's been proven beyond any doubt that they did not have a ready capability of launching WMD weapons. And 'proved beyond any doubt' HOW? In your dreams? I've covered this before. If they were ready to be fired they would've either have done so, or been easy to locate since there was very limited time to properly hide or destroy them before the speedy advance reached the Iraqi positions. The problem is your assumptions are naive, flawed, incomplete, and derived from ignorance of military operations, among other things. Not a single long range missile has been located. Hadn't found any buried jet fighters till last week either. And they're a dern sight bigger. Were they too, "ready to use"? Irrelevant as the point is it isn't, as you perpetually claim, 'easy' to find even large things in a large country. long does it take to open a box and slap the chemical shell into an artillery piece? huh? And just how long does it have to take before you, the expert, declare it without "strike capability?" 10 minutes? 2 hours? The fact not a single such weapon was used nor uncovered shortly after the attack is sufficient indication that they were not ready to fire nor stored in a way to make it possible to rapidly deploy them. No, it isn't. Until they're found there is no proof they exist. Which is irrelevant. Always was and still is. It was up to Saddam to show he destroyed them and ended his WMD programs; and the U.N gave him the means to do so. But, failing that, the only proper course is to presume they still exist and act accordingly. If they don't, an unlikely event, then that's just tough for the murdering fool who obstructed the thing that would have saved his ass, and an object lesson on why you should comply with inspection regimes. To use an example. Say you're the guard at some important event. A man, who is known to have murdered 5 people in the past and own gaggles of every type of weapon known to man, comes to the gate. You ask to see his pockets. He says "no." You explain you need to determine if he is armed. He says "I'm not." You ask if he has a boot gun. He says "no." So you ask him to take off his boot and show you. He says "no." And on and on. Now, YOU keep telling me that we must presume he has no weapons and let the guy in, regardless of the fact we know he's a bloody murderer who carries weapons around all the time, because we whine "can't prove it" whine when the REASON we whine "can't prove it" whine is because the SOB won't COMPLY with the blasted inspection. The U.S. will do it's best to prove it but, the FACT of the matter is, there is NOTHING the U.S. need prove. The problem here isn't that Saddam wasn't out to wreck havoc, it's that the US didn't bother taking the time to prove it before attacking. Since you know Saddam as out to wreak havoc, what is to prove? I dislike Saddam as much as the next guy, Obviously not. but I cannot condone wars being started on unfounded premise regardless of how much I dislike the government of that country. So if the 'reason' doesn't meet your 'provable beyond a shadow of a doubt' test then tough doodle for those you know are being raped, tortured, and murdered. They'll just have to enjoy it till someone comes up with something mathematically 'provable' to your standard of absolute perfection. You've become so obsessed with 'technicalities' that you ignore the purpose of things, which isn't to provide mass murderers with a fair shot at murdering people. If going to war with Iraq to free them of Saddam out of humanitarian reasons, there would have to be recent events to trigger it. Like gassing a few cities. That was done before and the US didn't bother reacting then. Nor the rest of the world for that matter. So any level of rape, torture, and murder, short of gassing multiple cities, is acceptable? As for time period, just what seminal event do you propose 'reformed' him from a mass murdering maniac into a benign teddy bear? There you go again with the pollyanna 'but there was another way' whine without coming UP with any other way. I've already covered this. There was plenty of area between the UN impotence and the US viagra route. You've never suggested a thing other than patently absurd ideas, such as the U.S. military performing, and 'forcing', their own inspections, that are the equivalent of war. And that doesn't even count, in your 'cost estimate', the 'expense' suffered by thousands upon thousands of Iraqis under Saddam, of the lives lost to his sponsorship of suicide bombers, and on and on, Again, prove it. Prove what? That Iraqis suffered? You REALLY want to argue that one? Prove that he sponsored suicide bombers striking US targets. Why would I try to prove things you just make up out of the blue? Internal Iraqi suffering was not why the US declared war on Iraq, This has NOTHING to do with the topic that was being discussed. I'd keel over from shock if you ever stayed on a logic thread for more than two sentences. although they do very much want to be seen as "they great humanitarian liberators" now that the previously stated reasons seem to have fallen apart. It's because we're good at it. I'd say ask France but they have poor memories. The suicide bombers? Everyone knows he paid the families of suicide "Everyone knows". That'll hold up in court. This is not just a 'U.S. claim' and everyone, who pays attention anyway, DOES know about it, but go ahead and play the fool for all I care. The US administration is behaving like a teenager. Quick to judge, quick to action, completely ignorant of any possibility of anybody older knowing better. 12 years is not "quick." The US haven't been asking for war with Iraq since '91. Right. We tried everything else first. That's why it's called an option of "last resort." They've been doing it since finishing off Afghanistan after 9/11. That's nowhere near 12 years. It's the end of 12 years. And the end always comes after something else. Gah this is taking up too much time and is of rather limited interest. I'll leave these as my last words. Of course fully aware you'll claim some form of victory because I don't want to invest the time in page long circular threads. No, you're describing what you'd do. I'd never presume to have 'won' anything. |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody® wrote: Sure as hell doesn't take long for a well meaning post to get wrecked by idiots like Daemon Rose & neopolaris, not to mention SST, the originator, even if it is wayyyyy off-topic......... blow me |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Computer Hall of Fame at the Computer Museum of America | Ablang | General | 0 | January 25th 05 03:57 AM |
FBI turned AMERICA into a NATION of PROGRAMMED SLAVES and ROBOTS | Jimw | General | 9 | November 21st 04 01:12 PM |