SkydiverRick 0 #51 January 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhy do you think we invaded Iraq? Because we wanted revenge for 9/11, and couldn't locate OBL. Don Kind of a kick the neighbors dog thing? Yeah, you're probably right. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #52 January 17, 2004 QuoteJust an opinion here. With the war on terror there was no better terror supporting state than Iraq to demonstrate USA's power. Even since 1990 we have made tremendous advances in military technology. Plus we know the area having recently fought there and having a lot of info. What better place to show countries that support terror what we are capable of doing. If you do not believe me ... fine. But why did Quadaffi (sp?) turn soooo friendly all of a sudden? I think you are absolutely right. I've felt that way for awhile. The press blusters on about WMD...damn, we gave them to him we know he's got them! But, this was an example to others. Unfortunately we also just handcuffed ourselves from really going after others who are a greater real threat. IMO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #53 January 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut why did Quadaffi (sp?) turn soooo friendly all of a sudden? I really doubt it was because we invaded iraq... maybe it was because we said we would withdraw all economic sanctions against his country? or maybe so they wouldn't have to pay all those families for the panam incident? What has the attack on iraq really proven We don't know he has the weapons of mass destruction... we know the un inspectors couldn't find any, and iraq couldn't account for their destruction... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #54 January 18, 2004 The parking lot is Afghanistan"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #55 January 18, 2004 Quote should i show you what I showed steve when of what came up when i did a lexis-nexis search on "france selling iraq weapons"? I really am interested to know what reason you think it is I left out. And I love sounrces so I would love it if you'd tell me where to look for the circa 1976 stuff. Really, I am an information monger and when it comes to sources, "i'll show you mine if you show me yours" Sure, show me your information from Lexis. I don't have access to that...but below, please find several (!!) links about Russia, France, Chirac/q, Saddam, Salmon Pak, terrorism sheltering, et cetera. I've got lots more, but this should start you off... http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html Adobe acrobat chart...can be viewed when it was posted on a discussion board here...link Interesting article about ramifications and also how the Russian gov't was selling... "Jamming the Russian-American Relationship" And one from the Washington Post: 3 Russian Firms deals anger US And one more here (there were a whole bunch more, but I thought these would be good to start...) Moving on to France... "The Chirac Doctrine" an opinion piece about the relationship between France and Chiraq/c... Excepted from the article.... "Saddam showed his appreciation by approving a deal under which Iraq committed to granting French oil companies a number of privileges plus a 23 percent share of Iraqi oil. Chirac repaid the favor by approving the construction of Iraq's first nuclear-power center, Tammuz, near Baghdad. The project, which subsequently emerged as the core of Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, was destroyed in an Israeli air raid in September 1980." One from UPI here... And one from the ME Times here. Three there. Many more where they come from. Moving on... I hinted at 1976 for several reasons (one will be found in an above article), as well as that's when the funding began for the black ops which funded the Afghanistan Freedom fighters, later to be joined in the '80s by OBL. It was also the installation of President Carter, during who's administration the Iran Hostage crisis happened (reference article here), which assisted in our position (among many other issues...) for the Iran/Iraq war and our positioning during that time. However, as things tend to do, the situation changed....and then we faced Iraq's despotic leadership and terrorist tendencies in the following events.... The Achille Lauro mastermind (captured in Bahgdad Brief overview of Iraqi terror support here And another on Abu Abbas here Abu Nidal was found dead in Baghdad Interesting article via PBS and the NYTimes about Salman Pak here and another on Salman Pak And one with Khidhir Hamza Actually, there's a whole host of discussion - pro and con - here....PBS:Gunning For Saddam Some organizations with offices in Bahgdad outlined here excerpted: "Several expatriate terrorist groups continued to maintain offices in Baghdad, including the Arab Liberation Front, the inactive 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). PLF leader Abu `Abbas appeared on state-controlled television in the fall to praise Iraq's leadership in rallying Arab opposition to Israeli violence against Palestinians. The ANO threatened to attack Austrian interests unless several million dollars in a frozen ANO account in a Vienna bank were turned over to the group. The Iraq-supported Iranian terrorist group, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), regularly claimed responsibility for armed incursions into Iran that targeted police and military outposts, as well as for mortar and bomb attacks on security organization headquarters in various Iranian cities. MEK publicists reported that in March group members killed an Iranian colonel having intelligence responsibilities. An MEK claim to have wounded a general was denied by the Iranian Government. The Iraqi regime deployed MEK forces against its domestic opponents." That's just a brief synopsis of several of the issues being dealt with. It is not inclusive, nor is it meant to be (for instance, I've left out the entire Kuwait invasion, any supposition with project Bojinka, any UN mandates, et cetera. Further, I did not discuss ideological premises with the various known terrorist groups that Iraq has/had sheltered for decades (ie the MEK, PLO, and so on.). This should suffice for the evening. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lazyfrog 0 #56 January 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteno better terror supporting state than Iraq Hmm, Syria, Lebanon, Saudia Arabia, just to name a few... just to name some other 2 : Israel, USA...---------- Fumer tue, péter pue ------------- ourson #10, Mosquito Uno, CBT 579 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites downwardspiral 0 #57 January 18, 2004 damn michele...that is a nice post. to kill terrorists? huh? i did phrase it in the form of a question. ok fine? how the fuck else are we going to kill terrorists alex?!?!?!www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #58 January 18, 2004 Quote to kill terrorists? huh? i did phrase it in the form of a question. ok fine? how the fuck else are we going to kill terrorists alex?!?!?! Terrorist are like the mythological beast known as the Hydra. Chop off the head and you may have won temporarily, but two or three grow back in its place. The only real and long term way to control the terrorism in the world is to give them fewer reasons to hate us. I'm not sure that's what we've accomplished in Iraq.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflir29 0 #59 January 18, 2004 QuoteThe only real and long term way to control the terrorism in the world is to give them fewer reasons to hate us. Got any good ideas on how to do that? I'm not sure that's really possible while keeping the "status quo." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #60 January 18, 2004 I still don't get some of you guys. If the admin is as incredibly crooked as some of you imply and most say right out, then why not just plant a couple WMD and say it's 'proof'? Surely these "oil rich, unpatriotic, spoiled, petty, childish, highly unintelligent maniacs" could pull that off without any issues. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skreamer 1 #61 January 18, 2004 QuoteI thought that they were the 4th largest military in the world. With the technology used in warfare today size doesn't equal strength. Also, when using conscription you might have a large army but they might not be that motivated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skreamer 1 #62 January 18, 2004 QuoteSurely these "oil rich, unpatriotic, spoiled, petty, childish, highly unintelligent maniacs" could pull that off without any issues. Take that back. I don't believe I've called GWB a maniac. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #63 January 18, 2004 QuoteI still don't get some of you guys. If the admin is as incredibly crooked as some of you imply and most say right out, then why not just plant a couple WMD and say it's 'proof'? Surely these "oil rich, unpatriotic, spoiled, petty, childish, highly unintelligent maniacs" could pull that off without any issues. Because too many people would be involved to keep it secret. I don't suppose many multi-millionaires are willing to go dig holes in the desert, and I am quite sure the US armed forces wouldn't go along with such a scheme.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bobsled92 0 #64 January 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteno better terror supporting state than Iraq Hmm, Syria, Lebanon, Saudia Arabia, just to name a few... just to name some other 2 : Israel, USA... and the rich one's hide in Suisse._______________________________ If I could be a Super Hero, I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year. http://www.hangout.no/speednews/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #65 January 18, 2004 Thanks, Jason. I'm still waiting for Benny to "show me his"... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cloudseeker2001 0 #66 January 19, 2004 QuoteQuote we were not able to capture Saddam H, or to remove him.... the first time..( wasn't that a Gulf War Goal ? ) It was not a Gulf War goal. The objective was to liberate Kuwait. That objective was accomplished with UN Sanction. So many people do not understand what you have just stated! And to everyone who bought in GWB's Iraqi WMD CRAP- YOU ARE ALL SUUUUUUCKERS! G. Gorden Liddy style! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cloudseeker2001 0 #67 January 19, 2004 QuoteI still don't get some of you guys. If the admin is as incredibly crooked as some of you imply and most say right out, then why not just plant a couple WMD and say it's 'proof'? Surely these "oil rich, unpatriotic, spoiled, petty, childish, highly unintelligent maniacs" could pull that off without any issues. I think they have not been planted b/c too many other countries are watching the US actions like hawks and waiting for the US to do something like that. It is NOT out of our relm by any means! I do think their may be a very, very small chance that weapons have been found, but the Bush admin. is waiting until after the democrats start talking smack, so POP out their WMD prize to win the minds and hearts of Americans who cannot think for themselves. Its out there, but then again, EVERYTHING about this War is a LIE! Even the Damn Jessica L. poster child was a fake! WAKE UP! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #68 January 19, 2004 Quote Got any good ideas on how to do that? I'm not sure that's really possible while keeping the "status quo." Well, of course the idea is to NOT keep the status quo. I think focusing more on the original idea of capturing UBL might have been a better idea than marching into Iraq. When we were on the hunt for UBL, we had the world's support. However, now with the cards we've been dealt by moving into Iraq and the additional terrorists we're creating there, I'm not exactly certain what I would do -- at this point. Probably among the things would be to give Iraq a better idea of what democracy is and let the people vote rather than following the Administrations current plan of appointing a sort of regional counsel and then having them pick a leader. The Administration's plan will only serve to make the majority of Iraqis feel as if the U.S. is still in control of their government years and years after the fact. If among the reasons we went into Iraq was to liberate the people, then we now must let them have free elections. And . . . that's just one thing we're doing to piss them off. It's their country, we need to set them up so that not only do we let them run it, but also the people will believe they are in control of their own destiny and not simply puppets of the U.S.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kramer 0 #69 January 19, 2004 QuoteTerrorist are like the mythological beast known as the Hydra. Chop off the head and you may have won temporarily, but two or three grow back in its place. The only real and long term way to control the terrorism in the world is to give them fewer reasons to hate us. Damn...how about that for quote of the day. -Kramer The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #70 January 19, 2004 QuoteIt's their country, we need to set them up so that not only do we let them run it, but also the people will believe they are in control of their own destiny and not simply puppets of the U.S. Agreed. However, before we allow that to happen we need to stabilize the region. If we leave now things will be just as fucked up, if not more fucked up, than they were when we got there. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #71 January 19, 2004 Who said anything about leaving now? I just want for our troops to be able to leave as soon as possible (whatever that means). Everyday we stay in Iraq our troops are in danger. We just past the 500 KIA mark, let's try to keep that number as low as possible.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #72 January 19, 2004 QuoteIt's their country, we need to set them up so that not only do we let them run it, but also the people will believe they are in control of their own destiny and not simply puppets of the U.S. I don't disagree...just really curious as to how long you think this should take? What sort of precursor events should there be? I think that getting control and power turned over in July '04 is pretty good...but what do I know? I don't know how long these things should take. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #73 January 19, 2004 I have issues with the current timeline. Too soon and you risk chaos, too late and too many of our troops die needlessly and there is a period between say, August and November that no matter how it turns out will seem to half the country and a large portion of the world to simply be manipulation for U.S. Presidential votes. Personally, I'm glad I don't have to be in the position to set the timetable. I do not think it can be done successfully by July '04. I would be more than happy to be found wrong on this point.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #74 January 19, 2004 QuoteI do not think it can be done successfully by July '04. Again, we agree. When do you think it can be accomplished? Honestly, I don't think we (the coalition forces) can do this in the next year, or even two years. It's going to take a while to stabilize that mess, it really is. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #75 January 19, 2004 Hard to answer that poll. It's like asking what the civil war was about, with the options stopping slavery, punishing the south, or changing the intent of the constitution. Any one of those answers alone is inadequate. The _primary_ reason we invaded Iraq was to take out a regime that threatened our interests in the region. Those interests included a stable supply of oil, reliable allies with which to fight "the war on terror", and a little terrorism of our own (i.e. scaring any countries there who are considering doing something contrary to US interests.) Pretty straightforward, really. Other reasons? They've gotten a lot of airtime, but they're minor at best, intentionally deceptive at worst. Stopping terror. I don't really believe this one because there seem to be an equal number of people claiming we are stopping terror attacks and explaining the increase in terror attacks with "the flypaper theory," which says that even if we create new terrorists we will suck them into Iraq where they will only kill other Iraqis and US troops. An increase in terror attacks is NOT a decrease in terrorism, and US troops are not bait. On the other hand, I can see why people, even people in the administration, thought that this invasion would help stop terrorism, using the old "Hussein is bad, terrorism is bad, therefore they must be related" theory. WMD's. This reason was simply the one reason everyone in the administration could agree on. Saying "we have to stop a madman with nuclear weapons" gets you instant popular support; saying "we have to stop an impotent tyrant who has AK-47's, a few Stinger missiles and pipe bombs" doesn't get you the same kind of support. They knew the evidence they had was faulty at best; the White House knew the uranium story was false, and Powell was quoted in Time Magazine as saying he was very worried about the veracity of the intelligence he was going to use in his speech to the UN. At best, you could say that they exaggerated the meager evidence they had for WMD's and ignored the evidence that said he did not have significant amounts of WMD's. It's pretty clear now that the latter intelligence was correct. Gassing his own people. As we seem to support people who gas our enemies, and condemn people who gas people who aren't our enemies, I can't take this one very seriously. It is definitely true that he was a human-rights nightmare, and Iraq will almost certainly be better off without him. But we've supported worse regimes than his before. Al Qaeda support. Evidence collected before we invaded (and even some we found on Hussein himself when we captured him) indicated that Hussein hated Al Qaeda almost as much as he hated the US. There's no doubt people in his government helped Al Qaeda, just as there are people in our government and military that commit treason and espionage and actively aid the enemy. But it's become pretty clear that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, or Al Qaeda's activities around that timeframe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 3 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
juanesky 0 #54 January 18, 2004 The parking lot is Afghanistan"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #55 January 18, 2004 Quote should i show you what I showed steve when of what came up when i did a lexis-nexis search on "france selling iraq weapons"? I really am interested to know what reason you think it is I left out. And I love sounrces so I would love it if you'd tell me where to look for the circa 1976 stuff. Really, I am an information monger and when it comes to sources, "i'll show you mine if you show me yours" Sure, show me your information from Lexis. I don't have access to that...but below, please find several (!!) links about Russia, France, Chirac/q, Saddam, Salmon Pak, terrorism sheltering, et cetera. I've got lots more, but this should start you off... http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html Adobe acrobat chart...can be viewed when it was posted on a discussion board here...link Interesting article about ramifications and also how the Russian gov't was selling... "Jamming the Russian-American Relationship" And one from the Washington Post: 3 Russian Firms deals anger US And one more here (there were a whole bunch more, but I thought these would be good to start...) Moving on to France... "The Chirac Doctrine" an opinion piece about the relationship between France and Chiraq/c... Excepted from the article.... "Saddam showed his appreciation by approving a deal under which Iraq committed to granting French oil companies a number of privileges plus a 23 percent share of Iraqi oil. Chirac repaid the favor by approving the construction of Iraq's first nuclear-power center, Tammuz, near Baghdad. The project, which subsequently emerged as the core of Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, was destroyed in an Israeli air raid in September 1980." One from UPI here... And one from the ME Times here. Three there. Many more where they come from. Moving on... I hinted at 1976 for several reasons (one will be found in an above article), as well as that's when the funding began for the black ops which funded the Afghanistan Freedom fighters, later to be joined in the '80s by OBL. It was also the installation of President Carter, during who's administration the Iran Hostage crisis happened (reference article here), which assisted in our position (among many other issues...) for the Iran/Iraq war and our positioning during that time. However, as things tend to do, the situation changed....and then we faced Iraq's despotic leadership and terrorist tendencies in the following events.... The Achille Lauro mastermind (captured in Bahgdad Brief overview of Iraqi terror support here And another on Abu Abbas here Abu Nidal was found dead in Baghdad Interesting article via PBS and the NYTimes about Salman Pak here and another on Salman Pak And one with Khidhir Hamza Actually, there's a whole host of discussion - pro and con - here....PBS:Gunning For Saddam Some organizations with offices in Bahgdad outlined here excerpted: "Several expatriate terrorist groups continued to maintain offices in Baghdad, including the Arab Liberation Front, the inactive 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). PLF leader Abu `Abbas appeared on state-controlled television in the fall to praise Iraq's leadership in rallying Arab opposition to Israeli violence against Palestinians. The ANO threatened to attack Austrian interests unless several million dollars in a frozen ANO account in a Vienna bank were turned over to the group. The Iraq-supported Iranian terrorist group, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), regularly claimed responsibility for armed incursions into Iran that targeted police and military outposts, as well as for mortar and bomb attacks on security organization headquarters in various Iranian cities. MEK publicists reported that in March group members killed an Iranian colonel having intelligence responsibilities. An MEK claim to have wounded a general was denied by the Iranian Government. The Iraqi regime deployed MEK forces against its domestic opponents." That's just a brief synopsis of several of the issues being dealt with. It is not inclusive, nor is it meant to be (for instance, I've left out the entire Kuwait invasion, any supposition with project Bojinka, any UN mandates, et cetera. Further, I did not discuss ideological premises with the various known terrorist groups that Iraq has/had sheltered for decades (ie the MEK, PLO, and so on.). This should suffice for the evening. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lazyfrog 0 #56 January 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteno better terror supporting state than Iraq Hmm, Syria, Lebanon, Saudia Arabia, just to name a few... just to name some other 2 : Israel, USA...---------- Fumer tue, péter pue ------------- ourson #10, Mosquito Uno, CBT 579 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #57 January 18, 2004 damn michele...that is a nice post. to kill terrorists? huh? i did phrase it in the form of a question. ok fine? how the fuck else are we going to kill terrorists alex?!?!?!www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #58 January 18, 2004 Quote to kill terrorists? huh? i did phrase it in the form of a question. ok fine? how the fuck else are we going to kill terrorists alex?!?!?! Terrorist are like the mythological beast known as the Hydra. Chop off the head and you may have won temporarily, but two or three grow back in its place. The only real and long term way to control the terrorism in the world is to give them fewer reasons to hate us. I'm not sure that's what we've accomplished in Iraq.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #59 January 18, 2004 QuoteThe only real and long term way to control the terrorism in the world is to give them fewer reasons to hate us. Got any good ideas on how to do that? I'm not sure that's really possible while keeping the "status quo." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #60 January 18, 2004 I still don't get some of you guys. If the admin is as incredibly crooked as some of you imply and most say right out, then why not just plant a couple WMD and say it's 'proof'? Surely these "oil rich, unpatriotic, spoiled, petty, childish, highly unintelligent maniacs" could pull that off without any issues. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #61 January 18, 2004 QuoteI thought that they were the 4th largest military in the world. With the technology used in warfare today size doesn't equal strength. Also, when using conscription you might have a large army but they might not be that motivated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #62 January 18, 2004 QuoteSurely these "oil rich, unpatriotic, spoiled, petty, childish, highly unintelligent maniacs" could pull that off without any issues. Take that back. I don't believe I've called GWB a maniac. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #63 January 18, 2004 QuoteI still don't get some of you guys. If the admin is as incredibly crooked as some of you imply and most say right out, then why not just plant a couple WMD and say it's 'proof'? Surely these "oil rich, unpatriotic, spoiled, petty, childish, highly unintelligent maniacs" could pull that off without any issues. Because too many people would be involved to keep it secret. I don't suppose many multi-millionaires are willing to go dig holes in the desert, and I am quite sure the US armed forces wouldn't go along with such a scheme.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bobsled92 0 #64 January 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteno better terror supporting state than Iraq Hmm, Syria, Lebanon, Saudia Arabia, just to name a few... just to name some other 2 : Israel, USA... and the rich one's hide in Suisse._______________________________ If I could be a Super Hero, I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year. http://www.hangout.no/speednews/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #65 January 18, 2004 Thanks, Jason. I'm still waiting for Benny to "show me his"... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cloudseeker2001 0 #66 January 19, 2004 QuoteQuote we were not able to capture Saddam H, or to remove him.... the first time..( wasn't that a Gulf War Goal ? ) It was not a Gulf War goal. The objective was to liberate Kuwait. That objective was accomplished with UN Sanction. So many people do not understand what you have just stated! And to everyone who bought in GWB's Iraqi WMD CRAP- YOU ARE ALL SUUUUUUCKERS! G. Gorden Liddy style! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cloudseeker2001 0 #67 January 19, 2004 QuoteI still don't get some of you guys. If the admin is as incredibly crooked as some of you imply and most say right out, then why not just plant a couple WMD and say it's 'proof'? Surely these "oil rich, unpatriotic, spoiled, petty, childish, highly unintelligent maniacs" could pull that off without any issues. I think they have not been planted b/c too many other countries are watching the US actions like hawks and waiting for the US to do something like that. It is NOT out of our relm by any means! I do think their may be a very, very small chance that weapons have been found, but the Bush admin. is waiting until after the democrats start talking smack, so POP out their WMD prize to win the minds and hearts of Americans who cannot think for themselves. Its out there, but then again, EVERYTHING about this War is a LIE! Even the Damn Jessica L. poster child was a fake! WAKE UP! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #68 January 19, 2004 Quote Got any good ideas on how to do that? I'm not sure that's really possible while keeping the "status quo." Well, of course the idea is to NOT keep the status quo. I think focusing more on the original idea of capturing UBL might have been a better idea than marching into Iraq. When we were on the hunt for UBL, we had the world's support. However, now with the cards we've been dealt by moving into Iraq and the additional terrorists we're creating there, I'm not exactly certain what I would do -- at this point. Probably among the things would be to give Iraq a better idea of what democracy is and let the people vote rather than following the Administrations current plan of appointing a sort of regional counsel and then having them pick a leader. The Administration's plan will only serve to make the majority of Iraqis feel as if the U.S. is still in control of their government years and years after the fact. If among the reasons we went into Iraq was to liberate the people, then we now must let them have free elections. And . . . that's just one thing we're doing to piss them off. It's their country, we need to set them up so that not only do we let them run it, but also the people will believe they are in control of their own destiny and not simply puppets of the U.S.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kramer 0 #69 January 19, 2004 QuoteTerrorist are like the mythological beast known as the Hydra. Chop off the head and you may have won temporarily, but two or three grow back in its place. The only real and long term way to control the terrorism in the world is to give them fewer reasons to hate us. Damn...how about that for quote of the day. -Kramer The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #70 January 19, 2004 QuoteIt's their country, we need to set them up so that not only do we let them run it, but also the people will believe they are in control of their own destiny and not simply puppets of the U.S. Agreed. However, before we allow that to happen we need to stabilize the region. If we leave now things will be just as fucked up, if not more fucked up, than they were when we got there. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #71 January 19, 2004 Who said anything about leaving now? I just want for our troops to be able to leave as soon as possible (whatever that means). Everyday we stay in Iraq our troops are in danger. We just past the 500 KIA mark, let's try to keep that number as low as possible.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #72 January 19, 2004 QuoteIt's their country, we need to set them up so that not only do we let them run it, but also the people will believe they are in control of their own destiny and not simply puppets of the U.S. I don't disagree...just really curious as to how long you think this should take? What sort of precursor events should there be? I think that getting control and power turned over in July '04 is pretty good...but what do I know? I don't know how long these things should take. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #73 January 19, 2004 I have issues with the current timeline. Too soon and you risk chaos, too late and too many of our troops die needlessly and there is a period between say, August and November that no matter how it turns out will seem to half the country and a large portion of the world to simply be manipulation for U.S. Presidential votes. Personally, I'm glad I don't have to be in the position to set the timetable. I do not think it can be done successfully by July '04. I would be more than happy to be found wrong on this point.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #74 January 19, 2004 QuoteI do not think it can be done successfully by July '04. Again, we agree. When do you think it can be accomplished? Honestly, I don't think we (the coalition forces) can do this in the next year, or even two years. It's going to take a while to stabilize that mess, it really is. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #75 January 19, 2004 Hard to answer that poll. It's like asking what the civil war was about, with the options stopping slavery, punishing the south, or changing the intent of the constitution. Any one of those answers alone is inadequate. The _primary_ reason we invaded Iraq was to take out a regime that threatened our interests in the region. Those interests included a stable supply of oil, reliable allies with which to fight "the war on terror", and a little terrorism of our own (i.e. scaring any countries there who are considering doing something contrary to US interests.) Pretty straightforward, really. Other reasons? They've gotten a lot of airtime, but they're minor at best, intentionally deceptive at worst. Stopping terror. I don't really believe this one because there seem to be an equal number of people claiming we are stopping terror attacks and explaining the increase in terror attacks with "the flypaper theory," which says that even if we create new terrorists we will suck them into Iraq where they will only kill other Iraqis and US troops. An increase in terror attacks is NOT a decrease in terrorism, and US troops are not bait. On the other hand, I can see why people, even people in the administration, thought that this invasion would help stop terrorism, using the old "Hussein is bad, terrorism is bad, therefore they must be related" theory. WMD's. This reason was simply the one reason everyone in the administration could agree on. Saying "we have to stop a madman with nuclear weapons" gets you instant popular support; saying "we have to stop an impotent tyrant who has AK-47's, a few Stinger missiles and pipe bombs" doesn't get you the same kind of support. They knew the evidence they had was faulty at best; the White House knew the uranium story was false, and Powell was quoted in Time Magazine as saying he was very worried about the veracity of the intelligence he was going to use in his speech to the UN. At best, you could say that they exaggerated the meager evidence they had for WMD's and ignored the evidence that said he did not have significant amounts of WMD's. It's pretty clear now that the latter intelligence was correct. Gassing his own people. As we seem to support people who gas our enemies, and condemn people who gas people who aren't our enemies, I can't take this one very seriously. It is definitely true that he was a human-rights nightmare, and Iraq will almost certainly be better off without him. But we've supported worse regimes than his before. Al Qaeda support. Evidence collected before we invaded (and even some we found on Hussein himself when we captured him) indicated that Hussein hated Al Qaeda almost as much as he hated the US. There's no doubt people in his government helped Al Qaeda, just as there are people in our government and military that commit treason and espionage and actively aid the enemy. But it's become pretty clear that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, or Al Qaeda's activities around that timeframe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 3 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,150 #63 January 18, 2004 QuoteI still don't get some of you guys. If the admin is as incredibly crooked as some of you imply and most say right out, then why not just plant a couple WMD and say it's 'proof'? Surely these "oil rich, unpatriotic, spoiled, petty, childish, highly unintelligent maniacs" could pull that off without any issues. Because too many people would be involved to keep it secret. I don't suppose many multi-millionaires are willing to go dig holes in the desert, and I am quite sure the US armed forces wouldn't go along with such a scheme.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobsled92 0 #64 January 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteno better terror supporting state than Iraq Hmm, Syria, Lebanon, Saudia Arabia, just to name a few... just to name some other 2 : Israel, USA... and the rich one's hide in Suisse._______________________________ If I could be a Super Hero, I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year. http://www.hangout.no/speednews/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #65 January 18, 2004 Thanks, Jason. I'm still waiting for Benny to "show me his"... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #66 January 19, 2004 QuoteQuote we were not able to capture Saddam H, or to remove him.... the first time..( wasn't that a Gulf War Goal ? ) It was not a Gulf War goal. The objective was to liberate Kuwait. That objective was accomplished with UN Sanction. So many people do not understand what you have just stated! And to everyone who bought in GWB's Iraqi WMD CRAP- YOU ARE ALL SUUUUUUCKERS! G. Gorden Liddy style! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #67 January 19, 2004 QuoteI still don't get some of you guys. If the admin is as incredibly crooked as some of you imply and most say right out, then why not just plant a couple WMD and say it's 'proof'? Surely these "oil rich, unpatriotic, spoiled, petty, childish, highly unintelligent maniacs" could pull that off without any issues. I think they have not been planted b/c too many other countries are watching the US actions like hawks and waiting for the US to do something like that. It is NOT out of our relm by any means! I do think their may be a very, very small chance that weapons have been found, but the Bush admin. is waiting until after the democrats start talking smack, so POP out their WMD prize to win the minds and hearts of Americans who cannot think for themselves. Its out there, but then again, EVERYTHING about this War is a LIE! Even the Damn Jessica L. poster child was a fake! WAKE UP! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #68 January 19, 2004 Quote Got any good ideas on how to do that? I'm not sure that's really possible while keeping the "status quo." Well, of course the idea is to NOT keep the status quo. I think focusing more on the original idea of capturing UBL might have been a better idea than marching into Iraq. When we were on the hunt for UBL, we had the world's support. However, now with the cards we've been dealt by moving into Iraq and the additional terrorists we're creating there, I'm not exactly certain what I would do -- at this point. Probably among the things would be to give Iraq a better idea of what democracy is and let the people vote rather than following the Administrations current plan of appointing a sort of regional counsel and then having them pick a leader. The Administration's plan will only serve to make the majority of Iraqis feel as if the U.S. is still in control of their government years and years after the fact. If among the reasons we went into Iraq was to liberate the people, then we now must let them have free elections. And . . . that's just one thing we're doing to piss them off. It's their country, we need to set them up so that not only do we let them run it, but also the people will believe they are in control of their own destiny and not simply puppets of the U.S.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kramer 0 #69 January 19, 2004 QuoteTerrorist are like the mythological beast known as the Hydra. Chop off the head and you may have won temporarily, but two or three grow back in its place. The only real and long term way to control the terrorism in the world is to give them fewer reasons to hate us. Damn...how about that for quote of the day. -Kramer The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #70 January 19, 2004 QuoteIt's their country, we need to set them up so that not only do we let them run it, but also the people will believe they are in control of their own destiny and not simply puppets of the U.S. Agreed. However, before we allow that to happen we need to stabilize the region. If we leave now things will be just as fucked up, if not more fucked up, than they were when we got there. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #71 January 19, 2004 Who said anything about leaving now? I just want for our troops to be able to leave as soon as possible (whatever that means). Everyday we stay in Iraq our troops are in danger. We just past the 500 KIA mark, let's try to keep that number as low as possible.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #72 January 19, 2004 QuoteIt's their country, we need to set them up so that not only do we let them run it, but also the people will believe they are in control of their own destiny and not simply puppets of the U.S. I don't disagree...just really curious as to how long you think this should take? What sort of precursor events should there be? I think that getting control and power turned over in July '04 is pretty good...but what do I know? I don't know how long these things should take. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #73 January 19, 2004 I have issues with the current timeline. Too soon and you risk chaos, too late and too many of our troops die needlessly and there is a period between say, August and November that no matter how it turns out will seem to half the country and a large portion of the world to simply be manipulation for U.S. Presidential votes. Personally, I'm glad I don't have to be in the position to set the timetable. I do not think it can be done successfully by July '04. I would be more than happy to be found wrong on this point.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #74 January 19, 2004 QuoteI do not think it can be done successfully by July '04. Again, we agree. When do you think it can be accomplished? Honestly, I don't think we (the coalition forces) can do this in the next year, or even two years. It's going to take a while to stabilize that mess, it really is. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #75 January 19, 2004 Hard to answer that poll. It's like asking what the civil war was about, with the options stopping slavery, punishing the south, or changing the intent of the constitution. Any one of those answers alone is inadequate. The _primary_ reason we invaded Iraq was to take out a regime that threatened our interests in the region. Those interests included a stable supply of oil, reliable allies with which to fight "the war on terror", and a little terrorism of our own (i.e. scaring any countries there who are considering doing something contrary to US interests.) Pretty straightforward, really. Other reasons? They've gotten a lot of airtime, but they're minor at best, intentionally deceptive at worst. Stopping terror. I don't really believe this one because there seem to be an equal number of people claiming we are stopping terror attacks and explaining the increase in terror attacks with "the flypaper theory," which says that even if we create new terrorists we will suck them into Iraq where they will only kill other Iraqis and US troops. An increase in terror attacks is NOT a decrease in terrorism, and US troops are not bait. On the other hand, I can see why people, even people in the administration, thought that this invasion would help stop terrorism, using the old "Hussein is bad, terrorism is bad, therefore they must be related" theory. WMD's. This reason was simply the one reason everyone in the administration could agree on. Saying "we have to stop a madman with nuclear weapons" gets you instant popular support; saying "we have to stop an impotent tyrant who has AK-47's, a few Stinger missiles and pipe bombs" doesn't get you the same kind of support. They knew the evidence they had was faulty at best; the White House knew the uranium story was false, and Powell was quoted in Time Magazine as saying he was very worried about the veracity of the intelligence he was going to use in his speech to the UN. At best, you could say that they exaggerated the meager evidence they had for WMD's and ignored the evidence that said he did not have significant amounts of WMD's. It's pretty clear now that the latter intelligence was correct. Gassing his own people. As we seem to support people who gas our enemies, and condemn people who gas people who aren't our enemies, I can't take this one very seriously. It is definitely true that he was a human-rights nightmare, and Iraq will almost certainly be better off without him. But we've supported worse regimes than his before. Al Qaeda support. Evidence collected before we invaded (and even some we found on Hussein himself when we captured him) indicated that Hussein hated Al Qaeda almost as much as he hated the US. There's no doubt people in his government helped Al Qaeda, just as there are people in our government and military that commit treason and espionage and actively aid the enemy. But it's become pretty clear that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, or Al Qaeda's activities around that timeframe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
