DJL 235 #26 January 12, 2004 QuoteAlso, disposing of a few really neat WMD's would not be given to some PFC to do on his own. Yeah, but we're not talking about US soldiers. Yes, they could have intentionally cached these things. What I think Kallend is saying is that it's possible that a bunch of Iraqi grunts were given the order to get rid of it. They didn't want to burn it because they knew what would happen, they knew the crap could leak out, so they put them in bags."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,566 #27 January 12, 2004 QuoteAnd like a buddy of mine told me...I don't need a better reason to go to war than to have a guy claim to hate me, and threaten me. Maybe not, but you need a damn good one before you send someone else's beautiful children out to fight your war for you. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #28 January 12, 2004 The things have to go somewhere; they're not the kind of thing you can just drain into the grass behind the house. Oh SHIT! Are you kidding? Damn..........Damn,Damn, Damn!!!!!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,129 #29 January 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteAlso, disposing of a few really neat WMD's would not be given to some PFC to do on his own. Yeah, but we're not talking about US soldiers. Yes, they could have intentionally cached these things. What I think Kallend is saying is that it's possible that a bunch of Iraqi grunts were given the order to get rid of it. They didn't want to burn it because they knew what would happen, they knew the crap could leak out, so they put them in bags. It seems a likely explanation. Apparently this stuff dates back to the Iran/Iraq war, and wierder things happen in wartime. They still dig up WWI stuff in France, 90 years later. An uncle of mine was gassed on the Somme in WWI (and survived the experience). As nasty as mustard gas is, it doesn't really qualify as a WMD.... 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
Ron 10 #30 January 12, 2004 QuoteMaybe not, but you need a damn good one before you send someone else's beautiful children out to fight your war for you. Actually we were both in the service when he told me that.....I happen to agree. If I had children and they were in the service, I would not be happy to see them go, but I do understand the NEED. Sometimes people die doing the right thing...It sucks, but it is a fact. You have a guy that is a royal jackass, the "Butcher of Bagdad"...He has had WMD's, and has used them. He claims to still have them...Then when facing the gun he claims to have destroyed them, but can't prove that he did. All the time saying how evil the US is and saying how he would love to destroy us. All the time while supporting terror networks. Then when we do invade we find all kinds of things he claimed not to have...Maybe he didn't have an active WMD program, but he did hide them. I personally think we did the right thing. You may disagree...."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #31 January 12, 2004 Quote?? What are you talking about? Finding WMD's of any sort in dumps isn't a good reason to invade either Iraq _or_ the US. The things have to go somewhere; they're not the kind of thing you can just drain into the grass behind the house. (Although usually we do a better job of disposing of them than throwing them in a waste pit.) No, but the history of SH and Iraq and the lack of proof of him getting rid of the WMD's he had, and still claimed to have...All the time while supporting terroism, and saying how much he hates the US....Well that kinda is a reason. QuoteI sure hope our president is smarter than your buddy! We don't need a war with China and North Korea War sucks..but sometimes it is needed.....Im not going to argue with you Bill. Fact is he was a bad man, that did bad things...We tried to do it nicely, but he ignored the UN resolutions. When it came down to brass tacks the UN wussed out and showed how much of a "paper tiger" it is. The US stepped in, and did what the UN should have done. I agree with it. You may have different opinions...And I bet most of yours are from the left...Thats fine, thats what makes the US such a great place. Having served in the Army, I have the right to say what I do..As a taxpayer you have the right to say what you do... Cool huh?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,092 #32 January 12, 2004 >All the time while supporting terroism, and saying how much he >hates the US....Well that kinda is a reason. Ironically, it is both a reason we supported him and a reason we invaded him. We liked it when he was using WMD's on the Iranians, because we were anti-Iranian at that point. We even gave him militarty intel on the Iranians to help him out. Was that a mistake? Most likely. There's nothing wrong with making mistakes; we've done it before and will do it again. I worry when we categorically deny that we have _ever_ made a mistake, because that indicates we're not going to learn from them. (Or to be more accurate, admit that anyone other than the previous administration made a mistake.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,566 #33 January 12, 2004 QuoteFact is he was a bad man, that did bad things... There are a lot of bad men out there. Many of them also don't like the US. What makes SH "worthy" of our soldiers' lives, when the others aren't? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #34 January 12, 2004 Its a pity Zimbabwe hasn't got vast reserves of oil. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #35 January 12, 2004 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fact is he was a bad man, that did bad things... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are a lot of bad men out there. Many of them also don't like the US. What makes SH "worthy" of our soldiers' lives, when the others aren't? psst he made somthing bad to the Bush family years ago Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #36 January 12, 2004 QuoteThere are a lot of bad men out there. Many of them also don't like the US. What makes SH "worthy" of our soldiers' lives, when the others aren't? Having a history of having and using WMD.....Not complying with the UN resolutions to get rid of them, or show that he did get rid of them. Playing cat and mouse with the weapons inspectors. Supporting terroism. Thats really enough for me. N.Korea is not paying suicide bombers families. They have never used a WMD against anyone. Ditto for China."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,092 #37 January 12, 2004 >N.Korea is not paying suicide bombers families. They are selling nuclear weapons components to countries that support terrorism. Which worries you more? >They have never used a WMD against anyone. When Hussein used WMD's against the Iranians we supported him, so it can't be just that. Also, North Korea actually _has_ nuclear weapons and IRBM's. Someone with nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them, is more of a threat than someone who does not. Sort of an irrelevant argument in any case. Bush came into office wanting to invade Iraq. He then created reasons why that was a good idea - WMD's, terrorist ties, nuclear weapons. I would have had a bit more respect for the guy if he had just said "Hussein is a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and we're going to remove him from power." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #38 January 12, 2004 QuoteI would have had a bit more respect for the guy if he had just said "Hussein is a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and we're going to remove him from power." and then would probaly the rest of UN have helped... being honnest helps abit Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #39 January 12, 2004 QuoteSort of an irrelevant argument in any case. Bush came into office wanting to invade Iraq. He then created reasons why that was a good idea - WMD's, terrorist ties, nuclear weapons. I would have had a bit more respect for the guy if he had just said "Hussein is a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and we're going to remove him from power." "Hussein is a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and we're going to remove him from power." Would not have been enough for you, or most of the US. 100% valid, but not enough. And I don't think he "created" reasons. He had reasons, and the UN agreed...Then the UN backed down when it came game time. But you add the whole SH is a nutcase and is dangerous so we are going to take him out...WITH all the other stuff, and it is a very good case for taking him out. Would you have felt better if the UN led the attack?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,129 #40 January 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteSort of an irrelevant argument in any case. Bush came into office wanting to invade Iraq. He then created reasons why that was a good idea - WMD's, terrorist ties, nuclear weapons. I would have had a bit more respect for the guy if he had just said "Hussein is a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and we're going to remove him from power." "Hussein is a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and we're going to remove him from power." Would not have been enough for you, or most of the US. 100% valid, but not enough. And I don't think he "created" reasons. He had reasons, and the UN agreed...Then the UN backed down when it came game time. I don't think that's true. The UN inspectors were working to a longer timeframe than Bush wanted. He was in a hurry and most of the UN wasn't willing to shorten that timeframe. Bush was in such a hurry that many of the US ground forces didn't even get the latest issue body armor.... 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
happythoughts 0 #41 January 12, 2004 QuoteI worry when we categorically deny that we have _ever_ made a mistake, because that indicates we're not going to learn from them. I have this visual image of Hillary whacking Bill in the forehead with her palm... "The Paula Jones thing blows over for one week and now thisssss Monica..." (Sorry, I realize that you guys are discussing serious politics and may solve the problems of the world, but I've been sitting here laughing about that. It just doesn't pay to free-associate at work. ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #42 January 12, 2004 QuoteHe had reasons, and the UN agreed...Then the UN backed down when it came game time. well he still didnt manegede to fine thouse reassons did he? UN backed down becours they didnt want to go to war(ie kill alot of people)over wrong reasons and create a Vietnam 2-3 or 4. US really has showed the world that they want to fight aslong as its not in their back yard.They also shoed us that they lie on the reassons to why they go to war.they also have proven that after WW2 they havnt mannegede to finnish a war in the way they intented to.. No tell me why we should trust a country like that? QuoteSH is a nutcase and is dangerous To that all can agree,and to that its nice he is history now,but the way to go to war were in a wrong way.. Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usedtajump 1 #43 January 14, 2004 Well, looks like another "duster" in W's quest for the holy grail of WMD in Iraq. As of today, tests by Danish and American specialists reveal no agents in the mortar shells that were found. Doh, really?The older I get the less I care who I piss off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #44 January 14, 2004 Not looking good for GWB latest news "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,092 #45 January 14, 2004 D'oh! Well, at least he's learning not to proclaim that they have been found until they actually find some. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,566 #46 January 14, 2004 WMD are only important if we find some. If there aren't any, well, remember that Saddam was a really bad man and needed an ass-whuppin'. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #47 January 14, 2004 Well there are plenty at Umatilla Depot in Oregon they can always take over and bury in the desert. The local residents would be happy to have them gone from here since some of them are leaking. They are trying to find a viable way to dispose of them without killing everyone in the process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,129 #48 January 14, 2004 QuoteWell there are plenty at Umatilla Depot in Oregon they can always take over and bury in the desert. The local residents would be happy to have them gone from here since some of them are leaking. They are trying to find a viable way to dispose of them without killing everyone in the process. The USA has WMDs? Oh no! Next you'll be telling us that the USA has nukes too.... 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
FunBobby 0 #49 January 14, 2004 Okay. Whenever folks discuss and debate foreign policy and military strategy, I usually don’t comment, but I feel unusually strongly compelled to say something here. QuoteQuoteAnd like a buddy of mine told me...I don't need a better reason to go to war than to have a guy claim to hate me, and threaten me. Maybe not, but you need a damn good one before you send someone else's beautiful children out to fight your war for you. Wendy W. I agree completely. QuoteQuoteFact is he was a bad man, that did bad things... There are a lot of bad men out there. Many of them also don't like the US. What makes SH "worthy" of our soldiers' lives, when the others aren't? Wendy W. During his time in power, SH always maintained as powerful a military force as he could, and he continually showed his eagerness to develop and produce WMDs; worse yet, he actually used them. His most loyal followers have shown their willingness to resort to unconventional forms of warfare, including terrorist type tactics. It’s no secret that SH hates America. So SH was a clear, credible threat to the US, its citizens, its allies, and its interests. SH was enough of a threat that we needed to remove him and take down his regime before something terrible happened. Some might say “Well, come on, he hadn’t attacked America… when did he actually hurt us? Why couldn’t we just keep a watch on him? Why did we have to send the military in?” Hmmmm. Let’s go back to 1996 when 19 Americans lost their lives in a terrorist attack on the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia; then remember in 1998 when the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed; 2 years later, in October of 2000, USS Cole was bombed at anchorage while deployed to the Arabian Gulf. Military and political analysts allege that one man was behind all of those incidents, in which many Americans were killed. That man, of course was Osama bin Laden. We had our chances to get Osama, but we didn’t. And then something terrible happened on Sept 11 2001. Yeah, I know we still haven’t gotten him but at least we’ve done a great deal to take down his organization; we have done a lot more than we did under the last administration. Ohbytheway, do you remember those speeches after the attacks on the Khobar towers, the US Embassies, and USS Cole, when (then) President Clinton vowed on TV “We will find those responsible, we will hunt them down, and we will bring them to justice”? Did we? No. I don’t pretend to know as much the folks in Washington in super tight vaults, super secret rooms, behind closed doors and heavily armed guards. My security clearance is pretty high, but not that high. I have to trust our government, our elected government, to make their decisions based on educated, calculated analyses of the risks and benefits of our actions - or inaction. They base some of those decisions on the very best intelligence that they have. Like I said, I don’t know (and frankly, I’m not sure I want to know) everything they know . . . some of that stuff is actually very scary. Yeah, some of that intelligence may be suspect or even wrong, but in this case, I really think we had to go do what we did. SH had become too big of a menace for us to not do anything, and all of our initiatives to pacify him and lessen that threat - inspections, diplomacy, sanctions - had failed. Military action should always be the last resort, and we had reached the end of the rope with SH. Like Osama, SH had shown himself to be a credible threat, and a danger to the American people. This time, our president decided to act and remove him before he had the chance to do something terrible. War is a terrible thing. Getting sent off to fight in a conflict and not coming home - also terrible. This business is very personal for me. I have some of my closest and dearest friends in the military with me, many of whom I’ve known for decades. These are guys whose weddings I stood up in and whose children call me “Uncle Bobby.” Some of those are not here with us anymore. I lost a good friend, someone I had flown with for years and whose family I had grown very close to, in a very tragic aircraft mishap. I grieved alongside his family and held his widow and his children in my arms as they cried. Another good friend of mine, and one of my best friends from school and in the service, was the Operations Officer on USS Cole and the Officer of the Deck when the ship was bombed. So like I said, this whole business is very personal to me, and even more so to countless others, and yes, I know that our soldiers’ lives are precious. So too are the lives of the Americans here in the U.S. whose lives, safety, well being, and way of life they fight for. I’ll tell you something. I flew in an Air Wing off of one of the carriers during the whole shooting match, and I had lots of ties to folks on the ground all over the region. Everyone over there strongly believed in what we were doing. And one of the things that helped all of us was the thought that we had the support of folks back home. Keep that in mind. Yes, war is terrible. I think it’s tragic whenever lives are lost, and doubly terrible that we’re still losing American soldiers in Iraq. I think of our service members still over there and pray for their safety and quick return. I really do. But it is my contention that our presence there, no matter how evil, is necessary to overcome a greater evil and to take down a threat to our nation. God Bless - FunBobby Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #50 January 14, 2004 All you said can be applied to other countries and leaders around the world. Hence, it clearly cannot be the reason for the action, since it would logically follow that other countries must be invaded as well. Hence, that may have played a role, but there must be something else at play. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
