|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023 |
Originally posted by Speed Demon:
hey lumpy, i've seen you standing left of frickin left in every political debate on these forums as far as i can remember. Lump.  
Like the thread about the war? And that other thread about the war? And the thread before that about the war? Seriously, you must have me confused with someone else, I cannot recall any other "political debates" that I participated in unless there were specific threads that you are thinking of in which case you can just link me to them.
EDIT: I now recall participating in some firearm threads where I was very bleeding-heart liberal; supporting the second amendment, pointing out the problems wrong with banning firearms, explaining Switzerland and their firearm ownership, and just being an overall wussy.
-Giovanni
One turbocharger. Two intercoolers. All love.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
You ASSUME that WE (I will not go there now) "too easily took their country" that this is because they COULD NOT have fought back harder..and were therefore not a threat.
[censored] my bad! I forgot that everyone for the war was posting from the heart of Baghdad with Iraqi snipers locked on their positions after they killed five Iraqis with their bare hands.
I have to run, so I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow if you'd like.
To be continued...
-Giovanni
One turbocharger. Two intercoolers. All love.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Originally posted by JaTo:
...and your point is?
We played an IMPORTANT, VITAL, and NECESSARY part in the development of their programs, yet a paper addressing their programs has no mention of us? Sigh.
Nor did it mention any of the dozen other countries that have supplied as much if nor more supplies and weaponized chemical/biological material. I never felt this paper's purpose was one of pointing fingers and laying blame; I was simply being sarcastic and biting in bringing this source to light, as it seems many quickly forget the resume of the regime that just who we've recently removed from power...
Originally posted by JaTo:
Should I refer to countless other mentionings of mine on US shipments of chemical and biological weapons/supplies in the '80s under the Regan administration? It's shameful, it was a HUGE mistake and it's disgusting. Times, alliances, politics and THREATS have changed since then. Those that don't understand this and adjust to this fact will be left exposed to ALL sorts of grief.
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Iraq was not a threat then, and they were not a threat now. Hindsight may be 20/20, but I was saying this before we too easily took their country, and before they did not use WMD, not even to defend their very own lives. The war shows how large a threat Iraq truly poised.
A bunch a radical kooks in Afghanistan and 19 certain Arab individuals weren't considered much of a threat to the US or it's interests on September 10th, 2001, either. Sorry, but I fully consider those that claim to HATE America and plot against her THREATS, whether of our own making or not. If anything, September 11th proved one doesn't have to have a division of tanks and scores of infantry to be able to cause harm to the US...
Originally posted by JaTo:
Would you also care to include France, Spain, China, England, Germany, Russia and others on your hit list, or since this is "bash the US" day, are we going to convienently leave them out of this mix?
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
If you will take time to reread my statement, nowhere will you see any sole mention of the US. Not only was I referring to the US, but also to countries like Germany who also supplied Iraq (only because we allowed them to of course). You assumed what you wanted to.
Fair enough, though the profound lack of stated political entities and the tone of the overall post tends to put the spotlight on the Stars and Stripes, no?
Originally posted by JaTo:
At least we are taking some measure of RESPONSIBILITY for our past actions. One of the main goals of ours is chemical/biological disarmament or Iraq. The US and England have stepped up to the plate to do this, and I think it's only appropritate that the countries that ARMED the regime with this stuff be the one's to pay the price to take it back and ensure that as little as possible is left over there. If anyone should go under the sword, it's the countries that have sat this one out that supplied Hussein...
And one of my main points is why is this one of our goals all of a sudden? They have had no significant development in any of their programs, in fact they were weaker than when it was not one of our main goals.
Originally posted by JaTo:
For the nth time, we've got blood on our hands. Need I use bold to get this point across? I've never said our Middle-Eastern meddling has been a rousing success (compared to Russia, yes, but that's another topic). Are you suggesting that we never try to wipe the blood off; simply keep things at the status-quo to justify a self-centered notion that we screwed up and we have to live with it regardless of the potential future consequences?
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
It is difficult to wipe blood off with blood. It is amazing to me how you can tell me how poor our "Middle-Eastern meddling" has been and then suggest we meddle even more. I simply believe the long term consequences of this action will cause more negative effects than if the war had never happened. I suppose we will see, and discover how it will "pan out, one way or the other."
I never said it was poor; I said it couldn't be considered a rousing success. At least we don't have the USSR's track record in this regard. If there ever was a time and place that needed meddling, it was the Iraq of now. Actually, I've always thought this should have come MUCH sooner, as in 1991. It seems that the times have changed and the aims of future US administrations have fundamentally changed in terms of international diplomacy. Much of the civilized world's patience for the type of BS that Hussein was pulling is quickly melting away, except in so-called "intellectual circles" where talk and idle chatter is apparently valued much more than measured and carefully considered action.
When it's the blood of Hussein's lackies that is serving as the cleaning fluid, then I would take objection with your inital statement...
Originally posted by JaTo:
Need I remind you 20 years ago our concerns were VERY different than they are today? Care to pick up a newspaper and check out who was running things in the Kremlin during that time and that our MAIN concern was the USSR and how it was trying to gain toeholds in the Middle-East, something that we didn't want to happen at any cost?
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Again you assume I am attacking our decisions in the 1980s, when in fact I have offered no opinion on them. Reread. The only decision I am attacking is that of this current administration. Whether or not it is worth argueing about when the mistake, I mean war, has already been made is another matter.
Then please state where exactly this current administration has failed in it's stated aims and goals so far. Hussein would have NEVER capitulated, hence the main threat would have never been removed without US infantry boots pounding the pavement in Baghdad. Are you suggesting we should have kept Hussein in power, and if so, why?
Originally posted by JaTo:
In short, don't push your ignorance or blindness of history at me and hide it under a blanket-statement of hypocracy. We have used a number of countries as a means to an end and it HAS given us black-eyes at times. Some of what we have done has been rather distateful; some has been downright disgusting. Most all of it at the time was considered very necessary. I'm not going to argue about the validity of our actions in arming Iraq with what we did in the '80s as there's no excuse for what we did.
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Again, reread.
I did. I have a question, then. What IS your opinion of the Regan administration's moves towards Iraq? A lack of an opinion can state an awful lot in itself, though this may be yet another situation to where I read too much into things...
Originally posted by JaTo:
If we don't care, why in the hell are we over there? Why are we handing out food to the civilian population? Why are we going to help rebuild their infrastructure? Why have we been feeding Iraqi prisioners? Why have we been operating on wounded Republican Guard troops? Why are 4 million Iraqi exiles ecstatic that Hussein and his regime have been toppled? If you DARE try and say oil, why didn't we waltz in 12 years ago when we had close to a half-million military personel in the area, which is more than what we started with this time around?
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
We are handing out food to the civilian population and feeding Iraqi prisoners because food keeps hungry people in line. Serious question, but I am wondering where this food comes from? We are going to help rebuild their infrastructure because WE are rebuilding their infrastructure. We are doing all of this because of there geographical location and certain resources that location may bring. Am I saying there is anything wrong with that? No, but that is why we are doing it. 4 million Iraqi exiles are ecstatic that the regime has been toppled because they are exiles. We did not waltz in 12 years ago because there did not exist an American backlash that would support such an action.
I would say that is a rather simplistic way of looking at it, as a Democratic Iraq can offer the US and it's allies FAR more than just oil. It would remove yet another regional threat against Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, as well as a long-term threat against us. In time, it can only bring about far less human rights violations against it's own population. It will hopefully give the Kurds a voice in the way that they will be governed. It will hopefully show other Arab nations that we have no interest in becoming a "colonial empire", especially when we get up and get the hell out of there, though given the current state of affairs, this will take some time (maybe a year or two).
If anything, Saddam increased the amount of control over the population after the Gulf War. The Shiites and Kurds were just as oppressed back then as they were 1 month ago and had every reason to revolt, just not the support nor the means to. Saddam had to exert more control than ever on the majority populations after the profound a$$-whooping we handed him in '91.
Originally posted by JaTo:
We aren't saints in this, but this administration and the military under it's control is FAR away from being the careless, heartless pricks that you are so eager to paint them out to be...
I do not doubt the sincerenity of our soldiers.
...nor do I doubt the overall aims of our current leaders regardless of their oil ties. I would have respected Bush, Sr. a great deal more if he had followed through with his promises to the Kurds back in Desert Storm. Guess what, he has the same oil ties as his son does, for the most part and he didn't push into Baghdad...
Ponder this:
If we waltzed into Baghdad in '91, removed Hussein and started to establish a Democratic government then, we wouldn't have had a need to place troops in Saudi Arabia in the fashion we did during Desert Storm (to protect Saudi from a potential Iraqi invasion). Bin Laden has ALWAYS stated that the placement of foreign troops in the most holiest of lands, Saudi Arabia, was a crime beyond reproach and repair, and it was this that finally pushed him to dedicate his time and efforts to waylaying America in any way that he could...
...you can guess probably where the rest of this is heading. I know it's rather reckless fantasy on my part, as no one could see all ends to what going into Iraq in '91 in that fashion would have brought the world, but an interesting notion to say the least.
"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph."
-Haile Selassie
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
A bunch a radical kooks in Afghanistan and 19 certain Arab individuals weren't considered much of a threat to the US or it's interests on September 10th, 2001, either. Sorry, but I fully consider those that claim to HATE America and plot against her THREATS, whether of our own making or not. If anything, September 11th proved one doesn't have to have a division of tanks and scores of infantry to be able to cause harm to the US...
So we then procede to attack a division of tanks and scores of infantry. Ok.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Then please state where exactly this current administration has failed in it's stated aims and goals so far.
 Would you rather I comment on "its stated aims and goals" or "its aims and goals"?
Originally posted by JaTo:
Hussein would have NEVER capitulated, hence the main threat would have never been removed without US infantry boots pounding the pavement in Baghdad. Are you suggesting we should have kept Hussein in power, and if so, why?
I am "suggesting" this, because again, I do not see him or his division of tanks and scores of infantry as any more a threat than any other country we have conflict with. I do not see his WMD as any more of threat than China's. I do not see his missiles as any more of threat than Iran's. I may be "pushing my ignorance of history" here but the last twenty years reaffirm this.
Did Saddam and Iraq pose a threat? Yes, if you were Kuwait or Iran.
Originally posted by JaTo:
I did. I have a question, then. What IS your opinion of the Regan administration's moves towards Iraq? A lack of an opinion can state an awful lot in itself, though this may be yet another situation to where I read too much into things...
I have little more than a basic grasp on the situation and events back then, so I will stick with my "lack of an opinion."
Originally posted by JaTo:
I would say that is a rather simplistic way of looking at it, as a Democratic Iraq can offer the US and it's allies FAR more than just oil. It would remove yet another regional threat against Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, as well as a long-term threat against us. In time, it can only bring about far less human rights violations against it's own population. It will hopefully give the Kurds a voice in the way that they will be governed. It will hopefully show other Arab nations that we have no interest in becoming a "colonial empire", especially when we get up and get the hell out of there, though given the current state of affairs, this will take some time (maybe a year or two).
In the years after the Gulf war and with American troops in Kuwait, I did not see Iraq as a regional threat. There was nothing that led me to believe they posed any threat to their neighbors. I have no reason to suspect the next ten would have been any different. You already know my opinion on Iraq being a "long-term threat against us" so I will not comment on it further. I do not know if the Kurds will get a voice or if countries like Turkey would even allow it. Until "we get up and get the hell out of there" we have done the opposite and shown other Arab and non-Arab nations that we have an interest in becoming a colonial empire.
Originally posted by JaTo:
...nor do I doubt the overall aims of our current leaders regardless of their oil ties. I would have respected Bush, Sr. a great deal more if he had followed through with his promises to the Kurds back in Desert Storm. Guess what, he has the same oil ties as his son does, for the most part and he didn't push into Baghdad...
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
We did not waltz in 12 years ago because there did not exist an American backlash that would support such an action.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Ponder this:
If we waltzed into Baghdad in '91, removed Hussein and started to establish a Democratic government then, we wouldn't have had a need to place troops in Saudi Arabia in the fashion we did during Desert Storm (to protect Saudi from a potential Iraqi invasion). Bin Laden has ALWAYS stated that the placement of foreign troops in the most holiest of lands, Saudi Arabia, was a crime beyond reproach and repair, and it was this that finally pushed him to dedicate his time and efforts to waylaying America in any way that he could...
I have not heard bin Laden say this, but I have the feeling he would not have appreciated troops in Iraq any more. I believe bin Laden's true reason for his fatwa has to do with Israel-Palestine conflicts and our involvement in them.
I would have been supportive of pushing into Iraq at that time. I do not want to get into it, but there were many factors that justified it which are no longer present. As I have stated earlier, I do not believe it could have happened though. The same Americans who would have been against it because "What did Iraq ever do to us?" are now the same ones overreacting to an obvious terrorist attack and lashing out with support of this war. This administration has stated its reasons and justifications for the war many times, but the only reason they were able to start this conflict was because of September 11th. September 11th would have happened no matter how we had handled the situations in Iraq years ago. But this war would not have happened without September 11th.
-Giovanni
One turbocharger. Two intercoolers. All love.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
So we then procede to attack a division of tanks and scores of infantry. Ok.
Pray tell how we were to otherwise remove a dictator of his like and make SURE that the elimination of the threat of chem/biochem weapons. More UN sanctions? I'm sure just another day or two Saddam would have surely broken under the IMMENSE strain of them...  In all seriousness, how else were we to remove him and make sure that all chemical and biochemical weapons were destroyed?
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Would you rather I comment on "its stated aims and goals" or "its aims and goals"?
Either, due to this administration being one of "what you see is what you get", for the most part.
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Did Saddam and Iraq pose a threat? Yes, if you were Kuwait or Iran.
By this rather questionable line of reasoning I'm guessing the Taliban of Afghanistan (whom protected and worked with Bin Laden) only served as a threat to Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China, solely due to their geographic closeness...
...or did the orchestrated events of 9/11 not constitute an attack on the US by a foreign entity protected by a governing body of the nation of Afghanistan?
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
In the years after the Gulf war and with American troops in Kuwait, I did not see Iraq as a regional threat. There was nothing that led me to believe they posed any threat to their neighbors.
Of course they didn't serve as a military threat. We destroyed most of it in '91 and established "no-fly" zones that kept their planes on the ground, not to mention sanctions that prevented the importation (for the most part) of military equipment and supplies. Kuwait had much of the same opinion of Iraq that you have stated before late 1990; Iran did as well before Saddam tore up the peace treaty and declared war on Iran in 1980...
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
I have no reason to suspect the next ten would have been any different.
Hundreds of tons of missing nerve agent and other weaponized material, one dictator that's sworn hatred and revenge against the US and no alarm bells going off AT ALL!? Saddam has a motive (his hatred for the US); all he would have needed for an opportunity is TIME.
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
You already know my opinion on Iraq being a "long-term threat against us" so I will not comment on it further. I do not know if the Kurds will get a voice or if countries like Turkey would even allow it. Until "we get up and get the hell out of there" we have done the opposite and shown other Arab and non-Arab nations that we have an interest in becoming a colonial empire.
I think we've shown them that if certain extremist governments (also extremist elements within those governments that run unchecked) continue the irresponsible behavior and continue to pursue programs that serve to threaten our allies, our interests and ultimately ourselves, will pursue the most appropriate path of removing those threats...
Originally posted by JaTo:
...nor do I doubt the overall aims of our current leaders regardless of their oil ties. I would have respected Bush, Sr. a great deal more if he had followed through with his promises to the Kurds back in Desert Storm. Guess what, he has the same oil ties as his son does, for the most part and he didn't push into Baghdad...
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
We did not waltz in 12 years ago because there did not exist an American backlash that would support such an action.
We'll just have to disagree on that one.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Ponder this:
If we waltzed into Baghdad in '91, removed Hussein and started to establish a Democratic government then, we wouldn't have had a need to place troops in Saudi Arabia in the fashion we did during Desert Storm (to protect Saudi from a potential Iraqi invasion). Bin Laden has ALWAYS stated that the placement of foreign troops in the most holiest of lands, Saudi Arabia, was a crime beyond reproach and repair, and it was this that finally pushed him to dedicate his time and efforts to waylaying America in any way that he could...
I have not heard bin Laden say this, but I have the feeling he would not have appreciated troops in Iraq any more. I believe bin Laden's true reason for his fatwa has to do with Israel-Palestine conflicts and our involvement in them.
I would have been supportive of pushing into Iraq at that time. I do not want to get into it, but there were many factors that justified it which are no longer present. As I have stated earlier, I do not believe it could have happened though. The same Americans who would have been against it because "What did Iraq ever do to us?" are now the same ones overreacting to an obvious terrorist attack and lashing out with support of this war. This administration has stated its reasons and justifications for the war many times, but the only reason they were able to start this conflict was because of September 11th. September 11th would have happened no matter how we had handled the situations in Iraq years ago. But this war would not have happened without September 11th.
From what I've read on Bin Laden, he is much of the same mind that this administration is on Hussein: the majority population of Iraq isn't fond of him in any way, shape or form. Religious differences aside (both being Muslim, yet not of the same fundamental belief), both HATE the US. Hussein's beef is that we spanked him hard in '91 and have somewhat manicled his main military muscle since then; the straw that broke the camel's back. Refer to this quote taken from here (don't laugh, I know it's from USA Today, but it's the only reference I could find on short notice):
U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Placed there just before the Gulf War with Saudi Arabia's blessing to protect that nation and to serve as a staging point for taking back Kuwait, the troops have never left. The U.S. Air Force has about 5,000 personnel in the country. Their presence enrages some Muslims, who regard the country as holy ground because it is the birthplace of Islam, and has given bin Laden a crucial rallying cry. "For bin Laden, it has been the critical thing," Taylor says. (In 1996, his followers bombed the American military barracks there in Dhahran, killing 19 servicemen.)
This also mentions Palestine, though if you care to discuss hypocracy, refer to most any Muslim country and their treatment of other Muslim sects or outside religious groups that have claims to land or religious sites (Kurds in Turkey and Iraq; Tribal squabbles in Afghanistan between those if differing belief; Hindus and Muslims in Pakistan; hell, refer back to Lebanon in the '80s...) Palestine is only a rallying cry for these nuts because Irael has our support, first and foremost, to preserve it against aggressor Muslim nations within the region. This does get used to keep the Palestinians in line as well; there's no denying that and it gets quite brutal at times.
In short, any current extremist Muslim talking about Palestine as a "cause" to fight for is akin to an American Skinhead cell claiming solidarity with American Indians and their struggle on reservations...
More later. This is all I can pull together on short notice.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Pray tell how we were to otherwise remove a dictator of his like and make SURE that the elimination of the threat of chem/biochem weapons. More UN sanctions? I'm sure just another day or two Saddam would have surely broken under the IMMENSE strain of them... In all seriousness, how else were we to remove him and make sure that all chemical and biochemical weapons were destroyed?
Dear friend, we had established in my previous post that "I suggested" that we should have left Hussein in power. So argueing how to remove him is a waste of both of our time. 
Originally posted by JaTo:
By this rather questionable line of reasoning I'm guessing the Taliban of Afghanistan (whom protected and worked with Bin Laden) only served as a threat to Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China, solely due to their geographic closeness...
Correct, the Taliban of Afghanistan only served as a threat to countries that they were able to attack; Uzbekistan for example. It would not be advantageous nor possible for them to create conflict with China, therefore they would not be a threat to China.
Originally posted by JaTo:
...or did the orchestrated events of 9/11 not constitute an attack on the US by a foreign entity protected by a governing body of the nation of Afghanistan?
As you can see above, the Taliban of Afghanistan did not, nor ever, serve as a threat to the United States. Therefore a pre-emptive strike on the Taliban of Afghanistan would not have been justifiable under the terms that the Taliban of Afghanistan posed a threat to the United States.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Of course they didn't serve as a military threat. We destroyed most of it in '91 and established "no-fly" zones that kept their planes on the ground, not to mention sanctions that prevented the importation (for the most part) of military equipment and supplies. Kuwait had much of the same opinion of Iraq that you have stated before late 1990; Iran did as well before Saddam tore up the peace treaty and declared war on Iran in 1980...
If Iraq did not serve as a military threat than why did we attack their military? Why was the basis that Iraq served as a threat used? Were they an economic threat?
Originally posted by JaTo:
Hundreds of tons of missing nerve agent and other weaponized material, one dictator that's sworn hatred and revenge against the US and no alarm bells going off AT ALL!? Saddam has a motive (his hatred for the US); all he would have needed for an opportunity is TIME.
Time for what? Time to not militarily threaten us?
I realize that your main point is that Iraq and there WMD posed a threat to the US.
1. Iraq had no means of attacking the United States with WMD. They simply had nothing able to deliver them militarily.
2. Iraq is going to go through all this trouble to acquire a WMD and then just give it away to some fundamentalist who does not even support Iraq? I can see where the Taliban of Afghanistan, with their strict Muslim code, could be seen as an ideal government to the Islamic fundamentalists, but none of them could support the dictatorship that Saddam had going. Saddam would know this.
3. Islamic fundamentalists are going to go through all this trouble to acquire a WMD from a country so closely monitored? I have a hard time believing they can acquire so many weapons from the old USSR and Russia, but not WMD. And that they are unable to acquire WMD from any of the many other countries and organizations in the world.
4. Iraq would not attack the United States for the same reason Iran does not. For the same reason China does not. Because it would bring about their own destruction. The means of attacking would not matter, if Iraq gave a fundamentalist (which we have established they would not) a WMD, it would be no different than Saddam launching one at the United States (which he could not)...the same end would await Iraq.
5. The only situation where Iraq would use WMD was if there own destruction was imminent regardless of whether or not they used them. This was the case in the war, and still they did not use them. WMD simply do not pose a threat if they are not, nor ever will be, used.
A key point of mine is that in this world, the term "threat" is all relative. Any nation with a bullet that is not the United States of America can be considered a threat to the United States. I believe Saddam would rather have dozens of palaces, control of an entire country, and millions of dollars; then to bring about his own demise (if he even could).
-Giovanni
One turbocharger. Two intercoolers. All love.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Dear friend, we had established in my previous post that "I suggested" that we should have left Hussein in power. So argueing how to remove him is a waste of both of our time.
Though you mention that previously there were grounds for going further into Iraq in '91. Care to elaborate, as I'd be interested as hell in hearing a coherent reason we should have left him in power today...
Sorry, but all roads lead to Baghdad and therefore, through Hussein. I sincerely hate to see anyone "suggesting" the upkeep of such a tyrant, as history will prove him to be among some of the worst that the 20th century has birthed. Being wrong 20 years ago (which the US was in the fashion of support it gave Hussein) means that allowing his continued existance on the backs of the Iraqi people is STILL wrong today.
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Correct, the Taliban of Afghanistan only served as a threat to countries that they were able to attack; Uzbekistan for example. It would not be advantageous nor possible for them to create conflict with China, therefore they would not be a threat to China.
...care to talk about the terrorists they have trained and EXPORTED to other countries, thorugh Bin Laden? Care to discuss their role in Chechnya or in other conflicts where Muslims were fighting? Care to talk about the terrorist training camps that Bin Laden fouded in Afghanistan (Oruzgan, Daraunta, etc., etc.; check this link for a rather in-depth list). Mullah Ommar and Bin Laden were rather close, or are you forgetting that we practically begged the Taliban government to turn Bin Laden over and were refused?
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
As you can see above, the Taliban of Afghanistan did not, nor ever, serve as a threat to the United States.
Try again, and this time with a straight face, as the day we landed troops in Saudi Arabia at the REQUEST of the Saudi government, Bin Laden was known to have had it out for the US. It's difficult, if not impossible to untie Bin Laden from Afghanistan, given his links, contacts and past there.
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Therefore a pre-emptive strike on the Taliban of Afghanistan would not have been justifiable under the terms that the Taliban of Afghanistan posed a threat to the United States.
If the CIA hadn't of been crippled by a certain administration back in the '90s and the insistance that our operatives not associate with any individuals of known criminal element, we would have had 10x the amount of valid intelligence available to us, as it's usually the "dirty" folks that are more in the know. I will give you even odds on whether it would have been properly put together, though.
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
If Iraq did not serve as a military threat than why did we attack their military? Why was the basis that Iraq served as a threat used? Were they an economic threat?
...you're kidding, right? Hussein knows we are position ourselves to come after him, he spouts anti-Western rhetoric, gets his troops roused up and places then squarely in front of us, and you're actually asking why we attacked their military when we were going in to eliminate his chemical/biochemical capabilities? UN Resolution 1441 (which the UN didn't have the balls to enforce, I might add) clearly states that Hussein was to give a "complete and accurate" account of WMD and is something that he didn't do by any STRETCH of the imagination.
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Time for what? Time to not militarily threaten us?
Question: Is the only threat that you understand would be something in the form of a tank rolling towards you, a missle landing on your house, or someone shooting an automatic weapon towards you, or would you be willing to admit that planes flying into buildings, chemical attacks arranged through 3rd parties and uranium "dirty bombs" could also constitute as a "terrorist" threat? I only ask because I'm getting the impression that if it's not in uniform and isn't shouting nationalistic slogans while riding on top of a tank or APC, you don't consider it a threat...
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
I realize that your main point is that Iraq and there WMD posed a threat to the US.
1. Iraq had no means of attacking the United States with WMD. They simply had nothing able to deliver them militarily.
Jet fuel and people in planes wasn't considered a WMD until a few years ago, either. I'm sure Iraq has had no capability of moving weapons across their borders, either, perhaps to those that ARE in the position of using weaponized material against our allies and ourselves...
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
2. Iraq is going to go through all this trouble to acquire a WMD and then just give it away to some fundamentalist who does not even support Iraq?
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
-Arab Proverb
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
I can see where the Taliban of Afghanistan, with their strict Muslim code, could be seen as an ideal government to the Islamic fundamentalists, but none of them could support the dictatorship that Saddam had going. Saddam would know this.
Again, enemies with a common percieved antagonist do strange things and will put aside differences and grievances to ensure that they may survive to settle the lesser of the two differences. I'm not saying that there is a clear case of this now, but it doesn't take a genuis to figure out that sooner or later the mounting international and US pressure on terrorism and those that use it will force those remaining to pool resources and combine efforts were appropriate to ensure survival and some level of effectiveness in their efforts...
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
3. Islamic fundamentalists are going to go through all this trouble to acquire a WMD from a country so closely monitored?
Yeah, Syria has had a HELL of a time getting things across the border...
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
I have a hard time believing they can acquire so many weapons from the old USSR and Russia, but not WMD. And that they are unable to acquire WMD from any of the many other countries and organizations in the world.
One less is one less to worry about.
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
4. Iraq would not attack the United States for the same reason Iran does not. For the same reason China does not. Because it would bring about their own destruction. The means of attacking would not matter, if Iraq gave a fundamentalist (which we have established they would not) a WMD, it would be no different than Saddam launching one at the United States (which he could not)...the same end would await Iraq.
Iraq could definitely supply the material to parties that ultimately would have no clue and no care as to where the material came from...
...but I'm sure they wouldn't do this, as Hussein has no reason nor motive.
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
5. The only situation where Iraq would use WMD was if there own destruction was imminent regardless of whether or not they used them. This was the case in the war, and still they did not use them. WMD simply do not pose a threat if they are not, nor ever will be, used.
I've read that most likely the only one that would have been able to give the order for use would have been Hussein himself. I'm surprised as anyone by the lack of use, though if we did get him (and not one of his doubles) before he could give the order...
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
A key point of mine is that in this world, the term "threat" is all relative.
It depends on the institution that constitutes the threat. It it were Andorra that we were talking about here, I'm inclined to agree. Iraq? No way in hell.
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Any nation with a bullet that is not the United States of America can be considered a threat to the United States. I believe Saddam would rather have dozens of palaces, control of an entire country, and millions of dollars; then to bring about his own demise (if he even could).
Then WHY didn't he simply turn over what the UN and the US requested of him when he KNEW he had the chance?
WHY?
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Without getting into this amazingly tedious point-by-point assessment of current affairs, I submit this link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21545-2003Apr14.html Take a minute to read it. It may not change some minds here, but I think a lot of people will find it most fascinating.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Wow. This thread is like the energizer bunny, except with red/white/blue ears and beating on a war drum.
Not gonna spend a lot of time on this cause pretty much the same things continue to be debated. I'll just speak on the threat of Iraq, which from my understanding was the reason for pre-emptively striking. How much of a threat? Blix has said that with inspectors destroying weapons and with US watchdogs/spies (CIA, FBI, NSA) already in place it would have been very unlikely and virtually impossible for Iraq to be able to use wmds or provide them to extremists who would then use them against the US for many reasons most of which are obvious. I know everyone hates Blix and the weapon inspectors but ironically we're hiring them away from the UN to do the job they were already doing. Go figure.
Even though we've won or on our way to decisively winning the war in Iraq this probably won't have much of a desired effect in the war on terrorism. Mainly because terrorists become terrorist out of hate, which the rest of the world feels like the US continues to provoke. We should include in our policy a way of promoting reconciliation and learning of the nature of the hate, I think this will go a long way in curbing the future of the hate that causes terrorism. In addition terrorist don't need to be state sponsored and they can get wmds from a number of less closely watched and monitored places than Iraq. Terrorist don't need wmds to be destructive or be a threat to US or our interest. We found that out from the MD/VA snipers. Also if you've forgotten we continue to face a serious threat from domestic terrorist with weapons that can be viewed as wmds as we found out with the anthrax/mail scares. And that was very small scale.
Anyways I can say I'm glad that we didn't lose as many troops as some analysts have projected and that we've recovered our POWs. We'll see how our colonization, I mean rebuilding of Iraq goes.
Alright who's next to take a wack...
Jato if you respond to this post please keep it under 500 words. And oh yeah...you're welcome on the new sig moniker.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by BP:
Jato if you respond to this post please keep it under 500 words.
[whines]Do I have to? 
Originally posted by BP:
And oh yeah...you're welcome on the new sig moniker.
I really got a kick out of it! I think it's going to be a a permanent addition, unless someone plows me with something even better.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
