• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Jj Roberts
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Himai Minh
  • Carey Brown
  • salvin francis

Golf War I, Today, and ...

 
Desperado
Posts: 3226
5
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I hope that by now everybody knows (if you have been following all news for at least a year) that Bush invaded Irak to depose Hussein, for personal reasons.
Bush ordered reports be provided to him that would justify him declaring war on an admittedly despicable anti-American dictator. Oh yes, that tried to kill a former President of the US: The father of President Bush.
A dictator that didn't have the capability of invading another country like he did in 1991 when he annexed Kuwait as Irak's "19th province".
Hussein was about to go and invade Saudi Arabia too, BTW, had he not been checked by a world coalition so united and wide that it even included Syria. Yes, Syria had troops aligned against Iraq then. I don't know if they fired a shot but the symbolism was evident.
Heck! Even Kadaffy sent a note to Hussein saying essentially get the f*** out of Kuwait before your ass is thrown out by THE PLANET.
Hussein didn't care, since it would be his troops, not him, that would be killed.
Well, "the mother of all battles" (Hussein's term) that never happened turned into what ABC News correctly named "The Mother of All Surrenders" (not even the French could top that! Ha ha!).
Iraqi troops were surrendering TO U.S.A. UNMANNED DRONES that had crashed in the desert, and to CNN crews!
Then it all ended and Saddam didn't have to leave the country. He had assumed incorrectly that we would go all the way to Baghdad and capture him.
In a sense, he was right in saying to American and other news crews, much later, that HE WON. HE WON because these crews were interviewing him as the President of Iraq and NOT as a PRISONER of war (like he is now, thanks US).
Also I like the fact that we killed his two sons and also the grandson (I think he was a teen) that was the son of one of Saddam's killed sons. Now Saddam has tasted the same emotion that the relatives of the people that he had murdered felt and still feel.
Assuming that he gives a s***.
It is also a good thing that we have Al-Queida concentrate their war against professional American soldiers instead of innocents in any American City.
But I wish that the current Administration would have been truthful about the reasons for deposing Hussein.
The eventual, upcoming, even though not official argument that "we lied for your benefit" does not wash in a real democracy like we Americans have.
[ March 20, 2004: Message edited by: Tony Alicea ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 268
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Well I think it's an indefensible position you've taken up here, that Bush invaded simply for personal reasons. It had nothing to do with daddy, and nothing to do with Hussein's boasting. I truly do believe that the administration did believe there were WMD in Iraq and that was the chief reason they went in. They were wrong, but they had every reason to think otherwise. Even Hans Blix and other anti-war people who were in a position to know concede that there were large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons unaccounted for after Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998. It's very likely that Hussein didn't let us in because even *he* thought he had WMDs.
Regardless, I think all of the noise about WMDs drew far too much attention. In my way of thinking, we had a right to go in regardless of whether there actually were WMDs. According to the war treaty that ended the Gulf War and several UN resolutions right up to the beginning of Gulf War II, Iraq was required not only to rid themselves of WMDs, but to *prove it*.
Think about it--why should we have to beg him to please let us see when we had an agreement and several endorsements in place requiring this of him under threat of war? The best analogy I can think of is this--if someone breaks into your house at night and is brandishing a knife, and you have a gun, are you going to shoot that person? Me, I wouldn't have to wait until he started butchering my family members to take a shot--the threat alone is enough to act.
sev
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I thought this was going to be a Tiger Woods against somebody thread.
 
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Posts: 3226
5
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
"Well I think it's an indefensible position "
You are not in a position to say that about me .
Further, when you say
"Regardless, I think all of the noise about WMDs drew far too much attention. In my way of thinking, we had a right to go in regardless of whether there actually were WMDs."
And I respect your opinion only because you're not the President! Ha!
The only, repeat ONLY, reason the "WMD noise" drew so much attention, was BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT MADE THAT NOISE over and over again, through his teeth to us, the American people.
We didn't invent it! He did!
By tomorrow it will be generally known that Bush was fixated on Hussein and didn't pay the attention to Al-Queida that he needed to pay. Watch the evening news.
You don't know me and you don't know that I am in favor of having KILLED hussein's sons and grandson and having hussein humiliated everyday (as I hope our military is doing; screw Geneva with him!)
All I am against is having either (1) consciously misled us the American Public or as bad (2) having such a TERRIBLE INTELLIGENCE service that even with UN inspectors on the ground, we could not even tell that it was all bullshit! (The WMD that is?)
Why hasn't the head of the CIA resigned?! He was duped! He didn't know what he was doing! He HAS TO GO!
WHY DOES HE STILL HAVE A JOB!!
Patronage and "old boys' club" thing. We are never going to beat Al_queida with those type of behaviours.
If the EMPLOYMENT situation does not improve significantly, all this s*** of saving the world is not going to fly if we cannot save AMERICAN jobs.
We the American people know how to count, especially when the quantitites involved are in the BILLIONS. Some wonder why spend so much in reconstructing a former enemy like Iraq, when so much of our infrastructure needs repair?
I personally don't care a bit if the third world starves to death. I WANT MY MTV!!! Let THEM work for a change! Or Die!
Peace Be To All!
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
We didn't invent it! He did!


Nobody invented anything, other than the Iraqis. To believe that Bush invented some kind of WMD scare is to be ignorant of the facts following the first Gulf War up to the most recent invasion of Iraq. The fact is that every Western intelligence agency on the planet, not to mention the UN, believed that Iraq possessed not only a stockpile of WMDs, but continuing WMD development programs. I repeat, every Western government, including the UN believed this. That means the French and Russians too. The Iraqi government themselves acted in such a manner so as to not disuade anyone of this belief (and in fact, evidence indicates that most in the Iraqi government and military believed these stockpiles existed). We went in, we found concrete evidence of illegal weapons programs, but we did not find the stockpiles that everyone expected to find there. Oh well. Waah. The fervent Bush bashers need to learn to get over it.
Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council resolutions regarding forbidden weapons programs. This is a fact. Iraq was in violation of the 1991 cease fire signed after Desert Storm. This is a fact. Iraq had shown a desire to acquire illegal weapons systems, and had shown a willingness to use WMDs. These are facts. Iraq continued to develop illegal weapons programs up to the moment we invaded. This is a fact. Iraq supported international terrorist organizations. This too is a fact. The Hussein regime was a murderously brutal regime responsible for an estimated one million deaths. This is also a fact. All of these were presented as reasons for going in after him, not just because we thought there were a stockpile of WMDs.
Choose whatever reason for going in that suits your fancy, it still comes out that it was the right thing to do.
 
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Posts: 3226
5
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
"I repeat, every Western government, including the UN believed this."
Fine. So everyone was wrong.
Then why are we still there?
Shouldn't we just say "sorry we were wrong; we are out of here!"?
No you say?
Why not?
What's so wrong about admitting mistakes?
Why not just stop the intrusion into our brave American boys and girls' lives telling them that they have to stop taking their children to school and instead get on a plane to Iraq to defend... nothing??
WE NEED TWO MORE DIVISIONS at least.
Where's your heart for the AMERICANS PAWNS in this war?
In the beginning it was GOOD.
Then, Now, we should just recede. We were wrong. There were no WMDS. SO LET"S GO BACK!!!
You have no good answer to that.
So if you want Bush to be re-elected, ask him to stop the outsourcing of highly paid jobs to India.
Or his job will (be outsourced).
America First! (Everybody else WILL WAIT).
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
"Listen to this," [retired chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix] says. "This is Blair speaking, 'I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt'." Mr Blix is mocking Mr Blair's uncritical view of intelligence, which prevented the Prime Minister backing down even when the UN inspectors returned from Iraq unable to report that they had the "smoking gun" which would demonstrate "beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had rebuilt his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Today he is angry at the lack of attention paid by the British and American governments to the inspectors' findings in the rush to topple Saddam. "Why the hell didn't they pay more attention to us?" he asks.
Hans Blix: Bush and Blair behaved as if they were on a 'witch hunt' over Iraqi weapons.
Yeah, really, why didn't they? Why they instead presented in UN something they called "evidences"? And then there was such a outrage that nobody was particularly impressed... Get over it? Are you kidding?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Why they instead presented in UN something they called "evidences"?
Is that what they said, "evidences"? Man, where is this country going? No childs are left behind without milks?
[ March 22, 2004: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Although I'm not sure that the initial reasons given for going to war were good enough or not, I'm in no doubt that we have to stay in Iraq for the time being. Firstly we (UK and US I think) have a mandate from the UN to stay and adminstrate Iraq for now - this means that even if* the war was illegal, the occupation is not. Secondly, the country would probably collapse if we pulled out, and we'd end up with another Iran instead of a democratic country.
* Thinking about it, the whole issue of if the war was legal or not is almost a non-issue. There are no world governments, no global laws applying to all countries. This kind of means that the war was not legal or illegal. We can still argue if it was morally acceptable or not though.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
"I repeat, every Western government, including the UN believed this."
Fine. So everyone was wrong.
Then why are we still there?
Shouldn't we just say "sorry we were wrong; we are out of here!"?
No you say?
Why not?


Ummm... because the country would collapse into a bloody civil war that would destabilize the entire region. Because we have told the Iraqi people we would stay until they got on their feet. Because we have a responsibility to, as well as a UN mandate. Because unlike many in the world, we generally do a better job at upholding our responsibilities than most countries in the world. Because it would be morally wrong to just leave, not to mention just plain idiotic. How many reasons do we need?
Why not just stop the intrusion into our brave American boys and girls' lives telling them that they have to stop taking their children to school and instead get on a plane to Iraq to defend... nothing??
To defend American interests actually. Speaking as somebody who has "been there and done that", the soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines know what they are getting into when they sign on the dotted line and raise their right hands. It's all part of the job description.
Where's your heart for the AMERICANS PAWNS in this war?
I assume you are referring to our military personnel. Actually it's rather insulting to them to mis-classify them as "pawns", you don't give them nearly enough credit. Where's your heart for the Iraqi people?
Then, Now, we should just recede. We were wrong. There were no WMDS. SO LET"S GO BACK!!!
You have no good answer to that.

Actually we weren't wrong. We were right on everything except that we've been unable to find WMD stockpiles to date. There were WMD programs in development which we've found, which people conveniently forget, not to mention the terrorist links and everything else we said before we went in. WMD stockpiles was never the sole reason for going in.
So if you want Bush to be re-elected, ask him to stop the outsourcing of highly paid jobs to India.
I'm not sure what one thing has to do with another. In any event, both candidates will continue to outsource our jobs. The long term security of this nation is much more important however than a short-term jobs issue (unemployment in this country is at around 5.6% btw, which isn't too bad at all).
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 251
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
The only, repeat ONLY, reason the "WMD noise" drew so much attention, was BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT MADE THAT NOISE over and over again, through his teeth to us, the American people.
We didn't invent it! He did!


Goodness gracious, how many times am I going to have to post this quote before it actually starts sinking in??
From the President's 2003 SOTU Address:


Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.


President Bush does not state that the threat was imminent. He stated that we cannot afford to wait until the threat is imminent - because by that time, Washington DC, New York, Chicago, or Los Angelos would be a smoking crater.
Those who feel we should have waited for an imminent, 100% verified, threat, are arguing in favor of the destruction of the WTC & 3300 deaths, rather than taking out Al Qaeda beforehand. To believe that we will be able to stop all mature threats in motion is naive and dangerous. How much harder is it to pull up a full-grown tree with roots, when you can simply pluck the sapling, or even better, remove the seed?
EDIT: Expanded quotation and grammar
[ March 22, 2004: Message edited by: Phil Chuang ]
 
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Proof: Are the Democrats still speaking with forked tongues? Let's look at the facts....
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY!

Tell me again how Bush invented it.
 
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
"Listen to this," [retired chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix] says. "This is Blair speaking, 'I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt'." Mr Blix is mocking Mr Blair's uncritical view of intelligence, which prevented the Prime Minister backing down even when the UN inspectors returned from Iraq unable to report that they had the "smoking gun" which would demonstrate "beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had rebuilt his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Today he is angry at the lack of attention paid by the British and American governments to the inspectors' findings in the rush to topple Saddam. "Why the hell didn't they pay more attention to us?" he asks.
Hans Blix: Bush and Blair behaved as if they were on a 'witch hunt' over Iraqi weapons.
Yeah, really, why didn't they? Why they instead presented in UN something they called "evidences"? And then there was such a outrage that nobody was particularly impressed... Get over it? Are you kidding?


It wasn't the inspectors job to find WMD. It was the Iraqi job to show they were destroyed. were and when. They couldn't/wouldn't.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 634
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
I thought this was going to be a Tiger Woods against somebody thread.


Me too!!!
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Interestingly, Britain’s arch-imperialist, Winston Churchill, authorized the RAF to drop poison gas on “primitive tribesmen,” meaning Iraq’s Kurds and Afghanistan’s Pashtun, a fact conveniently forgotten by Tony Blair and George W. Bush when they excoriated Saddam Hussein for “gassing his own people.”
http://amconmag.com/2004_03_29/article.html


Never heard about it. Is this true?
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Seems it is.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1324
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
President George Bush should order at least two air craft carrier naval fleets into the Taiwan strait and deploy large number of stealth fighter planes and Bombers in Guam to protect taiwan against the chinese communits' 500 missiles threat.
Support the taiwanese to be able to run their government.
 
Phil Chuang
Ranch Hand
Posts: 251
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Support Taiwan, yes.
Provoke a full-out war with China, no.
I think it's time to sell Taiwan some more of our surplus naval fleet.
 
Don't get me started about those stupid light bulbs.
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic