Ron 10 #151 September 22, 2004 QuoteNope. Never served in the military. I still have all my own thoughts because of that Thoughts that have no experience in that area....So you make comments about subjects you don't know about often? QuoteAnd I think the video of the tortured Iraq prisoners shows alot as well. As does the videos of people getting their heads chopped off. QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saddam had actually complied with the resolution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Due to the lack of WMD's being found (re:TONS as promised were there) it looks like he did. No, to comply he had to SHOW us he got rid of them...He never did that. In fact he did everything he could to make it impossible to prove he had done anything. United Nations Special Commission, or UNSCOM: From 1995: QuoteIn early August, Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel had defected to Jordan, and had then spoken publicly about Iraq's offensive biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities. (Kamel later returned to Iraq and was killed almost immediately, on his father-in-law's orders.) The regime's credibility was badly damaged by Kamel's revelations, and during these meetings the Iraqi representatives decided to tell Duelfer and his team more than they had ever revealed before. "This was the first time Iraq actually agreed to discuss the Presidential origins of these programs," Duelfer recalled. Among the most startling admissions made by the Iraqi scientists was that they had weaponized the biological agent aflatoxin. They even admitted to it. QuoteDuelfer told me, "We kept pressing the Iraqis to discuss the concept of use for aflatoxin. We learned that the origin of the biological-weapons program is in the security services, not in the military—meaning that it really came out of the assassinations program." The Iraqis, Duelfer said, admitted something else: they had loaded aflatoxin into two Scud-ready warheads, and also mixed aflatoxin with tear gas. They wouldn't say why. Charles Duelfer was the deputy executive chairman of the United Nations Special Commission. So they TOLD the UN they had them in 95. Quote United Nations inspectors were alarmed to learn about the aflatoxin program.Richard Spertzel, the chief biological-weapons inspector for UNSCOM, put it this way: "It is a devilish weapon. Iraq was quite clearly aware of the long-term carcinogenic effect of aflatoxin. Aflatoxin can only do one thing—destroy people's livers. And I suspect that children are more susceptible. From a moral standpoint, aflatoxin is the cruellest weapon—it means watching children die slowly of liver cancer." Also Saddam maneuvered UNSCOM out of his country in 1998, weapons inspectors had found a sizable portion of his arsenal but were vexed by what they couldn't find. It was his job to show what he did...But he booted the inspectors out. So HE DID NOT COMPLY. QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Bush had waited...How long? Another 12 YEARS? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nah, maybe another few months just to make sure. What was the rush at that point. He had 12 years....Most people don't think he was ever going to comply. The UN and Congress didn't think he would without force. QuoteNO one deserves that choice People make that choice everyday. Judges, Juries, leaders in combat. QuoteEver think that the tough choice to have acceptable innocent lives lost may be fueling the insurgents? That is one part of the equation. Another is a basic religious difference. Another is economic. QuoteIt seems that anyone that disagrees with Bush is let go. From my understanding the general that didn't want to go into Faluja was relieved of duty. If your Boss tells you to do something and you don't....You get fired. People tend to not keep around people who don't follow orders or have the same set of ideas. Your boss wants you to do this, and you tell him you want to do that...You might just get fired. QuoteThere is nothing wrong with being a humanitarian Nope, unless it gets to the point that you sit around while others are hurt and you will not do anything about it. If someone broke into your house....Would you stop them by force? QuoteShoot first and ask questions later type tend to think there is, and tend to rely on labels. We waited 12 years to really start shooting. I'll give anyone the chance at peace....But they do have to follow the rules laid out...Something that you seem to overlook is that Saddam was not following the rules."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 #152 September 22, 2004 QuoteSo frickin what? Is there some kind of rule that if you wait for 12 years for something you have to start killing people? During those 12 years we weren't doing everything we could do to insure compliance. We could have started doing those things. Point is he kicked out one team of UN inspectors...He did not want to comply and was doing everything he could to hide. QuoteNo, they didn't. They voted on serious consequences. Bush and his ilk were incapable of realizing that there are consequences besides war. We tried sanctions which France ignored. We tried Inspectors...Which he chased out. We tried threats...Which he ignored. For 12 years he could have complied....He didn't QuoteNo they didn't. They voted to authorize the use of force of alternative methods weren't successful. They weren't successful because none were tried. Bush used a loophole that you guys keep flaunting to say that Kerry and everyone else voted for war when in fact they didn't. what part of ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO USE FORCE is not easy to underrstand?"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
nigel99 558 #153 September 22, 2004 Ron, Firstly the UN did not vote for force they voted for "serious consequences" - the USA & UK realised they did not have the majority possible for a 2nd resolution (which they initially pursued and then admitted that it would in essence be better to ask forgiveness than permission) Secondly it worries me that US Congress has the power to "authorise" unilateral action. I am not disputing that Bush would not have been able to go without their concent but this does not mean that international policeing does not need international concent. I believe the correct sequence of events is Step 1 - get authorisation from your citizens to go to war Step 2 - get authorisation from the international community to go to war Step 3 - go to war. On a side note I wish that the charges raised against Blair and Hoon in the Hague would come up for trial soon as it would allow judges to make a decision on all this and save us armchair judges from all our funExperienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #154 September 22, 2004 Quote Thoughts that have no experience in that area....So you make comments about subjects you don't know about often? I guess hearing stories for over 20 years about how bad the military was from family and friends doesn't count for anything. QuoteAs does the videos of people getting their heads chopped off. Which wouldn't be happening if we didn't illegally invade Iraq. The action of our troops in the prisons over there may have caused it as well, plus the piles of dead innocent children. The US was the cause in all of these, as was the "honor" those troops seemed to show. QuoteNo, to comply he had to SHOW us he got rid of them...He never did that. In fact he did everything he could to make it impossible to prove he had done anything. I've seen the proof from the 90s as well. The fact is, we have no proof from this century. SH was being a pain in the ass, but he was slowyly coming to terms with the sanctions, and even the inspectors said there was nothing to be found anymore. No, he didn't show what he did with them, but he did show some progress otherwise the inspectors would never have left thinking there was nothing to be found. Quote The UN and Congress didn't think he would without force. Are you for or against the UN? Here you use them to help your argument, yesterday you called them blow hards. The Security Council didn't vote for an invasion and yesterday the UN reminded GW that his actions were illegal in the eyes of the UN/World. That puts GW on the same page as SH with breaking UN laws. Quote People make that choice everyday. Judges, Juries, leaders in combat. Which is why I don't support the death penalty. Ever talked to someone on death row? I have a few times, and a few people that were up for murder. I interviewed one man that was accused of killing a cop and was going to be killed...but there was a lot of noise about it, so I gave him radio time. Without all that noise they would have killed him....a year after his original scheduled date he was released from jail - the cops partner had hidden evidence that proved his innocence. No one deserves to have that choice over who lives - and that is one of the problems with this world - people want that power. QuoteIf someone broke into your house....Would you stop them by force? I would do what it takes to be safe. Material goods can be replaced. I have a teacher in HS that was killed because he tried to stop someone in his house._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #155 September 22, 2004 QuoteFirstly the UN did not vote for force they voted for "serious consequences" What is "serious consequences" in your opinion? Sanctions? Already did that. Bombing? did it. Inspectors? Tried it. What else is there? QuoteI believe the correct sequence of events is Step 1 - get authorisation from your citizens to go to war Step 2 - get authorisation from the international community to go to war Step 3 - go to war. Step 1...Got authorization from Congress...Congress is elected by the people...so step one done. Step 2. Who says we have to have permission from anyone? Did Saddam have permission to invade in 91? I must have missed him asking. Did The 13 colonies get permission to seek independence? Nope. You don't need permission from the international anybody to go to war. That is a choice reserved for the Government of that country. It is a sad day when a country gives up its rights as a country to an international group...One I might add that had members in violation of it's onw sanctions against Iraq. QuoteOn a side note I wish that the charges raised against Blair and Hoon in the Hague would come up for trial soon as it would allow judges to make a decision on all this and save us armchair judges from all our fun The UN, or the Hague only have as much power as the countries give them. Iraq was told to play nice and they didn't. They are organizations that only have the amount of power that you give them....And they can be told to pund sand if you like."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 #156 September 22, 2004 QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thoughts that have no experience in that area....So you make comments about subjects you don't know about often? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess hearing stories for over 20 years about how bad the military was from family and friends doesn't count for anything. It might give you some ideas...But you are missing the largest part....Try to explain skydiving to a whuffo. You can't. Without the experience...You are just making lame attempts to understand. QuoteWhich wouldn't be happening if we didn't illegally invade Iraq It was not illegal...The UN voted for it, and so did the US Congress...So much for illegal. The UN is a paper tiger. They backed down and did nothing for 12 years. QuoteThe US was the cause in all of these, as was the "honor" those troops seemed to show. Wrong. the "cause" was Saddam not complying, and the UN doing nothing about it for 12 years. Look at the root cause...The international community not letting the coalition go into baghdad in 91. Then the UN doing nothing about it for 12 years. And you know nothing about those troops and honor. QuoteI've seen the proof from the 90s as well. The fact is, we have no proof from this century He never complied...EVER. He may have done some of the parts of the sanctions..But he had to PROVE it. And he never did. Plus, like I have said before the UN should have done something about it in 95 and not ignore it. QuoteAre you for or against the UN? I think they are a good idea in theory...But the application sucks. You have guys in the UN getting paid by Saddam, then Frence selling Iraq materials against the UN sanctions, and Members of the civil rights section are some of the worse on cilvil rights in the world. So I like the idea, but the application is shit. I also don't like the idea of a International body calling all the shots. So, I don't support or recognize the UN as jack shit. QuoteThe Security Council didn't vote for an invasion and yesterday the UN reminded GW that his actions were illegal in the eyes of the UN/World. That puts GW on the same page as SH with breaking UN laws. Then let the UN cry about it. They will never DO anything about it. QuoteWhich is why I don't support the death penalty Well again we don't agree...Where is the surprized emotiocon? QuoteI would do what it takes to be safe. That would mean that you would stop them by killing them if you had to? Would you protect your loved ones? I will."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
PhillyKev 0 #157 September 22, 2004 QuoteWhat is "serious consequences" in your opinion? Sanctions? Already did that. Bombing? did it. Inspectors? Tried it. What else is there? According to Bush and you, nothing but war. According to anyone who thinks war should be a last resort, not a 4th choice, many many things. 1. Continued containment. Inspections and an embargo on prohibited trade have contained Iraq since 1991. If effective, continue the inspections indefinitely. 2. Increased inspections. France and Germany (Belgium, China and Russia) have proposed tripling the number of inspectors to over 300. 3. More aggressive inspections. Add inspectors from the first inspection regime. Provide more equipment and transport to carry out surprise visits. Authorize U-2 surveillance flights, installation of permanent monitoring detectors, and the destruction of illegal weapons. 4. Criminal indictments. Indict Saddam Hussein and his chief lieutenants in the International Criminal Court of Justice in The Hague for crimes against humanity. 5. Continued international dialogue. Use the fora of the United Nations, NATO, the Arab League, and other regional groupings to maintain a continuous dialogue on mutual efforts to deal with Iraq. Encourage international, rather than U.S.-sponsored, solutions. 6. Direct diplomacy and negotiation. Establish direct contacts between the U.S. and Iraq in order to carry out government to government talks. Explore possibilities for reduction of tensions; set up mechanisms for dialogue and a return to normal relations; provide opportunities for exile and safe passage to another country. 7. Resolution of the Israeli-Palestine crisis. The single most festering element in the Middle East is the half-century old conflict between Israel and its neighbors. Resolve this crisis with justice and security to all parties and much of the anger feeding terrorism in the Middle East will be reduced. 8. Restoration of U.S. credibility. Because of its military, economic and cultural dominance, coupled with its refusal to accept international treaties and limitations, the U.S. is increasingly seen as an arrogant bully insisting that the world conform to its image. America needs to renew its commitments and actions in support of human rights, democratic opportunities, and compassion for the needy. Only then can America again be a trusted partner among nations. -Jimmy Carter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #158 September 22, 2004 QuoteIt was not illegal...The UN voted for it, and so did the US Congress...So much for illegal. One more time. The UN did NOT vote for war. They voted for serious consequences. When we told them we meant war, they said NO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #159 September 22, 2004 Quote1. Continued containment. Inspections and an embargo on prohibited trade have contained Iraq since 1991. If effective, continue the inspections indefinitely. In 95 he was making new weapons...and the UN inspection team found that. In 98 they were booted out of the country. France was selling Iraq things against the embargo. So, those didn't work now did they? Quote Criminal indictments. Indict Saddam Hussein and his chief lieutenants in the International Criminal Court of Justice in The Hague for crimes against humanity. Uh, like they would just stick their hands up and come out? Nope, to get them we would have to go get them...just like we did. They can now stand trial. So you would want to try the same things we have been trying for 12 years that didn't work? Ya know my favorite definition of insanity? Doing the same thing time after time and expecting a different result."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
pajarito 0 #160 September 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt was not illegal...The UN voted for it, and so did the US Congress...So much for illegal. One more time. The UN did NOT vote for war. They voted for serious consequences. When we told them we meant war, they said NO. Wait...is that kind of like the whole "it depends on what your definition of "is" is thing? Serious consequences... What, beyond what had already been done to Iraq, does that mean? I think they were confused in addition to being cowards. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #161 September 22, 2004 QuoteOne more time. The UN did NOT vote for war. They voted for serious consequences. When we told them we meant war, they said NO. One more time...What they hell do you think "Serious consequences" are? Inspectors didn't work...We knoew he had WMD in 95 and the UN did nothing. The UN let him boot out the Inspectors in 98. The French never complied with the Embargo and sold stuff to Iraq all the time. Members of the UN were getting money from Iraq in the "food for Oil" program. Nothing the UN has done has worked."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
nigel99 558 #162 September 22, 2004 Serious consequences was sold as - if you do not comply we will go to the security council and vote to go to war (that is we will take Step 1 of my previous 1,2,3 list). well if the USA believes that it has the right to declare war on another country without remaining within the framework of international law then it should probably be defined as a "rogue state". As unfortunate as it is law and justice are not always the "easy" option - either locally or internationally. I personally don't find it very comfortable that UK law would allow someone to murder a relative/friend and the murderer get circa 10 years actual jail time - however if the circumstance arose if I took the law into my own hands I would be a murderer - this does not mean ppl would not sympathise.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #163 September 22, 2004 QuoteIn 95 he was making new weapons...and the UN inspection team found that. Sounds like they did their job. QuoteIn 98 they were booted out of the country. And in '98 Seinfeld was still putting out new shows. What does that have to do with now? QuoteFrance was selling Iraq things against the embargo. So was Halliburton. Key to that is to stop France and Halliburton from doing that. QuoteSo, those didn't work now did they? Apparently they did, there are no WMD and Iraq was not an imminent threat to us. Nobody said we had to keep doing the same thing. We could have conintued the same policies but implemented them better. The end result would have been the same (Iraq not a threat) and no one would have died. The ONLY reason Bush went to war is because he thought it would be a quick and easy solution to the Iraq issue. He and Rumsfeld stated as much before hand. They expected a quick victory over Saddam's gov't, which we did get, and then thought that the people would rise up in gratitude and the exiles would return to open arms to lead the country. They were wrong. Now instead of having to continue the cat and mouse game that was successfully containing Iraq for 13 years, we killed a bunch of people, got a bunch of our people killed, and are now in a cat and mouse game of killing. What exactly would have been differrent in terms of our nations safety if we hadn't gone to war? What benefit have we reaped from the lives lost and money spent? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #164 September 22, 2004 QuoteWhat exactly would have been differrent in terms of our nations safety if we hadn't gone to war? What benefit have we reaped from the lives lost and money spent? If Saddam had had WMD would you think differently?"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
Frenchy68 0 #165 September 22, 2004 If Saddam had had WMD would you think differently? I would. But he didn't have them. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #166 September 22, 2004 QuoteI would. But he didn't have them. We had intel that said he did.....The inspectors didn't work.. so how would you know if there was no invasion?"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
Frenchy68 0 #167 September 22, 2004 We had intel that said he did.....The inspectors didn't work.. so how would you know if there was no invasion?*** The inspectors worked better than the intel! For whatever that's worth... And where do you draw the line? How many countries do you have to invade "so we can find out whether they have WMD" before you start considering another option? It's endless. And there WAS intel that stated that NOTHING showed that he still had WMD. THat intel was ignored. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #168 September 22, 2004 QuoteWe had intel that said he did.....The inspectors didn't work.. so how would you know if there was no invasion?*** The inspectors worked better than the intel! For whatever that's worth... And where do you draw the line? How many countries do you have to invade "so we can find out whether they have WMD" before you start considering another option? It's endless. And there WAS intel that stated that NOTHING showed that he still had WMD. THat intel was ignored. The inspectors weren't allowed to go everywhere they needed to. Then they were kicked out. In essence, bitch slapping the UN in the face and daring them to do something about it. It's easy to hide or move something when you know someone is coming. Come on... Covert intel is much better. In addition: Your boy thought they had them. "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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,099 #169 September 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteI would. But he didn't have them. We had intel that said he did.....The inspectors didn't work.. so how would you know if there was no invasion? The March 2003 quarterly report by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, known as UNMOVIC, includes a timeline that shows most of the destruction took place before 1995. And it says that during inspections in late 2002 and early 2003, "No evidence of either current or recent development or production of proscribed munitions was uncovered." Subsequent searches following the ill conceived invasion shows that the UN inspectors got it right and Bush and his cronies were wrong. Bush HAD access to the UNMOVIC report. He chose to believe the bad intel. The buck stops in the Oval Office. Trying to share the blame with Congress is absurd, they just got the intel that Bush fed them. The DCI reports to the President, not Congress.... 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
Frenchy68 0 #170 September 22, 2004 Your boy thought they had them. Quote Uh... Not MY boy. The inspectors weren't allowed to go everywhere they needed to. Then they were kicked out. In essence, bitch slapping the UN in the face and daring them to do something about it. It's easy to hide or move something when you know someone is coming. Come on... Covert intel is much better.*** Covert Intel is much better if the Intel is conclusive and reliable. Which obviously wasn't the case. I am not denying that SH was fucking with the UN inspectors. But doing so was keeping him too busy to develop any WMDs. And we went in under a pretext which has now been proven to be as valid as the one used by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1979. At least by "common" international standards... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #171 September 22, 2004 QuoteCovert Intel is much better if the Intel is conclusive and reliable. Which obviously wasn't the case. I am not denying that SH was fucking with the UN inspectors. But doing so was keeping him too busy to develop any WMDs. And we went in under a pretext which has now been proven to be as valid as the one used by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1979. At least by "common" international standards... Of course intel is better if it's conclusive and reliable. How do you know the UN was keeping him to busy to develop WMD’s? How do you know they’re not sitting in Syria right now? Would you rather things be put back the way they were? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #172 September 22, 2004 Would you rather things be put back the way they were?*** I'm sure there are more than 2 options. Although ask me again in a year or so, and I may answer positively Hopefully not. I do not KNOW any of the above, but neither do you. How do you know Botswana is not trying to get WMDs? Should we move there next? And where is the Intel about Syria? Not that I would doubt that Syria would be involved, but WE DO NOT KNOW. And therefore should refrain from acting, then finding out we were (probably) wrong, then try to patch things up, hoping we haven't set a new fire. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #173 September 22, 2004 QuoteHow do you know the UN was keeping him to busy to develop WMD’s? Because there aren't any. QuoteHow do you know they’re not sitting in Syria right now? If they are, how are we safer? QuoteWould you rather things be put back the way they were? Yes, if that includes the money we've spent and the lives that have been lost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #174 September 22, 2004 QuoteBecause there aren't any. That we’ve found… He certainly used to have them. Where’d they all go? QuoteIf they are, how are we safer? We don’t have Saddam Hussein to contend with any more in reference to the future threat of Iraq’s WMD development and distribution and Iraq state sponsorship of terrorism. QuoteYes, if that includes the money we've spent and the lives that have been lost. IMO, that is a very “short sighted” view and a discredit to those who have fallen in its cause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #175 September 22, 2004 QuoteWe don’t have Saddam Hussein to contend with any more in reference to the future threat of Iraq’s WMD development and distribution and Iraq state sponsorship of terrorism. No, now we'll just have to contend with the state of Iraq post Saddam which IMO is much more dangerous to us. QuoteIMO, that is a very “short sighted” view and a discredit to those who have fallen in its cause. No discredit meant to those serving at all. The discredit belongs to the administration. Those serving under it are doing their duty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
