Kilmer17 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 This entire situation is turning into a giant goat****. Now Libya has been elected to lead the human rights commission? Are they effin serious? I think when we start bombing Iraq back to the stone age a few of our bombs should "accidentally" hit France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 They already are in the stone age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 kilmer....my worries are little more pointed....specifically my friends who are over there now. the French et al have a legitimate concern in potential ramifications..they just haven't made a very good case. My concern, for my friends, is that if you delay long enough, then Hussein will have WMDs (if he doesn't now), and he will use them. This will trigger an escalation process no one really wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Iraq already has nukes.... Rumsfield said that during the Regan era's Iran-Contra scandal, nukes were sold to Iraq. His words were that he knows because he signed off on it. Nato is important because if we just go in and fry them without the support of Nato, than that has serious problems... The US is viewed as bully's by most of the world as it is, if Nato supports the whole thing, than we are just acting as a part of it, not on our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Code, Iraq already has nukes.... Rumsfield said that during the Regan era's Iran-Contra scandal, nukes were sold to Iraq. His words were that he knows because he signed off on it. Is this true? I haven't heard, or read for that matter, anything like this. Where did you find this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 That was on the front page of the USA Today and on CNN about 2 to 3 weeks ago.. Rumsfield served in some capacity under Regan... I'm not sure what, but he verified that Iraq already has nukes... Let me say this... I don't know if he was speaking officially or what... what I mean is, I don't know if Bush has acknowledged if it is true or not, but I do know he said it... I will look for a link... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 That is an absolutely stunning revelation. If this is indeed the case, could this be why the US continues to assert that Iraq is not being truthfull regarding its weapons of mass destruction. On a side note, why would the US give nukes to Iraq for Iran to release hostages? Weren't they involved in a war against each other at the time? Wow!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 The US didn't do it to release hostages.... The Iran-Contra thing was about arming Iraq so that they could fight a war agains Iran, who was then our current adversary... the money that was made from the arms sales went to the Contras in Nicuragua (sorry about the spelling) to help them fight vs. their government whom we did not support. The History channel has been showing a lot about it lately because of what is going on... one show that was really good was a two part series about the CIA... watch it if you get a chance... It really shows why our country is not liked by foriegners. We have proven over time to do what ever it takes to push our will on others, usually covertly. It was a really cool show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 I thought the gist of the Iran-Contra deal was that we sold arms to Iran for cash that the CIA funneled to the Contras for their war with the Sandinistas. In exchange for the arms sale to Iran, they securred the release of the American hostiges in Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama Iraq already has nukes.... Rumsfield said that during the Regan era's Iran-Contra scandal, nukes were sold to Iraq. His words were that he knows because he signed off on it. This is not correct. We sold or made available at least nuclear technology and perhaps some related materials to Iraq - I believe for the purposes of assisting them in building a reactor - that sped up their uranium enrichment research. They were never sold nukes by us or anyone else, and they have never managed to build a working nuke on their own. And unlike with chemical and biological weapons, the UNSCOM inspections between 1991 and 1998 appear to have crippled their nuclear weapons program while they were ongoing . . . but that was more than four years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 21, 2003 Author Share Posted January 21, 2003 code, not for nothing, but I like NATO. I am referring SOLELY to the UN. I havent heard that about the Nukes. BUt it sounds like the Libs talking points memo that we cant hold Saddam responsible since we gave him weapons to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Answer - because despite its flaws, the UN sometimes serves its purpose of providing a forum for working things out before bullets fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 21, 2003 Author Share Posted January 21, 2003 Examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 I don't like the UN, but right now I'm glad the UN is around, because (and maybe I missed the memo, but I don't think I did) I don't understand why we are going to war with Iraq and since the administration does not seem compelled to justify war to the American people, I want the adminsitration on as short of a leash as possible, and if the UN serves that purpose, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Actually, I think the UN is better ONCE the bullets start to fly. Keeping it around means always having an opening for talks. Israel and Palestine moan and complain to the UN all the time, but that talk is better than no talk. We used the UN after the Gulf War. The UN seems to be where everybody goes when they're ready to end bloodshed. The UN seems more useful for stopping wars that have started or for consensus building on world rules like trying to reduce pollution, human rights ect. Of course these are often ignored (even by us) because there is no force behind the UN. It's really an institution of peace without wartime backing. Anyway, that's just my quick thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 21, 2003 Author Share Posted January 21, 2003 Actually g, that's the best argument I have heard ever. I can totally accept that. Yomar, we are going to take out Saddam and his weapons. If his armies decide to enter the fray, they face the same assault. If we dont, he will continue to develop weapons that he can sell or give to terrorists or other rogue nations that can be used against us. Im not worried about Iraq launching a nuke at us. Im worried that Saddam gives a suitcase Nuke to a Hamas member who then walks into a NY subway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Yomar...in no particular order...Hussein: - invaded Kuwait - waged war with Iran and used chemical weapons - launched Scuds into Israel - has threatened Saudi oil fields - attempted genocide against the Kurds - attempted genocide againt the Shiites - murders/tortures his own people - funds Palestinian terrorist suicide bomber familires - has intelligence services with connections into the terrorist world - has demonstrated repeatedly a complete disregard for UN resolutions - has been undertaking a concerted effort to build chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities for at least a decade there is more than enough pretext to remove this tyrant from power. the fear is what he will do once he has WMDs. the administration likely has good human intelligence on WMD plans. how anyone can ignore 30 years of history with this guy is beyond me. friend of mine went into kuwait city after the liberation to inspect Iraqi torture chambers. chilling stuff. this man is capable of anything and has a lot of people scared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Yomar, we are going to take out Saddam and his weapons. If his armies decide to enter the fray, they face the same assault. If we dont, he will continue to develop weapons that he can sell or give to terrorists or other rogue nations that can be used against us. Im not worried about Iraq launching a nuke at us. Im worried that Saddam gives a suitcase Nuke to a Hamas member who then walks into a NY subway. 2 questions: 1- Why now? It would seem to me like now is probably the worst time to do this, we should be focusing on Al Qaeda. 2- Where is this idea that Sadaam is providing Al Qaeda with weapons coming from? What about Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan et al? Al Qaeda would like nothing better than to get Saddam out of power and replace him with a fundamentalist regime, why would he give them weapons? If we are going to war to prevent Saddam from giving Al Qaeda weapons, where is the proof that it would make one iota of difference, because common sense says that Al Qaeda does not get the majority, if any, of their funding or weapons from Saddam. I don't buy it, it doesn't make sense. Simply outlining a potential nightmare scenario does not make it so, more likely the suitcase nuke you are talking about would have been bought from Russian organized crime with money from Saudi Arabia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 21, 2003 Author Share Posted January 21, 2003 If not now then when? Or do you think he should be left alone? The connection between Saddam and terrorists is clear. He has paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He has a standing offer to pay 25k to any future bombers. I used Hamas in my example, but it doesnt matter which group it is. To destroy the terrorist network, we must destroy the infastructure. Iraq is parrt of that. So the question seems to be easy. Do remove him from power or not? If the answer is yes, then why wait? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 Yomar...in no particular order...Hussein: - invaded Kuwait - Gulf War...we already went to war because of that - waged war with Iran and used chemical weapons - yeah, we were supporting him then. - launched Scuds into Israel - See Gulf War above - has threatened Saudi oil fields - not a legitimate reason - attempted genocide against the Kurds - See Gulf War above (also while I realize he is a real ****, there are tons of injustices perpetuated by ruthless dictators all over the globe, yet we don't go to war over it, so what makes these human rights violations more aggregious? - attempted genocide againt the Shiites - see above - murders/tortures his own people - see above - funds Palestinian terrorist suicide bomber familires - so do Syria, Saudi Arabia and many other Arab countries. - has intelligence services with connections into the terrorist world - see above - has demonstrated repeatedly a complete disregard for UN resolutions - 2 points, not the first country to do this, and it should then be the UN who enforces its policies, not the US acting alone and in disregard of what the UN says. - has been undertaking a concerted effort to build chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities for at least a decade - currently we have inspectors in the country trying to verify this, unless there is a smoking gun, there is no reason to go to war until the investigation is complete. there is more than enough pretext to remove this tyrant from power. the fear is what he will do once he has WMDs. the administration likely has good human intelligence on WMD plans. how anyone can ignore 30 years of history with this guy is beyond me. friend of mine went into kuwait city after the liberation to inspect Iraqi torture chambers. chilling stuff. this man is capable of anything and has a lot of people scared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 21, 2003 Author Share Posted January 21, 2003 Yes we did go after him for those atrocities and we let him live and keep power as long as he abided by certain provisions. He has not abided by them. So this begs the question, if we dont hold him to his word, what stops the next rogue leader from making empty promises to us? Part of the ceasefire agreement was that UN inspectors would have unfettered access to Iraq sites. He kicked them out and our Govt stood by and let him. The current Govt needs to clean up the mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 If not now then when? Or do you think he should be left alone? Well for starters, how about after we have dealt with the Al Qaeda issue first. Also, how about when there is legitimate reason, Iraq has not attacked any soveriegn nations since the Gulf War. The connection between Saddam and terrorists is clear. He has paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He has a standing offer to pay 25k to any future bombers. Iraq is not alone in this act. I used Hamas in my example, but it doesnt matter which group it is. Actually it does when you are talking about threats to US security. To destroy the terrorist network, we must destroy the infastructure. Iraq is parrt of that. saying it does not make it so, Iraq has a love/hate relationship with fundamentalist terrorists, they may share similar enemies, but ultimately their agendas are in direct opposition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Part of the ceasefire agreement was that UN inspectors would have unfettered access to Iraq sites. He kicked them out and our Govt stood by and let him. The current Govt needs to clean up the mess. It took some sabre rattling, but this has been corrected, there are inspectors in Iraq, problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Yomar...he has been a threat to the other nations in the Middle East (there is more to this than anti-terrorism). Are you telling me that the world, which has waited too long already, should do nothing about genocide? have you done the risk calculation between Saddam with WMDs and Saddam without? You think that the delta isn't large enough to warrant concern? do you think that the embargo is enough? that the embargo is any more humane? why now? why wasn't it done yesterday would be my question. because it wasn't a stated objective for Desert Storm (iot build a coalition) we didn't clean up this mess when we had a chance. we have known for a while that he has been violating UN proscriptions against WMD programs. What is the appropriate time to call him out? the onus is not on us - it should be on Hussein to explain the murders, invasions, genocide, WMD obfuscation, terrroist connections.... this guy has done things that are beyond the pail. as bad or worse than anything that happened in FDRY. it is possible to weed one cancer at a time; and to use different strategies/tools each time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 21, 2003 Author Share Posted January 21, 2003 The argument of moral equivalent is stupid. Sure other nations do the same thing, that doesnt make it right or acceptable. All in due time. And while there are now inspectors in Iraq, For 5 years they were able to retool their efforts. And when we do find evidence (12 chemical warheads, then 4 more this past weekend) those finds are dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.