Art Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 North Korea is living under the terms of a surrender it signed for losing a war stemming from attacking a neighbor? Check or no? I can't believe you don't understand the difference between North Korea and Iraq. I'm betting you do know the difference and just hope people less intelligent will think you are making a meaningful point to pretend like the two are the same. They aren't. And, we are and should intervene with North Korea. It just has to be done differently than the bully pulpit we enjoy over Iraq. We don't have the same authority over North Korea. We do over Iraq. We won that when we saved the region from Iraq. I do not support military action against North Korea at this time. It may come to that, but, simply put, North Korea has only violated a treaty it signed. That's their right as a soverign nation. They will have to deal with the repercussions of their actions. We will continue to attempt to wield pressure on them to step back into the "world community". But, we're not allowed to simply go into any nation we don't like. That's not who we are. Who we are, though, is a nation of people that conquered Iraq because of what Iraq did. And, we're going to start acting like it. There is a distinct difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Yet again. Is the chemical weaponry found in Iraq enough proof? Is Iraqs refusal to abide by ceasefire agreements enough Is Iraqs refusal to abide by the UN resolutions enough? If not, then what is? Of course you wont answer, it's too difficult. Much easier to call the GOP liars (no examples offered or evidence, but that's par for the course) and other names. Next the left will simply deny the evidence exists (CLintons mantra-DENY DENY DENY) until the press buys it. 1 - Of course it is. 2- Of course it is. 3- Of course it is. Where did I call the GOP liars in this thread? All I asked for was consistency in our foreign policy and how we do or do not turn a blind eye when it comes to nuclear inspections. Is that so hard to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 If it is enough, then why the resistance to attacking Iraq? IF every nation was the same, we could have 100% consistant policy, but the worlds not that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 TEG, You don't negotiate with a country that has nukes as you would a non-nuclear power. the DPRK has nukes whereas Iraq doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 TEG, When you show North Korea has violated the terms of a national surrender to end a war it started, you can apply a lack of consistency dogma. Until then, you're just screaming at the top of your lungs hoping repetition of the word consistency will make people forget North Korea didn't surrender due to its own aggression a decade ago. Until you can display that trait in common with Iraq, consistency fails to be applied logically or intelligently. But, that's not an odd thing from the left's standpoint. Often the left engages in hysterical commentary hoping to sway the unknowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Are you asking why the left is resisting? That, I cannot answer, since I do not speak for them. I am not an elected official. Attack away at Iraq - I dont care. I want cheaper gas anyways Just kidding. Seriously, lets line em all up and take out the leaders of NKorea, Pakistan, and India too. The world needs less crazy people anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Originally posted by tex TEG, You don't negotiate with a country that has nukes as you would a non-nuclear power. the DPRK has nukes whereas Iraq doesn't. Iraq doesnt have Nukes? Yeah right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Originally posted by Art TEG, Often the left engages in hysterical commentary hoping to sway the unknowing. So that makes you and Kilmer leftists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Something from a different thread. The thing here is US-India relations are good at the present time. No reason to go after them. Let's see. The Berlin Wall has been knocked down, Russia has been diminished and is at rest for the moment, Fidel Castro is old as Methuselah so he won't be around much longer, Slobidon Melosivich is under wraps, the Pak's are on a short leash, US-India relations are close and cooperative, Afghanistan has been beaten down, "A-Day" is coming to a theater near you in Iraq and North Korea has it's hand up. North Korea is China's tool so looking down the road… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 You guys are crazy....I say you are all facists. Logically the move to make is to nominate me as world dictator. I shall then trounce upon any who disagree with my beliefs--especially when they complain about me asserting my autority on other countries or trying to stop fights between warring nations. :silly: On a serious note, I do think that Nk has it stirred the pot up sumthin awful. My fear is upsetting China who all the while says nothing, takes no stance and quietly awiaits the outcome of what right now can lead to war on a global scale. We are not that far off ladies and gents. I am much much more fearful of invading NK right now as I don't believe we have all the intelligence we need to mount a quick strike. In this day and age, that is all the support many of us self proclaimed patriots seem to support until we whine and say that our effots have done nothing. We will enforce a trade embargo, anger NK more, come inches to war with them before resolving the issue through some miraculous event. Jong Il chacnging his mind or wising up. We need to mount a strike against both Iraq and NK. It may be actually possible to do both, just air strikes & neutralize their weapons facilities. We definitly know where Iraq'a are and NK has basically told us where theirs are........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Way to go IAMBG. Give that man a prize cause he gets it. There is a reason Japan is at this time re-militarizing itself. Get the easy stuff out of the way before moving on to the big stuff. When the time comes our troops will be experienced and battle hardened, ready for anything. War will breakout in Iraq before spring. Gordon Thomas 1-28-3 Saddam's senior bodyguard has fled from Iraq with details of Saddam's secret arsenal. His revelations come the day the UN inspectors report to the Security Council whether they have found a smoking gun that will trigger war. Abu Hamdi Mahmoud has provided a list of sites that so far the UN inspectors have not visited. They include: An underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad. A Scud assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea. Two underground bunkers in Iraq's Western desert. These contain bio weapons. William Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who has continued to gather information on Saddam's arsenal, described Mahmoud's information as "the smoking gun. Once the inspectors go to where Mahmoud has pointed them, then it's all over for Saddam". Tierney still has high level contacts in Washington that reach into the White House. He said that the information we publish today on Mahmoud's revelations "checks out, absolutely checks out." Tierney believes it is "inevitable" that we will go to war. Globe-Intel has independently obtained documents smuggled out of Iraq which show he does have weapons of mass destruction that have eluded discovery by UN inspectors. The weapons include motorised underwater mines capable of creeping along the sea bed and then surfacing beneath a battleship or carrier. Each mine is filled with chemicals that upon explosion can envelop the ship in a deadly cloud of poison. The documents show that the mines and other weapons of mass destruction have been secretly developed at sites the UN inspectors have also not visited. These are: Al-Qaqa's State Establishment. Sixty miles south of Baghdad, it has produced what the documents describe as "self-detonating precise guided missiles". Near State Establishment. It is on the western side of the Baghdad-Mosul road. It has produced "artillery rounds and other machined metal parts" for the mines. The mines have been machine-finished at Hateen State Establishment, to the north of Baghdad. In the past weeks, they have been moved to Basra - ready to be launched against the naval armada assembling in the Gulf. One document reveals: "The mines use a special camera to distinguish the target above it. The mines then stop under the target. Once in place they produce chemical materials which generates huge amounts of oxygen that guides the mine to the surface. When the amount of oxygen reaches a specific level, the pressure of the oxygen triggers the detonator which results in a tremendous explosion". The documents reveal that test firings of the mine were carried out on Lake Tharthar on June 5 last year. The tests are described as "completely successful". Mahmoud's revelations have also enabled both George Bush and Tony Blair to take an even stronger stand against anti-war protesters when they meet in Washington this week. Mahmoud was a member of the elitist unit charged with protecting Saddam. It is called the Murasiq Qun - the "Inner Circle". He was known as "The Gatekeeper". Mahmoud is the muscular Saddam lookalike who is always photographed standing either behind Saddam when he is seated - or to his left when on the move. He was trained to spot the slightest threat to Saddam. To deal with it, he had a throwing knife up his right sleeve. "In any threat my first job was to throw myself over Saddam to protect his body and then use my knife", he has told his Mossad debriefers. Now he's at the top of Saddam's kill list. But there is no way Saddam's own assassination unit - the Hamaya Khasa - can get to Mahmoud. He is now protected by a team of Israeli agents. For weeks he was in secret negotiation with a Mossad agent in Baghdad. With the promise he could not be charged with any crimes he committed on behalf of Saddam, and he would be given a new identity - including having his appearance changed by surgery - Mahmoud agreed to desert. Last week he was being debriefed in a high security base in Israel's Negev Desert. Ariel Sharon, the country's hard-line prime minister has so far only allowed snippets of Mahmoud's sensational claims to be shared with the CIA and MI6. But a source close to Sharon says he wants to use the revelations when, as expected, he returns to power after the country's election (tomorrow, Monday). "Sharon intends to shatter the growing anti-war movement. He plans to call all those European leaders who are wavering to let them know how Saddam has continued to fool Hans Blix and his inspectors," said the source. Mahmoud's revelations include: Locations of five bunkers buried beneath purpose made sand dunes. Stockpiled in the bunkers are warheads identical to the empty shell cases found two weeks ago by the UN inspectors. Mahmoud has claimed those shells were on their way to be refilled and stored in the bunkers. A portion of a transcript from his debriefing includes: "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are also concealed in a tunnel complex deep beneath the sewers of Baghdad and in an underground complex in Ouja, to the north of Tikrit. The complex was build five years ago with help from Chinese engineers. "The actual entrance to the site is through a house in Tikrit. It is the home of one of Saddam's cousins. The entrance is over half a mile from where the weapons are stored". Mahmoud has also provided the first really detailed insights into how Saddam lives and is protected. Mahmoud says since the Gulf War there have been nine assassination attempts on Saddam. The most recent was in February last year. Mahmoud has described how he was selected. "I was on gate duty at one of Saddam's palaces. One night he arrived in a 10-car convoy. I checked all the vehicles and Saddam stepped out of one car and asked why I inspected them all and not just his. I told him I was not sure in which car he was travelling and that it was in his honour that I checked all the cars. He replied, 'from now on you will be at my side all the time'. He also doubled my salary". Joining the "Inner Circle", Mahmoud found himself in a world far removed from the life of the starving population of Iraq. He received the finest food and had the best weapons. He had access to top level intelligence - so that he could help to plan Saddam's protection. In another excerpt from his debriefing, Mahmoud boasts: "I was inside the innermost circle where Saddam eats and sleeps. I was among the handful of bodyguards closest to him". The bodyguard has given a rare glimpse of what life is like with Saddam. "Very few people are allowed close to Saddam. Many of the TV images you see of him were taken years ago. Most people now only speak to him over the phone. He usually calls them. If they have to call him back with information he wants, it is passed through his sons, Quasy or Tariq Aziz. "All those close to him have codes, which they use to access the outer circle. But even they can only come so close to Saddam before there is a cut-off point - the Inner Circle. Even Tariq Aziz is checked to see if he is carrying weapons. Saddam knows fortunes are being offered to have him assassinated", Mahmoud has revealed. The most protected of all Saddam's palaces is the Qesser al-Quwwa Sitta'shar in Tikrit - close to his birthplace. Mahmoud has described how the palace has four main entrances - and has the latest Chinese-manufactured surveillance equipment. "There are sensors and matchbox sized cameras everywhere. There are doors which can only be opened by placing your face on a key pad. "The palace has a number of escape routes that are outside the palace walls. At each escape point there are cars. A car is always parked at each exit. No one knows what exit Saddam will use. On the way to one he can change his mind and go to another. I have know him change his mind several times over thirty feet. "Saddam's own living quarters in the palace are a labyrinth of doors. To even enter the private sanctum requires having the separate codes to open four doors. On the reverse side of each door is a monitor which shows the Special Guards on duty who is entering". Saddam's paranoia has increased after his son, Uday, narrowly escaped assassination. He is now wheelchair bound. To avoid even his own bodyguards being tempted to kill him, Saddam himself is, according to Mahmoud, a walking arsenal. "He has concealed guns all over his body. He also has panic buttons to press if he even suspects somebody is about to attack him", the former bodyguard has said. Israeli intelligence sources have hinted that part of the deal with Mahmoud was to smuggle out his family from Iraq. Mossad have done this before. At the start of Saddam's reign of terror they persuaded an Iraqi pilot to fly his Russian Mirage to Israel - after Mossad had spirited his wife and children there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awgustlab Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 The Democrats need a good dose of shut the f@%k up. This will provide that. I think most Americans feel the way you do, but that wont stop Pelosi and Daschle from hitting their talking points ad nauseum. Kinda like this?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Guess this makes Gen. Schwarzkopf a leftist too huh? Or since he is one of the few who actually know what the **** they are talking about - maybe it makes him right. Notice that he needs more info - sound familiar here? - before he can support a preemptive invasion. Damn liberal Army generals who are best friends of the Bushes. What do they know about waging war? :laugh: BTW, the liberal part was toungue in cheek - I dont think or even know if he is a liberal or not - but most likely - I doubt that he has a liberal bone in his body. Ex-Gulf War Gen. Schwarzkopf Cautious on Iraq War Tue Jan 28,10:28 AM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo! WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. Gulf War (news - web sites) commander Norman Schwarzkopf says he needs more information before he can support a preemptive invasion of Iraq, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday. "The thought of (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, OK?" the retired general was quoted as saying. "Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information." Schwarzkopf said U.N. weapons inspectors, who reported on Monday that Iraq failed to show it has eliminated illegal weapons, should be allowed to drive any timetable leading to war. "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive," he said. Schwarzkopf said he was impressed by the performance of Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) but was somewhat nervous about comments made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "When he makes his comments, it appears that he disregards the Army," he was quoted as saying. "He gives the perception when he's on TV that he is the guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him -- or else." Schwarzkopf commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War under President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father. He remains close to the Bush family and campaigned in Florida with Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), the former defense secretary, in 2000, the Post said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Of course Stormin Norman has already come out and said he was misquoted. Even still, he's entitled to his opinions. Pat Buchanan is against it as well and he's hardly leftist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 TEG, Gen. Schwarzkopf is very wise. He obviously knows that dead soldiers can't be brought back to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 what's the news flash here? he's saying he's out of the intelligence loop and would like more info......so?....he's retired and out of the picture...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Originally posted by Awgustlab Kinda like this?? I have that same pic in my store for all my customers to observe!!!! Nah, I got it in the back and love to glimpse at it on a bad day. Can be speaking to me or for me. Depends on the day, state of mind and amount of brain cells after the weekend.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 I don't care for this plan at all. Especially just to appease a bunch a whiney Democrats screaming at the top of their schrill voices, "We must have PROOF, we must have a "smoking gun"". Intelligence gathering is something that needs to stay under wraps. To bring out bits of intelligence only exposes methods of gathering said intelligence, and the PEOPLE that risk their asses to get it. I trust this president much more that I trusted the last occupant of the oral office, and I'm the one that's gonna have to go help sort this out. So I ask, if I trust Bush with my life, which is what it boils down to, why can't some of you whining liberals just take him at his word when he says there are reasons to take out Iraq? It's not your a$$ on the line, unless this is allowed to fester and come home to the States in the form of a WMD let off in DC or your hometown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.