Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 91

Thread: The Littlest Terrorist Dies....we're Safe !

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    28 Jun 04
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
    Same thing I said, he could not verify.
    He was working on the verification part and needed some more time which many of the UNSC members (permanent as well as temporary ones) were willing go along with.

    I don't know if you can recall that in the dying minutes before the war Iraq had summoned Hans Blix to present him with more evidence and paper work, but US/UK did not agree for it.

    Why were they maintained in perfect working condition even this long after the Kuwait War?
    Reading this from NewYork Times I don't get the impression you are trying to portray:
    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/inte...aq-No-WMD.html
    In fact, the only unconventional weapon turned up in Iraq wasn't turned up by the Americans at all, but by the other side, Iraq's shadowy resistance. In May, in an incident causing no serious injuries, insurgent fighters in Baghdad rigged an old artillery shell as a roadside bomb, apparently unaware it was loaded with sarin nerve agent.

    Otherwise, two or three stray shells have been discovered with traces of degraded agent -- far short of the 100-500 tons of usable chemical weapons that Colin Powell warned of on Feb. 5, 2003, as he sought a U.N. blessing for the U.S.-British invasion.


    You've never been in combat.
    And thank god for that, I absolutely hate the idea of killing.


    The actual report states that the programs were dormant, not destroyed.
    Dormant is wrong choice of word, "intent" is more like it. You might want to read the rest of the NYTimes article above.
    Two points, No WMD was found, and there were no existing chemical/biological plants capable of producing WMD.

    I don't buy the "intent" argument.

    The AS missile was produced in quantity.
    Yes they were in violation of range limit imposed. But I don't believe that is reason enough to invade and utterly destroy a country and kill upto 30,000 of its civilians.

    The six shells were found.
    Please read NYTimes article above.

    Saddam did create the Ring of Death. He did issue the Release Order. None of these were fiction.
    The "Ring of Death" propoganda came from Pentagon/Bush-Administration, and given the fact that these guys are consumate liers, my sketicism is justified.

    When the enemy says he's pointing a gun at you, it doesn't matter if he's lying or not. I start shooting.
    I agree with that.

    What I don't agree with is shooting at somebody under the assumption that he might shoot at me in future. Simply because I could be wrong in my assumption.


    They're incompetents but don't you dare put them on par with war criminals. I've seen, met, fought, and hopefully killed real war criminals,
    Yes they are incompetent, but I my book they are also war criminals.
    Last edited by turnagainarm; 20 Sep 04, at 16:44.

  2. #62
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Okay, a military man speaking to a civilian.

    All munitions require periodic checks to see if they're still functional. Normally, you don't store chems within the shells. However, the shells must be checked every so often to make sure the powder base has not degraded to danger levels. In other words, the Iraqis were maintaining those shells long after they were supposed to be destroyed.

    The AS missile was a modified SA-2 SAM, a missile originally intended to shoot down airplanes. To gain the extra distance, the Iraqis removed the guidance system and replaced it with fuel, a poor man's SCUD. This virtually limited the missile targets to stationary targets, ie a village or a base. With a 20kg warhead that originally was designed to wreck the missile into tiny pieces so that an airplane flys through the debris and be shreded, a building wouldn't even be dented by a small warhead ... if it could even hit such a building intentionally. The only warhead that makes sense are bio/chems.

    The issue is not that 6-300 weapons designed for chems without chems in them
    as opposed to the 1000s of tons of VX and mustard that were not found. The issue is that Saddam supposed to have NONE. ZERO. NADDA. If we found these, what else was he hiding? Apparently now, nothing, but back then, these issues forced an eval to seriously consider that he was lying. We were wrong. I was wrong. However, even with today's evidence, I still could not see how I would come to any other conclusion. When you have an enemy acting like a sly fox, it's hard to imagine him to be a cornered rat.

    The Ring of Death is the Baghdad defence area, manned by the Medina, the Baghdad, and the Hamarabi Divisions. It is not propaganda but the defence layout of the city. The Chemical Weapons Release Order is an actual intercept by our military intel. I can state it is genuine with 100% confidence. Furthermore, the Iraqi Generals who later were captured confirmed such an order was issued. They just don't know what the hell he was talking about.

    Saddam bluffed. We called. The fact that we should have seen it as a bluff does not changed the fact that we, as in the military, believed the bluff.

  3. #63
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    What I don't agree with is shooting at somebody under the assumption that he might shoot at me in future. Simply because I could be wrong in my assumption.
    Saddam's history has shown that he would shoot. Four times he went on the offensive without thinking things through.

    The Iran-Iraq War
    The Kuwait War
    The SCUD attacks on Israel
    The Bush Sr Assassination Attemp

    The last one was the clincher for me that he would try again and 11 Sept gave him the hints. There was no contact between him and Al Qeida but 11 Sept did open his eyes to new methods of attacking the US and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he would try, especially given what he tried to do to Bush Sr in Kuwait.

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    28 Jun 04
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
    Okay, a military man speaking to a civilian.

    All munitions require periodic checks to see if they're still functional. Normally, you don't store chems within the shells. However, the shells must be checked every so often to make sure the powder base has not degraded to danger levels. In other words, the Iraqis were maintaining those shells long after they were supposed to be destroyed.

    The AS missile was a modified SA-2 SAM, a missile originally intended to shoot down airplanes. To gain the extra distance, the Iraqis removed the guidance system and replaced it with fuel, a poor man's SCUD. This virtually limited the missile targets to stationary targets, ie a village or a base. With a 20kg warhead that originally was designed to wreck the missile into tiny pieces so that an airplane flys through the debris and be shreded, a building wouldn't even be dented by a small warhead ... if it could even hit such a building intentionally. The only warhead that makes sense are bio/chems.

    The issue is not that 6-300 weapons designed for chems without chems in them
    as opposed to the 1000s of tons of VX and mustard that were not found. The issue is that Saddam supposed to have NONE. ZERO. NADDA. If we found these, what else was he hiding? Apparently now, nothing, but back then, these issues forced an eval to seriously consider that he was lying. We were wrong. I was wrong. However, even with today's evidence, I still could not see how I would come to any other conclusion. When you have an enemy acting like a sly fox, it's hard to imagine him to be a cornered rat.

    The Ring of Death is the Baghdad defence area, manned by the Medina, the Baghdad, and the Hamarabi Divisions. It is not propaganda but the defence layout of the city. The Chemical Weapons Release Order is an actual intercept by our military intel. I can state it is genuine with 100% confidence. Furthermore, the Iraqi Generals who later were captured confirmed such an order was issued. They just don't know what the hell he was talking about.

    Saddam bluffed. We called. The fact that we should have seen it as a bluff does not changed the fact that we, as in the military, believed the bluff.
    Two things, first you have been repeatedly saying that 6 shells were found in shining condition. The NYTimes artile I posted says that 1 old shell was found filled with nerve gas.

    The same article also says the 2-3 empty shells were found with traces of decayed nerve gas (meaning these were old).

    I have not see the evidence of 6 shells in shining condition you have mentioned repeatedly.

    Secondly, if Saddam was going to use chemical wepons around the ring of death as per the "intercepted" intelligence report ( I am skeptical about such "intercepted" intelligence since the source was Bush Administration), then basically you are saying that Saddam had chemical wepons right until the middle of the war, something which has not been corrborated by the
    16 month long wepon inspections first headed by Kay who said there was no WMD, and now Duelfer is saying the same thing.
    I am yet to hear anybody claim that Iraq had chemical wepons in the first week of April 2003, something which you seem to be claiming.

  5. #65
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    23 Nov 03
    Posts
    2,045
    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    Two things, first you have been repeatedly saying that 6 shells were found in shining condition. The NYTimes artile I posted says that 1 old shell was found filled with nerve gas.

    The same article also says the 2-3 empty shells were found with traces of decayed nerve gas (meaning these were old).

    I have not see the evidence of 6 shells in shining condition you have mentioned repeatedly.

    Secondly, if Saddam was going to use chemical wepons around the ring of death as per the "intercepted" intelligence report ( I am skeptical about such "intercepted" intelligence since the source was Bush Administration), then basically you are saying that Saddam had chemical wepons right until the middle of the war, something which has not been corrborated by the
    16 month long wepon inspections first headed by Kay who said there was no WMD, and now Duelfer is saying the same thing.
    I am yet to hear anybody claim that Iraq had chemical wepons in the first week of April 2003, something which you seem to be claiming.
    Iraq was conducting a misinformation policy as part of its defence. The iraqi military was weak, but Saddam didn't want his neighbours to know that, hence he was happy to let it be known he was tooled up with WMD. When that became a problem he told the truth, because he knew that he was going to be invaded. Once the invasion started, it was shit or bust time for him, therefore he issued not only communications authorising the use of WMD but contrived a situation that each division thought the "next one along" had the WMD.

    But it cuts both ways, Saddam also issued NBC countermeasures to his troops. Partly this would keep the charade going, but also partly because he didn't know if the US/UK might use something nasty against his troops. And lets be honest, one thing is certain, we got all the nasty toys in our toy boxes.

    I, personally, can't be doing with all the intent rubbish. Saddam didn't have WMD in a form that he could use. All such contraventions were extremely minor and, to my mind, showed the problems of large inventories and programmes, then a capbility to use WMD again.

    I agree a contravention is a contravention, but you also have to remember that things like the AS missle range contravention was discovered in the documents provided by Iraq, not by inspectors on the ground. The contravention was noted in the range tests - that a proportion of the missles had exceded their specified range (much like you can overclock a Pentium 4 processor. If anything that would indicate to me that the intent was to build missles to the required limit, in a few cases their engineering was a bit too good.

    I do, however, take OofE's point (and i think Confed has made it in past threads) that the warhead on the missle wasn't much use. But equally i could believe that they wanted to be able to hit at that distance, even if it did no damage. Remember firing the scuds at Israel during GWI (sorry OofE know you don't like me calling it that!) was military pointless, but from a terror point of view it was more successful. So i could believe Saddam might want to try a similar tactic with the AS missiles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Office Of Engineers
    I was wrong. However, even with today's evidence, I still could not see how I would come to any other conclusion.
    I completely see your point of view - but at the time i shared the opposite one (that it was a bluff and so on). However equally i am civilian who hopefully isn't going to face up to being wrong, and you are a military man that would be pleased (in this scenario) to be wrong. So i too can see how you couldn't come to any other conclusion.

    My concern is that i beleive there is an important group that didn't care for any conclusion - Saddam was going, Iraq was going to be smashed - and WMD etc were just to trail of sweets for us children to follow to allow it to happen. This is the bit that i am afraid has damaged Blair in this voter's eyes.

  6. #66
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    I have not see the evidence of 6 shells in shining condition you have mentioned repeatedly.
    U.N. Inspectors Find 11 Chemical Warheads in Iraq
    Empty warheads in excellent condition, UNMOVIC says
    By Judy Aita
    Washington File United Nations Correspondent

    United Nations -- U.N. weapons inspectors discovered 11 empty chemical warheads and another warhead that will require further evaluation, a spokesman for the inspectors said in Baghdad January 16.

    The 122 millimeter warheads were in excellent condition and were similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980s, according to Hiro Ueki, spokesman for the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). The team used portable X-ray equipment to conduct a preliminary analysis of one of the warheads and collected samples for chemical testing.

    The warheads were found during an inspection of a large group of bunkers constructed in the late 1990's at the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area, Ueki reported.

    Press reports of the inspectors' discovery broke as the U.N. Security Council was holding private discussions on the schedule for reports from UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the progress of the U.N. efforts to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

    U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said that the report "sounds like an interesting development."

    "It is very difficult to reach a conclusion just on the basis of a press report," the ambassador noted. "I'm sure the inspectors are giving this their most rapid attention possible and I'm sure we'll be getting further information."

    The council had received no other notice than the press reports, the ambassador said.

    During the council session January 16, the ambassador said, council members were in agreement that they would work together to "keep the pressure on Iraq to cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and pro-actively with the inspection regime."

    "That was the universal message that came from all the members of the council who spoke to the subject today," Negroponte said.

    The U.S. position since the inspections began is that "Iraq's cooperation has been sorely lacking, unanswered questions (remain) and there are many, many ways Iraq could show much greater cooperation with the inspectors," said Negroponte.

    The next report from the weapons inspectors to the council is set for January 27. However, UNMOVIC chief Hans Blix has said that he would bring any significant development or so-called "smoking gun" to the council immediately.

    Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which is investigating Iraq's nuclear weapons activities, are on their way to Baghdad for talks with Iraqi officials January 19 and 20.

    According to press reports from Brussels, where Blix met with European Union officials, the UNMOVIC chief said that inspectors found illegally imported conventional arms materials, some dating from the last two years, but had not determined as yet whether they were related to any of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

    "It's clear they have violated the bans of the United Nations in terms of imports," Blix said.

    Blix said that during his Baghdad visit he would warn the Iraqis that the situation is "very tense and very dangerous."

    In a report to the council on January 9 Blix said that Iraq's declaration of its weapons programs did not provide any new evidence or help clarify the questions about its disarmament, and the prompt access to sites has been accompanied by "no serious effort" to cooperate.

    UNMOVIC spokesman Ueki also reported that another inspection team visited the residences of two Iraqi scientists in Baghdad in a search for documents.

    Some documents from the early 1990s relating to past activities on weapons of mass destruction were taken, Ueki said.
    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    Secondly, if Saddam was going to use chemical wepons around the ring of death as per the "intercepted" intelligence report ( I am skeptical about such "intercepted" intelligence since the source was Bush Administration)
    The source is the US Department of Defense, not the Bush Administration. There is a big difference. The US DoD includes Officers I've served with and trust completely with my life. Also, the validity of the intel has been confirmed.

    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    then basically you are saying that Saddam had chemical wepons right until the middle of the war, something which has not been corrborated by the 16 month long wepon inspections first headed by Kay who said there was no WMD, and now Duelfer is saying the same thing.
    No, I'm saying Saddam made us believe he had them.

    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    I am yet to hear anybody claim that Iraq had chemical wepons in the first week of April 2003, something which you seem to be claiming.
    Excerpts from Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Collins' speech to around 800 men of the battlegroup of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, part of the 16 Air Assault Brigade given at their Fort Blair Mayne camp in the Kuwaiti desert about 20 miles from the Iraqi border on Wednesday 19 March 2003.

    (On Saddam's chemical and biological weapons.)

    It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    28 Jun 04
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
    The source is the US Department of Defense, not the Bush Administration. There is a big difference. The US DoD includes Officers I've served with and trust completely with my life. Also, the validity of the intel has been confirmed.
    DoD is not part of Bush Administration? Doesn't Mr. Rumsfeld work for Bush?

    Propoganda and lies are important part of any war campain.

    My skepticism stems from the fact that I did not read it from any standard media stating that around the ring of death evidence of chemical weapons to be deployed by Saddam were found.

    In fact none was found.

    U.N. Inspectors Find 11 Chemical Warheads in Iraq
    Empty warheads in excellent condition, UNMOVIC says
    ok. this is old news and this was basically found by UN, I was aware of this.
    I don't think this was reason enough to invade Iraq, totally destroy their infrastructure, and kill 30,000 of their civilians.

    I was under the impression that the 6 shining shells you were referring to were found by US weapons inspection team, and as per the NYTimes article I posted, that is certainly not the case.

    Excerpts from Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Collins' speech to around 800 men of the battlegroup of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, part of the 16 Air Assault Brigade given at their Fort Blair Mayne camp in the Kuwaiti desert about 20 miles from the Iraqi border on Wednesday 19 March 2003.

    (On Saddam's chemical and biological weapons.)

    It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.
    Wasn't a similar statement also made by US troops too?

    My point was that none of the standard/mainstream media reported that in the first week of April 2003, Saddam had chemical wepon deployed (I am aware of the propoganda part from DoD) all around the Ring of Death.

    Any such claim would mean that Saddam had large quantity of chemical wepons in the first week of April 2003, something the 16 month long investigation by US wepons inspectors have not been able to corroborate, in fact the conclusion has been that Iraq did not have WMD, nor the capacity to make it.

  8. #68
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    DoD is not part of Bush Administration? Doesn't Mr. Rumsfeld work for Bush?
    Not General Eric Shinseki and not General Tommy Franks. They work for the Constitution of the United States. Though they answer to Rumsfeld, they are not part of their Administration, and neither are any of the uniformed membership. That is clearly written in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    Propoganda and lies are important part of any war campain.
    It was not propaganda nor lies. It was an intelligence evaluation based upon the facts that I've stated that cannot be disputed. Faulty intel perhaps but the eval was solid.

    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    My skepticism stems from the fact that I did not read it from any standard media stating that around the ring of death evidence of chemical weapons to be deployed by Saddam were found.
    Really?

    Saddam's Chem Plot Revealed
    By NILES LATHEM, New York Post, February 19, 2003

    WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein plans to use chemical weapons to create a ring of death around Baghdad to slow down a U.S. invasion and turn the city's residents into hostages, a former Iraqi scientist said yesterday.

    Hussain al-Shahristani, ex-chief adviser to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, said at a conference in the Philippines that Saddam has hidden chemical and biological weapons in deep underground tunnel systems - to be unleashed in a last stand around Baghdad.

    "There has been discussion within his circle to set up what they call a 'chemical belt' around Baghdad using his chemical weapons to entrap the residents inside," said al-Shahristani.

    Al-Shahristani, who escaped Iraq in 1991 after being jailed for refusing to help develop weapons of mass destruction, said his information is recent and comes from former colleagues with whom he has been in contact.

    Pentagon officials told The Post the scientist's claims are in line with U.S. intelligence on Saddam's intentions in the event of an invasion.

    Top military officials have told Congress they believe that Saddam has a "scorched earth" strategy to fire artillery shells filled with VX nerve gas and sarin from inside Baghdad on approaching U.S. forces.

    They also believe he likely will order his loyal troops to blow up oil wells, sabotage bridges and highways, and prevent the 4 million people of Baghdad from leaving in order to use them as human shields and blame any humanitarian disaster on the U.S. military.

    Pentagon officials say war planners have been working hard on ways to prevent the use of chemical or biological agents in the event of war.

    Al-Shahristani, addressing a forum on the Iraqi crisis, also said Saddam does not have the capability to deploy a nuclear weapon or fire weapons of mass destruction on distant countries.

    But he said Iraq has a flourishing chemical and biological weapons program that can be used on invading U.S. forces and the Iraqi people.

    "There's no way that they can find them, unless by pure accident," he said of U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq. "Saddam has mastered his concealment tactics."

    He has appointed thousands of security officers and trained them well in hiding these weapons.

    "These materials are hidden deep underground or in a tunnel system," al-Shahristani said.

    Meanwhile, the buildup of U.S. forces around Iraq continued to intensify yesterday with new deployment orders to 28,000 troops, including the Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment nicknamed the "Brave Rifles," a highly mobile combat unit that played a key role in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    In fact none was found.
    Does not change the fact that Saddam issued release orders and let us know that he issued those release orders.


    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    ok. this is old news and this was basically found by UN, I was aware of this.

    I don't think this was reason enough to invade Iraq, totally destroy their infrastructure, and kill 30,000 of their civilians.

    I was under the impression that the 6 shining shells you were referring to were found by US weapons inspection team, and as per the NYTimes article I posted, that is certainly not the case.
    Does that make my original eval invalid?

    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    Wasn't a similar statement also made by US troops too?
    Yes, we, as in the uniformed membership, ALL believe the intel.

    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    My point was that none of the standard/mainstream media reported that in the first week of April 2003, Saddam had chemical wepon deployed (I am aware of the propoganda part from DoD) all around the Ring of Death.
    First of all, the people who did the eval are solid soldiers. I know the department. They don't fool around. They've got faulty intel. Unless you've got proof that they purposedly lied, I suggest you withdraw that insult. They've already have to deal with the guilt that they were wrong. They were not liars.

    2nd, how were you aware of the "propaganda?" Through the mainstream media.

    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    Any such claim would mean that Saddam had large quantity of chemical wepons in the first week of April 2003, something the 16 month long investigation by US wepons inspectors have not been able to corroborate, in fact the conclusion has been that Iraq did not have WMD, nor the capacity to make it.
    We were WRONG. How many times do I have to say that? We made a mistake. A big mistake. Not the first time this has happenned and won't be the last. However, to suggest that the uniformed membership purposedly lied to start a war is an insult to the extreme, especially to those of us who has seen war and that includes Generals Shinseki and Franks.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    28 Jun 04
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by mostlymad
    The corruption would not have ended with his death. He would have hand picked his successor (one of his sons, and neither would be an improvement) and made sure the way was well prepared for them.
    I hope you understand that corruption is not reason enough to invade a country, uttery destroy its infrastructure, and kill 30,000 civilians.

    Let me give you example of another dictator in a neighboring country from Iraq, Husni Mubark of Egypt. He is tough dictator so his people are oppressed. But he is an ally of US so US pays him $2 billion /yr for being a favorable dictator. He recently nominated his son to succeed him when he is no longer in power. In essence he has already appointed a future dictator. The real kicker is that US will conitue to support the new dictator and most likely keep paying him the yearly $2 billion check.


    also, I have a real problem with thinking it's fine to let an old tyrant die a natural death, living out his life while still in power. Doesn't that send a bad message? Oh, well, let's not help any country suffering under a tyrant, they'll die eventually. And tyrants would come to realize this as well.
    You need to check out the history a bit, USA has the worst record of supporting the all kinds of despotic regimes and dictators all over the globe.

    Far from being the "liberator" US has been party to oppressions of millions of people round the globe, and still is.

    Right at this moment look at the kind of regimes it supporting, Musharraf in Pakistan is a dictator, Mubarak in Egypt is another dictator, King Hussain of Jordan is a king, family of Sauds in Saudi Arabia, and many more. People in these countries do not have any democratic rights/freedom.

    Now tell me when you support desposts and dictators like them then what kind of message you are sending?

    Double standard anyone?

  10. #70
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    23 Nov 03
    Posts
    2,045
    I was under the impression that Iraqi defectors who spouted tails of vast arsenals of death weren't considered credible, until that is 2002 when their theories were given the utmost credibility - from somewhere. Of course we now know that they were in fact not credible.

    My concern is that the change of heart as to their credibility was for political rather than intelligence motives.

    If you stare into the clouds long enough you will see Elvis.

  11. #71
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooth
    I completely see your point of view - but at the time i shared the opposite one (that it was a bluff and so on). However equally i am civilian who hopefully isn't going to face up to being wrong, and you are a military man that would be pleased (in this scenario) to be wrong. So i too can see how you couldn't come to any other conclusion.
    I wonder if you can understand my anquish that I should have been able to come to a different conclusion but would not or could not.

  12. #72
    Senior Contributor Amled's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 04
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    I hope you understand that corruption is not reason enough to invade a country, uttery destroy its infrastructure, and kill 30,000 civilians.
    Maybe not because of the corruption.
    But when the megalomanic absolute ruler of the afore-mentioned country has repeatedly shown himself ready-willing and able to start wars against not only his neighbours, but also wars of extermination against his own subjects. Wars that until he was toppled from power had cost over a million lives.
    This alone; WMD's or not, provides a powerful argument for initiating a premptive war!


    As for:
    Now tell me when you support desposts and dictators like them then what kind of message you are sending?
    That the Enemy of my Enemy is My Friend!
    That you are a pragmatic realistic person living in an imperfect world.
    When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

  13. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    28 Jun 04
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
    Not General Eric Shinseki and not General Tommy Franks. They work for the Constitution of the United States. Though they answer to Rumsfeld, they are not part of their Administration, and neither are any of the uniformed membership. That is clearly written in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    By and large I agree with you and do not question the integrity of either Eric Shinseki or General Tommy Franks.

    However, personal ideologies do play some role into the choices and decision an individual makes, only very few may be immune from it. In US it is not hard to see that majority of the military is pro Republican, and majority of the militaty votes Republican in election.

    Take the example of US supreme court judges, they take oath to serve and protect the US constitution, yet most often than not their ruling is so blatently partisan that it is shameful. Give me an issue and I will tell you in advance which side of the issue Justice Scullia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Renquist would rule on it, irrespective of the merit of the issue.
    I still can't believe that thes guys stopped counting of votes in Florida in 2000 and that too in a democary, that was shameful and blatently partisan. I don't think that something like that could happen in any other democracies around the world. Mark my word, all the votes would have been counted in any other democracy of the world.


    It was not propaganda nor lies. It was an intelligence evaluation based upon the facts that I've stated that cannot be disputed. Faulty intel perhaps but the eval was solid.
    So you are disagreeing with my basic premise that propoganda and lies are an important part of any war campaign ?

    Also how can the eval be solid when the intel itself was faulty?

    If you are solving a math. problem and you very 1st step in the solution is wrong, never mind that next 9 steps are impeccable, your answer is still gonna be wrong.


    Really?


    Saddam's Chem Plot Revealed
    By NILES LATHEM, New York Post, February 19, 2003

    WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein plans to use chemical weapons to create a ring of death around Baghdad to slow down a U.S. invasion and turn the city's residents into hostages, a former Iraqi scientist said yesterday.

    Hussain al-Shahristani, ex-chief adviser to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, said at a conference in the Philippines that Saddam has hidden chemical and biological weapons in deep underground tunnel systems - to be unleashed in a last stand around Baghdad.
    Come on you seriously want me to believe that, a report based on what an Iraqi dissident said and published in a right wing tabloid?

    I follow mainstream/standard media and right wing tabloid does qualify as one, and least we talk about the credibility of Iraqi dissdents, the better.

    Reminds me of this Chalabi interview I watched on TV. The interviewer asked where were the WMD Chalabi had said would be found, Chalabi in reply gave a devilish smile, winked, and said it does not matter now, Saddam is gone.

    Does not change the fact that Saddam issued release orders and let us know that he issued those release orders.
    Source of this info. was Pentagon, I did not read it in the mainstream/standard media, when I read it I will believe it.

    Does that make my original eval invalid?
    After sixteen month of investigations the US wepons inspection team came to the conclusion that no WMD was found, nor did have Iraq existing capability to produce them.

    I will let you draw your own conclusion.

    First of all, the people who did the eval are solid soldiers. I know the department. They don't fool around. They've got faulty intel. Unless you've got proof that they purposedly lied, I suggest you withdraw that insult. They've already have to deal with the guilt that they were wrong. They were not liars.
    I do not question the integrity of military personale, but when you are working wit faulty intel you can not get to right conclusions, that should be obvious.

    Decision to go to war with Iraq was not made by military establishment, it was made by Bush Administration, and once that decision was made, the miltary establishment had to follow it.

    There was failure at all level, civilian, intel, and military. Bulk of the blame should go to civilian since it was their decision first and their inputs influenced military decison, we alreay know these facts.

    We were WRONG. How many times do I have to say that? We made a mistake. A big mistake. Not the first time this has happenned and won't be the last.
    Finally some mea culpa, thanks.

    A big mistake is not excusable, more than 1000 US soldiers are dead, more than 7,000 seriously injurd, cost of the war is estimated at a whopping $200 billion. On the Iraqi side we don't even a correct estimate of casualty, but upto 30,000 civilians ared dead, country infrastructure is so utterly destroyed, that according to US own estimate it would take at least 4 years to repair them back to pre war level.

    Heads need to roll and at all levels, Geroge Tenent resignnation is not enough.

    However, to suggest that the uniformed membership purposedly lied to start a war is an insult to the extreme, especially to those of us who has seen war and that includes Generals Shinseki and Franks.
    I have not questioned the intigrity of Generals Shinseki and General Tommy Franks.

    But seriously can you deny that propoganda and lies form important part of a war campaign?

    I mean just look at all the reasons given to go war with Iraq in the first place, Mushroom cloud going poof over an American city, WMD's blah blah?
    Last edited by turnagainarm; 21 Sep 04, at 14:54.

  14. #74
    Tamizhanban Senior Contributor Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,692
    Iraq: busload of corpses discovered

    By Guardian staff in London and Luke Harding in Baghdad

    Sept. 21. (Guardian News Service):The remains of an entire busload of people, including women and children, have been discovered near Hilla, Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, claimed yesterday

    The interim government was continuing to uncover many atrocities committed during Saddam Hussein's rule, he told editors in London. ``We underestimated the scale of what happened in Iraq at that time," he said. ``So far we have discovered 262 mass graves, with tens of thousands of people. It's unbelievably shocking - truckloads, busloads of people buried."

    There had been a recent discovery of a busload of people buried alive at Hilla, an hour's drive south of Baghdad. ``Men, women and children – they were still sitting in their seats," he said. ``Innocent people who rejected Saddam and his rule."

    Hilla was the site of one of the worst massacres under Saddam's rule. After the first Gulf war in 1991, thousands of Shias and Kurds rose up against the regime, expecting the arrival of US forces. A mass grave at Hilla was found last year to contain the bodies of about 3,000 Shia who were rounded up and summarily killed by Iraqi forces for allegedly taking part in the revolt.

    The few witnesses who escaped the massacre confirm that minibuses full of Shia were driven into trenches. Ba'ath party loyalists then shot dead the passengers, before diggers buried the evidence.

    Journalists who went to the scene discovered hundreds of mummified bodies, including those of women clutching babies. The watch on one exhumed corpse was still ticking, more than 10 years later.

    Mr Allawi yesterday claimed they were still uncovering evidence of Saddam personally looting money - in excess of a billion dollars - from the central bank.

    ``Whatever we thought we knew, what was portrayed in the media, was nothing compared with what we saw with our own eyes when we came into Baghdad." Mr Allawi said there was evidence of ``linkages" with terrorists, including Carlos the Jackal and Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist group in northern Iraq accused by the US of providing a safe haven for al-Qaida.

    ``I am surprised when I hear people talk about whether the war was justified. If Saddam had had his way he would have turned the whole region into hell."

    http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus...0409211115.htm
    A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

  15. #75
    Contributor mostlymad's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 04
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    Let me give you example of another dictator in a neighboring country from Iraq, Husni Mubark of Egypt. He is tough dictator so his people are oppressed. But he is an ally of US so US pays him $2 billion /yr for being a favorable dictator. He recently nominated his son to succeed him when he is no longer in power. In essence he has already appointed a future dictator. The real kicker is that US will conitue to support the new dictator and most likely keep paying him the yearly $2 billion check.
    turnagainarm, this is not a valid argument against what I said, which really seems to be your problem with a lot of posters here. I said corruption would not have ended with Saddam's death. What does this comment have to do with the US? I wasn't saying that killing Iraqis was alright, only making a comment on your statement that it was no big deal to leave a murdering dictator in place since he would die of old age eventually.

    Your constant response here to any criticism seems to be - well, the US did worse. Bush is worse. By that logic, no one can be criticized for anything, because there is always someone who is committing obscenities and we can all just say, well, so-and-so is worse, so-and-so does it.

    When cornered with a statement you can't debate logically, or with an open mind, you throw out phrases about how the US has done worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by turnagainarm
    You need to check out the history a bit, USA has the worst record of supporting the all kinds of despotic regimes and dictators all over the globe.
    Far from being the "liberator" US has been party to oppressions of millions of people round the globe, and still is.
    Now tell me when you support desposts and dictators like them then what kind of message you are sending?
    Double standard anyone?
    No, I don't need to check out US history in light of my comment that I have a problem with thinking it's fine to let an old tyrant die a natural death, living out his life while still in power. Again, you are not addressing my statement. You were talking about Saddam, and my response was about Saddam. This does not imply that I think all other tyrants (in your view, US tyrants, (because that's all you seem to see) should be allowed to die contentedly of old age while still torturing and killing their own people.

    Again, you bring the US into it, because it seems your only line of defense. Just because we say a certain thing is bad, doesn't mean we are implying that everything else is good.

    No double standards, here, or with most posters, from what I've seen. I think your apparent hatred for the US is blinding you. It's your right to hate whoever you want, but it is your weakness if you let it blind you to reality to the point where you can't even understand what people here are saying. Even when people say positive statements, you either ignore them, or twist them into something else. People have repeated themselves very inteligently with good indications that they have expert knowledge many, many times trying to explain things to you, restating the same points, and you always come back to- well, the US is worse, and you imply we are all a bunch of hypocrites. (because the US does worse, of course ).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Somalia's Terrorist Infestation
    By troung in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28 May 06,, 00:52
  2. From Internet To Islamnet:net-centric Counter-terrorism
    By indianguy4u in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01 Nov 05,, 17:31
  3. Bangladesh plays the China card
    By Ray in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 17 Oct 05,, 15:14
  4. Al Qaeda Finances and Funding
    By Ray in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03 Aug 05,, 17:00

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •