The Firearms Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
41 - 60 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I'm sorry I didn't answer right away, but I don't have internet access at home. The only way I can post is from work: from 8 AM to 4 PM CET on weekdays. Anything posted when I can't see it must wait until I'm at work again.

I never was on TV and I didn't take part in a public demonstration of dissent over the Gulf War II (or Gulf War I, if you insist on calling the current military action a continuation of what happened in 91', although the coalition changed a bit since then). I don't like crowds, I know crowd mentality tends to lean toward violent solutions and I don't believe in their influence on anything, except maybe traffic, expecially not on a government of a country half a world away, many times bigger than mine, viewing every opposition as hellspawn bent on world domination.

Chief Inspector Blix did not see his mission as finished and I see no reason why I or anyone else who wasn't with him on the job should have to think otherwise. Yes, more time could be an answer. Maybe with US on their side UN could send more inspectors and with the threat of renewed military action Saddam could have been forced to reveal his secrets. We will never know now. The US stance on the issue seemed to be for Saddam to prove he has no WMD rather than trying to prove he has any. Assumption of innocence anyone? Why the 'God given rights' should apply only to those who are on your side?

Thank you for your information riderbob. I'm familiar with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I go by their church every day on my way to work. I just didn't know the acronym.

warpig
As much as I am thankful for the help rendered by the US during and after WWII to my country, I assure you US would do nothing, would it not benefit them in the long run. Without their help the whole of Europe would have ended either communist or nazi - not the best ideologies to share a world with, according to then-popular views, expecially that with whole of Asia and Europe under their sway they'd have an edge over the US both in production and population.

There are no terrorist nations or countries. There are terrorist organizations, operating out of a country (with or without their support) and having a recruitment base within a nation.

TF118
I bow my head before you, sir, as I should before any veteran and a true hero and defender of his nation.
1. No connection between Saddam and 9/11 attack could be traced. The only obvious one is that both came from the Arab world as do numericals on your keyboard. 9/11 can have nothing to do with the decision to move against Iraq.
2. The cruel fate of Kurdish people under Saddam is no worse than their counterparts' fate in Turkey. This has nothing to do with the decision to move against Iraq.
3. There is no doubt Saddam supports terrorists with anything he can provide. He said so himself. He could supply them with WMD if he had any. Whether he has them or tries to get them is only speculation since the inspectors didn't finish their mission.
4. Sadly there are many people in Europe and US who think that Arabs are inferior to them and in addition to namecalling (e.g. towel-heads) they'd try to damage their property and injure or kill any Arabs they can get their hands on. I speak of course only of the extremists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,133 Posts
Chief Inspector Blix did not see his mission as finished and I see no reason why I or anyone else who wasn't with him on the job should have to think otherwise.
I, for one, see right through Mr. Blix. His main interest was job security, not doing what the UN paid him to do. Remember, we found evidence that he was aware of certain banned activities in Iraq that he chose not to divulge to the UN or put in any of his reports. Something stinks about his role in Iraq. He was a dismal failure in the first round of inspections years ago, and I honestly don't know why they chose him to go back. He is ineffective.

There are a lot of misconceptions about what the inspectors were doing in Iraq. They were not there as investigators to sniff out WMD. If you look at Resolution 1441, which Iraq is bound to by their UN membership, they were required to show us proof that certain programs had been halted, and weapons destroyed. That's all we asked for. It would have been EASY to do. But Saddam chose to play games with the UN. If he had simply come out and said that he indeed had banned weapons and showed us proof that they had been destroyed, we would not be in a shooting war right now. Unfortunately, he chose to lie to the world. He hampered UN efforts and played devious games. It is quite shameful on his part. He chose to sacrifice many lives just so he could save face. Admitting that he had WMD would have shown that he is a liar. Instead of admitting to it, he chose for us to prove it by force.
 
W

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
good point 1952sniper

I wonder the reason Blix was hiding evidence of some illegal weapons?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,133 Posts
Oh, I didn't finish my train of thought on that last post....

Go Get Beer, the reason I disagree with giving Saddam more time for inspections is because of the reasons I listed in my last post. The inspections were not going anywhere. Saddam was not allowing the inspectors to find anything. He chose to hide them. Indeed, he had the chief inspector in his back pocket. I just don't see how more time would have done anything except allow Saddam to finish developing more of these weapons. The political pressure was going nowhere. With the French and others of the "Axis of Weasels" defending him, he felt like he was winning the inspections game. That program of inspections was doomed from the start.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Discussion Starter #45 (Edited)
Originally posted by Go-Get Beer
Gulf War I, if you insist on calling the current military action a continuation of what happened in 91',
[/B]

It IS in fact a continuation ...the war in 91 never ended...there was a cease fire and there was a ''cease fire agreement'' with Saddam that called for his disarmament and FULL COMPLIANCE with the agreement..,.he failed miserably ...he never intended to comply.
http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/Benefits/
Gulf War
The "Gulf War" began on August 2, 1990. Since an end of the conflict has not been declared by Congress, everyone who has been on active duty since it began may qualify as wartime veterans, regardless of duty assignment, when seeking VA benefits.

See Gulf War Veterans' Health.
Also see GulfLink, Defense Technology Information Center.
For undiagnosed illness, see 38 CFR §3.317.
:eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Discussion Starter #46 (Edited)
Originally posted by Go-Get Beer

Chief Inspector Blix did not see his mission as finished and I see no reason why I or anyone else who wasn't with him on the job should have to think otherwise. Yes, more time could be an answer. Maybe with US on their side UN could send more inspectors and with the threat of renewed military action Saddam could have been forced to reveal his secrets. We will never know now. The US stance on the issue seemed to be for Saddam to prove he has no WMD rather than trying to prove he has any. Assumption of innocence anyone? Why the 'God given rights' should apply only to those who are on your side?

Let me again point out Saddam never allowed the UN inspectors to do their jobs for 12 years and the threat of use of force was implied because if you would read & comprehend what you read you would know that as there was a cease fire then if he doesn't comply the cease fire is off !!
FACT; He had chemical weapons for years & he used them.
FACT; Chemical weapons were found during & after the war began in 90-91
FACT; The burden of proof is on him to prove he has complied, not on us to prove he has chemical weapons. He has not proven anything except that he is totally in contempt of the cease fire agreement.
FACT; it is irrelevant weather or not we find any WMD's. He did not comply with the cease fire .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Discussion Starter #47
Originally posted by Go-Get Beer
There are no terrorist nations or countries. There are terrorist organizations, operating out of a country (with or without their support) and having a recruitment base within a nation.
I do believe that Saddam and company ARE terrorist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Discussion Starter #48
Originally posted by Go-Get Beer

TF118
I bow my head before you, sir, as I should before any veteran and a true hero and defender of his nation.
1. No connection between Saddam and 9/11 attack could be traced. The only obvious one is that both came from the Arab world as do numericals on your keyboard. 9/11 can have nothing to do with the decision to move against Iraq.
FACT; A connection has been established between Saddam & AlQaeda who brought us 9/11 however this is not our ''reason '' for the war ,...refer back to the violation of the cease fire agreement .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Discussion Starter #49 (Edited)
Originally posted by Go-Get Beer
3. There is no doubt Saddam supports terrorists with anything he can provide. He said so himself. He could supply them with WMD if he had any. Whether he has them or tries to get them is only speculation since the inspectors didn't finish their mission..
FACT; Again, sense he refused to allow the inspectors to do their job for over 12 years what bring's you to believe he would suddenly change?

we proved he had them and he has never proved that he has destroied them. We must / can only presume that he still has them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Discussion Starter #50
Originally posted by Go-Get Beer
2. The cruel fate of Kurdish people under Saddam is no worse than their counterparts' fate in Turkey. This has nothing to do with the decision to move against Iraq.
True...however if we can stop these atrocities from happening while we enforce the cease fire agreement shouldn't we ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Discussion Starter #51 (Edited)
Go Get Beer...it would seem that your not completely up to speed on the true facts...it would seem that you are one of the ''sheep'' in the anti-war campain ...just following along with the other uninformed not bothering or wanting to know the facts...just following the flock .:eek: :eek:
You certainly haven't offered any solutions ....just noise...why:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
I'm glad you brought up the point about this not being a new war, TF118.
If anyone would care to go back and read the original U.N. (fights gag reflex)
resolution, it states that ANY U.N. member has the right to resume military action in the event that Iraq fails to comply with the demands laid down by that particular resolution OR any future resolution brought to life by the U.N. .
Sorry I don't have that resolution number handy, but I'm sure it can be found on the net with a little effort.
By the way...it's funny that in only 3 wars since the inception of the U.N. has any permission been asked of the U.N. itself...
Gulf War Pt 1 (the U.S. went for U.N. approval)
Afganastan (the U.S. went for U.N. approval)
Gulf War Pt 2 (the U'S. went for U.N. approval)

Why aren't the other countries held to the same standards?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Discussion Starter #53 (Edited)
Thank you Evil....:D
And the reason its always the U.S. is because we are the backbone of the UN...without US the UN would be helpless...that is why it would be nice if the UN figure heads would grow some balls ad back us when we want their backing...we always bore the burden anyway...mark my words when this is over they'll be patting us on the back
:D

Oh & I like your signature !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I want to thank all of you for providing me with information and explaining why this war was started. You have answered all my original questions. It is now clear to me and should be clear to everyone on this board that this is not a war to end opression of Kurds or Iraqis, this is not a counterattack on those responsible for 9/11 tragedy, not a defensive war on the part of US, since Iraq has no weapons he can attack the US with, and not a counterattack on Iraq, which to my knowledge never attacked the US. The continuation of the Gulf War of 91 and Saddam not complying to the resolution 1441 are the main reasons behind it, not an attempt to gather support for it and finding WMD in Iraq is not a priority and in fact it isn't even important as Sniper postulated in his post on 03-27-2003 03:32 PM. The same post contains an excellent response to the original post by TF118:
our administration has never said that we are going after Iraq in retaliation for 9/11
. Since that is the case and this war is not retaliation to 9/11 (or retaliation to any attack I'm aware of) the first post makes no sense to me in the context of this war.
I am sorry if any of my posts seem inflammatory, offensive or unclear. English is not my first language and I suffer from a poor choice of words from time to time.

Only a few questions remain:
Why are in your opinion the above reasons mentioned so often in connection with the current military action?
If Chief Inspector Blix is known to be incompetent/corrupt why haven't I heard of a move to replace him? (Note:'Because you're an ignorant' is a perfectly acceptable answer to this question if there was a serious attempt to put someone more competent in his place)

TF118
Thank you for your information
I do believe that Saddam and company ARE terrorist
Thank you for not presenting it as a fact.
FACT; Again, sense he refused to allow the inspectors to do their job for over 12 years what bring's you to believe he would suddenly change?

we proved he had them and he has never proved that he has destroied them. We must / can only presume that he still has them
Those are not facts, but a question and an assumption.
Maybe support from the US for the mission of the inspectors during those 12 years could have changed his stance. Maybe pressure on Blix, who is according to you corrupt/incompetent or pressure on the UN to put someone else in his place could have changed the outcome of the inspections. We will never know.

I haven't provided any solutions you'd like to hear. More time and support for the inspections could be a solution, IMHO.
I don't think any of my opinions or questions could be qualified as 'noise'. If anything I'm trying to lessen the noise of 'retaliation', 'counterattack', 'war on terrorism', 'freedom for Iraqis', 'defending the US' and 'save the Kurds' surrounding this operation, since neither of these are its priorities.

UN would be helpless only if US did exactly opposite of UN policy on a matter... Oh, wait, it does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,133 Posts
If anything I'm trying to lessen the noise of 'retaliation', 'counterattack', 'war on terrorism', 'freedom for Iraqis', 'defending the US' and 'save the Kurds' surrounding this operation, since neither of these are its priorities.
I guess you still don't get it. The war on Iraq IS the war on terror. The war on terror IS defending the US. Freedom for the Iraqis and saving the Kurds are by-products. It's a nice thing for them, but it's not why we went into Iraq.

You're still seeing things from a nation-state mentality. We do not. You act as if Saddam cannot attack us because his military is incapable of reaching our shores. We used to think that way too, until September 11. That taught us that the real threats against us are not from any military. They are from terrorists.

The reason we are after Saddam Hussein is because his regime supports terrorism. He pays Palestinian suicide bombers. He has connections with Al-Qaeda and gives them refuge. The whole issue of WMD is not that Saddam would attack the US directly, but that he would allow those weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists. Furthermore, he would financially assist terrorists and provide training etc. He has done it in the past and he has stated repeatedly that he will do it again. Make no mistake, that man is out to destroy America. Not through military might, but through terrorist tactics.

We felt that after September 11, we could not afford to sit and wait for countries like Iraq to use these kinds of methods and weapons against us again. So if you think it's unfair for us to attack Iraq, then that's just too bad. We refuse to sit back and allow another 9/11 to happen. We will strike first, at the time and place of our choosing. We will no longer be caught unawares.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
So, what you're saying is many reasons converged with the time limit set by Resolution 1441 so Iraq could be attacked, but none of those reasons alone are sufficient to put two nations at war?
And why were waiting for political channels, replacing inspectors, pressure with UN, not against it, not options to be considered then?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,133 Posts
Let me remind you of all the nations we have in our coalition. You keep talking as if the whole body of the UN was against us. That is incorrect. It was one nation. ONE! France upset the whole UN process. If France had been on board, this would be a UN operation. So quit saying that we are operating against the UN. We are operating against France's wishes.

In fact, as previous posts have stated, we are acting well within UN guidelines from past resolutions. Legally speaking, no new UN resolutions were needed. We are well within our rights here.

The reasons for going back into hostilities with Iraq are many. When you put all these reasons together, war is the result. I won't defend our decision not to do it sooner. The only excuse I can make is that we had a dipshit for a President from 1992 to 2000. If he had any spine he would have taken care of business. But he chose to ignore the problem. Make no mistake; this war would have happened sooner or later. Saddam was betting that the world would forget him. And he was right for 8 years. But his failure to comply with the resolutions against him are what started this war. We did not pick this fight out of thin air. This is all of his own doing, and was started over a decade ago. We are just finally finishing the job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Go Get Beer, you say that Iraq does not have weapons that can harm the US. Well lets see if they let terrorist's have some of there WMD's If believe they probably can find away to use them on us. And also they do have the means to attack our allies. And unlike some countries when our allies are attacked, or there freedoms are impared we help them. Why should we wait for another black eye like 9/11 to happen before we defend ourself?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Discussion Starter #59 (Edited)
Go get beer...IF YOU HAVE FAITH IN THE UNITED NATIONS TO DO THE RIGHT THING KEEP THIS IN MIND: THEY HAVE LIBYA HEADING THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS, AND IRAQ HEADING THE GLOBAL DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE. DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE.

Also as I stated as FACT earlier and you said;

QUOTE
''Those are not facts, but a question and an assumption.
Maybe support from the US for the mission of the inspectors during those 12 years could have changed his stance. Maybe pressure on Blix, who is according to you corrupt/incompetent or pressure on the UN to put someone else in his place could have changed the outcome of the inspections. We will never know.''

FACT; THE U.S. DID SUPPORT THE UN MISSION FOR THE WHOLE 12 YEARS...WE ALSO APPLIED SOME MILITARY FOCE BUT NOT ENOUGH EVEDNTLY.
FACT; SADDAM HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOR YEARS ..
FACT; HE USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON IRAN
FACT; HE USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON INNOCENT WOMEN & CHILDREN
FACT; CHEMICAL WEAPONS WERE FOUND BEFORE, DURING & AFTER THE GULF WAR HOSTILITIES IN IRAQ & KUWAIT
FACT; CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS WERE RELEAST INTO THE AIR DURING THE HOSTILITIES IN 91
FACT; I AM SERVICE CONNECTED & TERMINAL FOR EXPOSURE TO CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENT ...SPICIFICALLY SARIN
FACT; SADDAM INTERFERED WITH & PREVENTED UN INSPECTERS FROM DOING THEIR JOBS...AT ONE POINT EJECTING THEM FROM IRAQ
FACT; SADDAM FITS THE DEFINITION OF TERRORIST ...HE JUST HAPPEN'S TO ALSO CONTROL A COUNTRY BY FORCE & TERROR TACTICS
FACT; 9/11 , WMD'S , 1441 ,TERRORISIM & LIBERATING IRAQ ARE EACH IN THEMSELVES WORTHY CAUSES FOR THIS WAR AND ARE ALL TECHNICALLY BY PRODUCT'S OF THIS ACTION BECAUSE TECHNICAL AND LEGALLY WE ARE MERELY FOLLOWING THRU WITH WHAT WE SAID WE WOULD DO IF SADDAM DIDN'T ABIDE BY THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE ORIGINAL CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT
FACT; I DON'T BELIEVE I CAN EXPLAIN IT AT A LOWER LEVEL ...IT IS NOW AT A 5TH GRADE LEVEL ...IF YOU STILL CAN'T COMPREHEND IT THEN SUE YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ALLOWING YOU TO SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS AND ROBBING YOU OF THE EDUCATION YOU DESERVE.




:eek: :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I think I understand everybody's standpoint on this now, thank you. Since angering any of you was never my intention I apologize if I did.
 
41 - 60 of 69 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top