|
|
emfx13
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 959
Location: Hayward Ca.U.S.A. |
 Tue Sep 17, 2002 5:53 am
|
 |
|
UNITED NATIONS (Sept. 16) - Iraq agreed Monday to allow the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors, a reversal coming days after President Bush warned Baghdad to comply with U.N. resolutions or face military action. The White House dismissed the offer as a tactical move.
''This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in the statement. The statement called it ''a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong U.N. Security Council action.''
The statement demanded a ''new, effective U.N. Security Council resolution that will actually deal with the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the Iraqi people, to the region and to the world.''
Four years after U.N. weapons inspectors left Baghdad, Iraq said in a letter addressed Monday to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, that its decision to allow them to return was taken in order ''to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction.''
Iraq's Foreign Minister Naji Sabri signed the letter and gave it to Annan, who announced the decision.
Alluding to talk of a possible attack, Iraq called on the members of the Security Council, which includes the United States, to ''respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq.''
The announcement came days after Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly debate and said that Iraq must comply with Security Council resolutions or face a military strike.
Secretary of State Colin Powell has been lobbying the other 14 members of the council to support a resolution that would mandate the return of inspectors and permit the use of force should Iraq refuse.
But there was no mention of the United States in the letter Iraq sent late Monday. Instead, Iraq said it was responding to an earlier appeal by Annan for Baghdad's compliance with Security Council resolutions calling for unfettered access to inspectors, and to an appeal by the Arab League and other Islamic countries.
Annan forwarded the letter to all 15 members of the council and to the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix.
It was not clear when the council would meet to consider the letter, a first step before sending inspectors back. Blix has said he could have inspectors on the ground within days but it would take his teams several months to set-up on the ground before they could begin monitoring Iraqi sites.
In a statement, Blix welcomed the Iraqi letter and said he was ready for immediate talks with the Iraqis ''on the practical arrangements for the resumption of inspections.''
In Baghdad, there was no word of the news on state-run media but the letter was released following high-level meetings Saddam held earlier Monday with top officials in his Baath party and his Cabinet, including his deputy prime minister and vice president.
''I can confirm to you that I have received a letter from the Iraqi authorities conveying its decision to allow the return of inspectors without conditions to continue their work,'' a pleased Annan told reporters, nearly four years after inspectors left Iraq.
''There is good news,'' Sabri said moments earlier. The Iraqi foreign minister refused to comment further and left U.N. headquarters after a day of negotiations on the text of the letter.
Sabri and Arab League chief Amr Moussa had met late with Annan to transmit the letter from the Iraqi government.
Under Security Council resolutions, sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait cannot be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify that its weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed. Inspectors left the country in December, 1998 ahead of U.S. and British airstrikes to punish Iraq for not cooperating with inspections.
Since then, Iraq has said it would only allow inspectors to return if the sanctions were lifted. The five powers on the Security Council - the United States, Britain, Russian, France and China - have remained divided over what the next steps should be.
But on Thursday, Bush told the U.N. General Assembly, at the opening of its annual debate, that the world body could no longer tolerate Iraq's defiance of council resolutions.
''We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind.''
Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, Mohamed al-Douri, had sharply criticized Bush's remarks, saying the speech lacked credibility and was motivated by revenge and political ambition.
But Annan credited Bush late Monday.
''I believe the president's speech galvanized the international community,'' Annan said.
The secretary-general also said the Arab League had played a key role in bringing about the Iraqi response and he thanked the league's chief, Amr Moussa of Egypt, ''for his strenuous efforts in helping to convince Iraq to allow the return of the inspectors.''
AP-NY-09-16-02 2125EDT
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Thu Sep 19, 2002 7:19 pm
|
|
|
Bush Seeks OK for Military Force
Thu Sep 19,11:46 AM ET
By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush asked Congress Thursday for authority to use military force to disarm and overthrow Iraq's Saddam Hussein, saying the United States will take action on its own if the U.N. Security Council balks.
The president was sending to Capitol Hill his proposed wording for a resolution that he wants Congress to approve before lawmakers adjourn to campaign for the Nov. 5 elections.
"That will be part of the resolution — authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office.
"This is a chance for Congress to indicate support, a chance for Congress to say we support the administration's ability to keep the peace, that's what this is all about."
House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said that in the past Bush "has been very respectful of the prerogatives of Congress" and would likely give Congress a draft that outlines his major points. "He will expect us to make the formal drafts," Armey said.
Bush spoke to journalists after meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell on his uphill diplomatic work to draft a United Nations Security Council resolution against Iraq that could overcome strong reservations by Russia and France, who have veto power in the Security Council.
"The United Nations Security Council must work with the United States and other concerned parties to send a clear message that we expect Saddam to disarm," Bush said.
"And if the United Nations Security Council won't deal with the problem, the United States and some of our friends will."
The gap between Russian and American viewpoints was underlined Thursday in comments by Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. Upon arriving at the Pentagon to meet with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Ivanov said he believed U.N. weapons inspectors will succeed in settling the question of whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
"Being experienced in that sort of business — both Americans and Russians — I think we can easily establish (whether) there exist or not weapons of mass destruction technology," Ivanov said. Rumsfeld, who stood by silently as Ivanov spoke, has said repeatedly that inspections cannot be 100 percent reliable because Iraq has a long history of deceiving inspectors.
Bush declined to name any of the allies he's counting on for support, saying only that "time will tell."
"I think you're going to see that a lot of nations love freedom. ... We're confident that people will follow our lead," the president added.
As he spoke, White House advisers were behind the scenes telephoning congressional leaders with notice that Bush's proposed resolution was on its way to Capitol Hill.
Following his meeting with Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Bush then gathered a dozen Democrat and Republican lawmakers behind closed doors at the White House, immediately beginning the drive to build support for what would amount to a blank check from Congress.
Bush said he wanted the legislature to give him not only the power to make war with Saddam, but also an explicit restatement of U.S. policy that Saddam must be overthrown.
"That's the policy of the government," Bush said, adding that he wanted Congress' approval before lawmakers adjourn to campaign for the Nov. 5 elections.
Three senior White House aides familiar with the resolution's draft said it would give Bush maximum flexibility to confront the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, including an explicit OK to use military force.
Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that Congress must act before the Security Council does.
"Delaying a vote in the Congress would send a message that the U.S. may be unprepared to take a stand, just as we are asking the international community to take a stand and as we are cautioning the Iraqi regime to consider its options," Rumsfeld said.
The Iraq resolution was expected to win overwhelming support from both parties in the House and Senate, possibly within two weeks. Although some prominent Democrats have called for caution, both Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., said they supported Bush on the issue.
"We want to make sure that whatever we do, we make the right decision," said Rep. Solomon Ortiz ( news, bio, voting record), D-Texas.
A group of House Democrats, however, on Thursday condemned the move toward military action, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich ( news, bio, voting record), D-Ohio, calling it "unjustified, unwarranted and illegal."
Rep. Barbara Lee ( news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said she was introducing a resolution with 20 cosponsors calling on the United States to work with the U.N. to carry out weapons inspections in Iraq. "A preemptive, unilateral first strike would set a terrible international precedent," she said.
While U.N. officials in New York prepared for the inspectors' return, U.S. and British officials began working on a new U.N. resolution aimed at authorizing use of force should Baghdad fail to comply with Security Council resolutions.
Western diplomats said the U.S.-British draft likely would include new instructions for weapons inspectors and a timetable for disarmament that would be tighter than one laid out in an existing resolution passed in December 1999.
Britain, which helps the United States patrol the no-fly zone over southern Iraq, has been the staunchest public ally for Bush's threats of war. Rumsfeld said several other U.S. allies have said privately they would support a military strike against Iraq, but he declined to say which countries or how many.
"There are a number of countries afraid of Saddam Hussein" and therefore reluctant to let their cooperation be known publicly, Rumsfeld said.
Associated Press 2002
Yes, Folks it looks like Bush is going to play vigilante after all. Yesterday was proof enough for me. I spotted (2) B-1B Lancer Long range bombers land at a nearby Air Force base where I live.
You never see that type of aircraft here unless we are going to strike. Many c-130's were in and out a well which confirms that they are moving supplies overseas.
Mech
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 09-19-2002] |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Fri Sep 20, 2002 3:57 am
|
|
|
I'm not going to say those aircraft *weren't* part of any kind of pre-Iraqi invasion force, but consider some other possibilities:
1) B-1Bs are currently deployed to forward bases (like Diego Garcia) in support of the current operation in Afghanistan. They also occassionaly deploy to the Gulf Area of Operations (AOR).
As such, they rotate aircraft and crews in and out all the time, like we rotate our C-21s in and out of the AOR. You can't indefinitely keep an airplane over there because eventually it will need to go to depot, etc, for major maintenance. That, and the environment over there is pretty harsh on an airplane and they try to allow exposure over the fleet and not concentrate the effects of sand and high heat on a few airframes. I've got a good friend who was recently supposed to take a Bone (nickname for the B-1) to Diego to swap out with some other crews...dunno, maybe you saw him?
2) The presence of Herks doesn't really mean much in my book. For one thing, Herks are pretty much ubiquitous....they're everywhere. 2/3s of all the states in the US have C-130s in their Guard/Reserve inventories. And being that they are short-field trash haulers that can pretty much do anything with very little external support, they are probably among the more common aircraft seen at non-military airfields.
Larger airlifters such as the C-5 (Fred) and the C-17 generally don't fly to civilian airfields much because most of the airfields aren't stressed for their weight, and they (Fred in particular) require extensive facilities. We've got a neighboring unit here at Maxwell that flies the Herk (and since my future assignment will include flying the airplane, I've taken to asking questions and visiting them to talk about the aircraft and it's mission). The 908th flies all over, and they routinely visit alot of civilian airfields where most military aircraft don't fly to.
Another thing...you live in the northeast. It's quite common for aircraft headed for points east (Saudi, Afghanistan, etc) to stop over for fuel out that way...we often fly to Gander to get fuel, but many airlifters go to McGuire, etc to get gas before making the trip "over the pond". One friend of mine who flew active-duty Herks stated that each Herk squadron pulls two desert (Saudi) rotations a year, each one being 90 days in length. They will often deploy as a squadron, flying in twos or threes over the Atlantic. From there, a third of the squadron will go straight to Saudi while the rest of the set up stage in Germany (stage is sort of an airlift hub). So it's also very common to see Herks crossing the pond for normal deployments, as they have been doing for the past 11 years. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Sep 20, 2002 9:09 am
|
|
|
Welcome back Pacer,...Sierra Hotel
Yes the C-130s may just be either on training exercises or otherwise. I see them from time to time, however....The B1-B LANCERS are not frequent visitors to this part of the country unless something is going down. Before the Gulf War they were flying over my house at least once a week and thus far as of today i've spotted more than the fingers I have on both hands.
As a former military person myself (E-4, Navy F/A-18 Mechanic) Even at the base I worked at (a major NAS) I did not see a lot of B-1B's, nor did I on most of my deployments(U.S. and abroad) with the exeption of Rammstein, Germany.
Nothing wrong with letting the public know.I trust their judgement to believe what's right.It could very well be that they are flying across the pond just "in case". That is a possibility.
Mech
[Edited 3 times, lastly by Mech on 09-20-2002] |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Fri Sep 20, 2002 1:50 pm
|
|
|
As far as Air Power is concerned, we've got plenty already pre-positioned in Saudi and other Gulf states, not to mention the aircraft still deployed in support of Afghanistan, which since it has gone relatively "cold", could easily be diverted to support any future ops in Iraq.
I for one look forward to the possibility that this "conflict" can finally be resolved. The Gulf War never really did end. Thousands of US personnel remain stationed in the region, aircraft get shot at, and we occassionally have fired back. There was a "peace deal" that was never followed through on Iraq's part, and the idea that sanctions are going to ruin his power base has proven to be unrealistic, and more hurtful to the Iraqi people than to Saddam, who has powerful connections to black-market goods that were banned by the UN.
On a more personal note, since you were in the military, you can understand why military personnel are onboard for finishing what should have been done in 1991 (but all the politicians were afraid to do so). I saw on TV some interviews, and many people seem to support the idea of "containment", which basically means that we keep the status quo, camp out thousands of troops around Iraq, and keep sanctions in place.
Hey, that's fine, but then I say we all take turns as Americans to do the "babysitting" and the splendid 90 day rotations in Saudi Arabia and other "garden spots" like Turkey and Kuwait. It's easy to say "let the military 'contain' Saddam"....especially since you don't have to do the containing.
Next, containment hurts the wrong people. The Iraqi people have had to suffer enough with having a madman run their country....so why punish them for their idiot leader? Since the "end" of the Gulf War and the imposing of sanctions supposedly meant to undermine Saddam, he's built dozens of new luxurious palaces, bought black market luxury cars, and built five-star resturants for his ruling-class elite, all while he uses the general population's poor condition (no running water, little real electricity, expensive and scarce food) to make the world think the US and the UN wants to kill Iraqi children.
And for at least the past few years, he's used Jordan and Iran as a back door for illegal arms shipments from China, among others.
If we took down Saddam, our presence in the region certainly wouldn't diminish, as we would have to rebuild the Iraqi government. But since the end of active hostilities in the ongoing (my term) Gulf War in 1991, few countries have stepped up to actually "contain" Saddam...they are more than happy to vote for containment, but much less willing to devote troops to do it, leaving 99% of the work to the US and Britain.
Were we to take out Saddam, and show the world that Iraq needs a fresh start, it might be much easier to convince our allies to perhaps step up and take on some responsibility, as they have in Afghanistan. Europeans are great...they hide in the bushes when the bully is in the playground, but they're the first ones out when they have a chance to act "humanitarian". |
| |
|
|
GAS_MASK
Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 151
|
|
Fri Sep 20, 2002 4:28 pm
|
|
|
Funny how we get stuck fighting Isreal's wars for them, isn't it?
LINK
[Edited 4 times, lastly by GAS_MASK on 09-20-2002] |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Fri Sep 20, 2002 6:08 pm
|
|
|
Alpha-Theta,
Yes, you are correct on your assertions of the hypocrisy and lies by the United Snakes concerning Iraq. Pacer will most certainly answer your questions with,
1) "Yes, we have have done some bad things in the past, but try living in Central or South America"
2) "We are the biggest, meanest, most aggressive culture to live on the planet"
3) "We have to finish what we started. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, Russia, Chad, Angola, ad nauseum."
Now, didn't every insane dictator or culture think this throughout history. Phoenicians, Pharoahs, Rome, Napoleon, Ghenghis Khan, The Crusades, The Inquisition, Stalin Russia, Nazis, Communist Witch Hunts, ConintelPro, and USA Patriot Act. All killing in the name of a god or want of territory with it's subsequent riches. Who will stop the U.S. from it's New Crusade? Ah ha, The American Public!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The numbers supporting $#@#!'s Holy Oil War are much lower than the Ministry of Propaganda would have us believe. I talk to left and right wingers, and hardly anyone is for this war except the most rabid, foaming at the mouth liberals and conservatives. Extremists. The rest of the world literally hates the U.S. government now. Not the people, though. It's up to us.
Pacer, you seem to know a lot about Air Force technology, but know close to zero about history. Why don't you answer Alpha-Theta's point-by-point. If you could, maybe you'd get more respect from this forum from people that are very knowledgable in the history of the world |
| |
|
|
GAS_MASK
Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 151
|
|
Fri Sep 20, 2002 6:34 pm
|
|
|
From the mouth of George Bush Sr. about Gulf War #1:
"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
LINK |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Sep 20, 2002 9:27 pm
|
|
|
Pacer, I don't have an answer to that, however I feel that is our past coming back to haunt us and a lot of terrible things in the future will happen as well. You only need to look at how young those kids are in Palestine throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers. What will other "kids" growing up in these societies turn out to be like because of our own imperialism? Will we breed an entirely new generation of Bin Ladens and Saddams all mad at the same thing?
I am finding I have a lot more questions than we are getting answers from our leaders. WE THE PEOPLE elect the government. I think others on this board are right to be concerned what our actions will have further down the road. I think this administration doesn't understand the fire they are playing with. There is talk of expanding the "terror war" to other countries besides Iraq as well. What is THAT going to lead to?
The situation we have now may be compared to cans of overturned gasoline with a child being handed matches.
Mech
|
| |
|
|
Yodabreath
Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 67
|
|
Sat Sep 21, 2002 5:03 am
|
|
|
Mech,
I share your concerns and those expressed by Pat Buchanan in Ellyn's link, but I disagree that this is in incompetent hands who haven't considered the fires they are dealing with. I think they know full well what they are dealing with; i.e. 30 years of occupation, an increase in terrorism.. etc. But I think they have weighed this against the alternative obvious points;
And here are a few basic and obvious questions you might want to consider;
What IF, the conspiracy theory that the WTC was actually attacked by "illuminati, remote controlled aircraft" is false?
What IF, it actually happened as reported; A group of terrorists, part of Osama Bin Laden's, Al-Qaeda branch, really IS responsible for attacking the WTC and Pentagon.
What IF there are provable links between Al-Queda and Sadam Hussein as the first WTC attack and Tony Blair's new evidence is purported to indicate?
Isn't all that the anti-US, anti-Bush conspiracy theorists have is just that,...a theory?
If it is a false theory, and If Sadam, should he obtain a nuclear weapon, he will use Al-Queda members to attack the United States, by simply placing such a weapon in their hands
THEN
Don't we have an obligation to insure that this potential is not going to occur?
Sure, Buchanan’s scenario is very realistic, I think, BUT wouldn't it be better to have Buchanan’s scenario come to pass, have the US in a position to Democratize the world and control the rich oil deposits of Iraq than risk the possibility that Sadam would use a nuclear weapon on a US city...and THEN react?
I think the current Bush administration has carefully weighed these scenarios, given that the WTC was indeed a very real attack by real terrorists. The Bush administration knows that these same people would gladly use a nuke against a US city should it come into their possession. THAT's why we are taking pre-emptive action to eliminate the threat at the most likely current source of a nuclear weapon....Sadam Hussein.
Now, if we obtain control of oil and topple the puppet Saudi government and the evil monsters currently controlling Iran, and free Israel from the threat of suicide bombers funded by Sadam and Saudi Arabia, as a side effect to our war against Iraq, then I see this as the better alternative that waiting for Iraq to deliver a nuke to a US city.
Wouldn’t you agree?
I think the Bush administration has carefully balanced and weighed these two scenarios as well and are choosing the lesser of two evils.
[Edited 4 times, lastly by Yodabreath on 09-20-2002] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Sep 21, 2002 6:28 am
|
|
|
Better for whom?
I think this will create even MORE terrorism. Why should the U.S. contol iraqs oil? It's NOT ours in the first place. We could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by investing in alternative energy strategies and eliminate that umbilical cord. Can you imagine how Saudi Arabia(the empire WE built) would act if we said..."sorry, we don't need your oil anymore see ya". They would scramble and scrape to find anothr buyer...after all, isn't it PETRO dollars that started this mess in the first place?...along with the training (BY THE CIA) of all these warriors for the "Jihad" during the Soviet/Afgan wars--in essence after wards becoming war lords and LESS REPORTED--HERION Running to the U.S. and Europe by the ones who would gain from it the most.
Who will gain as a result of this WAR? The U.S.? WHO in the U.S.? Do you really believe that the world will be a safer place as a result of this bloodbath...where thousands of iraqi women and children will die? Why should ISRAEL benefit from this? they have proven themselves time and time again..INVADERS and Conquerers of Palestinian lands.Don't you think that some people may turn their attention away from Israel and find a NEW enemy? How much civil liberties will be left here if THAT happens?
The U.S. has NO RIGHT to control the destiny of the Iraqi people. You only need to look at the 1991 Gulf War footage of "the road to Basra" of civilians slaughtered by U.S. Military Pilots on the grounds they were SUSPECTED of being a part of Saddams military.was that a "surgical strike" using "smart weapons"? I don't think so.Wasn't it the UNITED STATES that supplied Saddam with BIOWEAPONS to use on our hated enemy at the time Iran? Uh....YEAH.Wasn't it BUSH SR. who decide to let all of the Kurdish rebels to DIE opposing Saddam after he order trops out despite his military advisors claiming that there WAS a strong, united military front against against Saddams regime?
Another point, Take Pakistan, originally that country was essentially run by warlords as well untill there was a Coup'de'tat and Musharf took over, thanks in a lot of ways to the U.S., Now Pakistan has Nuclear capibility. It wouldn't take much for one of these warlords to knock off Musharaf and claim the country for their own. THEN what do we have? An islamic fundementalist country that has the atomic bomb!
This government has repeatedly LIED and killed hundreds of thousands of people to protect imperialist interests. Are you really naive enough to think that they aren't a little P'Ved about that?
Sept. 11th has only happened ONCE because were damned lucky, that's all.
By the way... it MAY be POSSIBLE that Sept. 11th was orchestrated....It would not suprise me in the least.
Last edited by Mech on Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:21 am; edited 2 times in total |
| |
|
|
Yodabreath
Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 67
|
|
Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:35 am
|
|
|
Mech,
There is so much wrong with your post, it is hard to even respond to.
First of all....You didn't address my post above. I provided the scenario where a US city is nuked first if we fail to take pre-emptive measures. Your lack of response to that and deep concern for the Iraqi people (rather than the victims of the terrorist assaults, the US and Israeli citizens) is very telling. You are in effect, saying….“let them Nuke New York next time, I’m willing to take that risk.” Well if it’s all the same to you. I’m not. And luckily my view is the majority view.
quote:
Better for whom?
Better for the USA, and it’s allies….the victims of terrorist assaults perpetrated by the countries you would seek to protect and prevent us from attacking.
quote:
I think this will create even MORE terrorism. Why should the U.S. contol iraqs oil? It's NOT theirs in the first place.
A madman controls the oil now, and he uses it to line his own pockets, while starving his own people. It would be in far better hands under US control. Such are the spoils of war. Oil is a bonus…we kick out a mass murdering monster, and free a people…and use oil to create an income for those same people, not one man. This is as it should’ve been. It’s a win/win for the Iraqi people and the United States citizens to have US intervention.
quote:
We could kill our dependence on foreign oil by investing in alternative energy strategies and eliminate that umbilical cord.
We could and we are. But changing over an entire economy is a difficult task. Your problem is that you’re making the assumption that this war is solely about oil. We would have no reason to go to war, if we didn’t have a mad man about to obtain a nuclear weapon which he would be determined to use on US soil. Oil is not relevant.
quote:
Can you imagine how Saudi Arabia(the empire WE built) would act if we said..."sorry, we don't need your oil anymore see ya". They would scramble and scrape to find anothr buyer...after all, isn't it PETRO dollars that started this mess in the first place?...along with the training (BY THE CIA) of all these warriors for the "Jihad" during the Soviet/Afgan wars--in essence after wards becoming war lords and LESS REPORTED--HERION Running to the U.S. and Europe by the ones who would gain from it the most.
Oil is sold on the world market to all nations….buyers don’t distinguish it’s source. And no…oil didn’t start all this mess in the first place. Sadam’s aggression did. In the case of Afghanistan, Russian aggression did. Without heroin…the Afghani people do not have an economy. Selling it is the way most of them make enough to eat. We have been destroying poppy fields however, because it was also the main source of finance for the Taliban.
quote:
Who will gain as a result of this WAR? The U.S.? WHO in the U.S.? Do you really believe that the world will be a safer place as a result of this bloodbath...where thousands of iraqi women and children will die?
If thousands of Iraqi women and children (don’t forget men) die, it will literally be at the hands of a mad man named Hussein who kills them….and I mean that literally. He will use his weapons on his own people. He could easily prevent this by stepping down and giving himself up to US or UN custody….As Melosovic has done. The US will gain the peace of knowing that they prevented a mad man from nuking a US city….and yes, one evil dictator less makes the world a safer place.
quote:
Why should ISRAEL benefit from this? they have proven themselves time and time again..INVADERS and Conquerers of Palestinian lands.
If Israel benefits, it is a fortunate side effect. Amazing how you seem so concerned over the “bloodbath” that faces Iraqi women and children, but not concerned at all with Israeli women and children, when Israel is a democratic ally. Are we to gather from this that you think Israeli lives are less valuable, that Sadam’s form of dictatorship and control through torture and murder of his own people is MORE valuable? Sadam’s aggression needs to be protected? ALLOWED? Is this what you are saying?
It seems to me this is exactly what you are saying…and it is disturbing. You are siding with evil over a known democracy that is being brutally assaulted on a daily basis. AND you seem to think that Palestinans own lands. They do not. They were rejects from Jordan because Jordan did not want them. Israel, on the other hand, was created by the UN after world war II. Through continued attacks upon Israel by the Palestinians however, Israel has been forced to respond, as is the right and obligation of a sovereign nation to protect its people from attack. Here again, you side with the corrupt, illegitimate government of Arafat, a known mass murderer who starves his own people while lining his own pockets with millions (even billions) in financial aid dollars. You side with the suicide/homicide bombers, and then question why Israel would respond. There is something highly disturbing about your commentary and reasoning process here.
quote:
The U.S. has NO RIGHT to control the destiny of the Iraqi people.
So you’re saying the destiny of the Iraqi people is better left in the hands of Sadam? The US does not seek to control the destiny of the Iraqi people. Their destiny is determined by the whims of an evil monster currently. It can only improve the situation should that monster be eliminated.
quote:
You only need to look at the footage of "the road to Basra" of civilians slaughtered by U.S. Military Pilots on the grounds they were SUSPECTED of being a part of Saddams military.was that a "surgical strike" using "smart weapons"? I don't think so.
They were Iraqi soldiers leaving Kuwait after looting and raping and pillaging the entire country, returning to Iraq with stolen goods. Their deaths were unfortunate….but that happens in war. Nobody said it is pretty. I am more concerned about American lives than the lives of rapist, looters and murderers of the enemy however.
quote:
This government has repeatedly LIED and killed hundreds of thousands of people to protect imperialist interests. Are you really naive enough to think that they aren't a little P'Ved about that?
I’m a little pissed that those bastards bombed the WTC and Pentagon….Why aren’t you? I don’t give a damn whether they are pissed or not. Tough luck. When you attack us, be prepared to be attacked. The United States would not need to kill terrorists were it not for their own aggression upon this country. Because we attack them back, I expect them to be a little upset. That’s the price they pay. They are murderers. Therefore they are about to reap what they’ve sown, and unfortunately their own actions may costs the lives of innocent civilians. That’s the way war works. When we attacked Germany….did we worry about some civilians getting in the way? By your philosophy we should have just let Hitler go on to do what he was doing….because we don’t want to put any innocent Germans at risk. We should have just let the Japanese win the war and take over the United States because we didn’t want to hurt any poor innocent Japanese people. You are saying the US should just get on it’s knees and let the evil dictators of the world do what they will to this country and it’s allies. If your view prevailed…there would be no United States. I’m glad your view is in the minority and it is not going to prevail….because I think I love this country and it’s people and it’s freedom, a little more than you do from what I’m seeing.
quote:
Sept. 11th has only happened ONCE because were damned lucky, that's all.
The fact that September 11th happened at all is because we had eight years of the most corrupt administration in US history that severely destabilized the world, and let our intelligence and defenses decay. Clinton, made 9/11 possible.
quote:
By the way... it MAY be POSSIBLE that Sept. 11th was orchestrated....It would not suprise me in the least.
Of course it was orchestrated. It was well orchestrated by terrorist bastards who decided to hijack some airplanes, slit the throats of stewardesses, and fly the damned things into buildings…..Or hadn’t you heard?
[Edited 4 times, lastly by Yodabreath on 09-21-2002] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:51 am
|
|
|
Poppycock!
Better for the USA you mean the BUSH's, JP Morgan, Rockefellers, and the Gates's of America?Just look at our economy DISINTERGRATING before our eyes...WHY? If you don't know there is no need to give you an answer.
The U.S. Exectutive branch doen't give a RATS BUTT about iraqi civilians, and you REFUSE to see the long term effects that this "terror war" will have both on American democracy as well as just generally pissing off the arab world, among others... at the United States. I would sacrifice my car(or for some of us SUV's) over someone elses life...would you? I would NOT sacrifice my young son for BUSH just so he and CHEYNEy and his ilk can enhance his oil accounts.
I won't DIE FOR OIL. I served 4 years in the military and basically had no identity in order to serve the needs of corporate/inperialist interests and now I am here to EXPOSE them.You only ASSUME who flew airplanes into the WTC.I still QUESTION that so called fact.
You seem to believe that the U.S. government is innocent in this matter when in all actuality, what we are doing around the world has finally come back to bite us on the ass and now you are blaming someone else(other country) for it?
Pllllease! If Saddam IS a threat, we made him in the first place.
It's time for the U.S. to come clean!
Mech <br clear=all>
<font size=1 color="#121212">[Edited 4 times, lastly by Mech on 09-21-2002]</font>
Last edited by Mech on Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
| |
|
|
Yodabreath
Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 67
|
|
Sat Sep 21, 2002 8:14 am
|
|
|
Uh…Mech, You still haven’t addressed my question;
Would you let a US city be nuked first rather than take pre-emptive measures??? This is the third time I’ve asked now. The answer must be YES if you so blatantly refuse to address this question. Let’s just put all the cards on the table now. You seem to be saying you value the lives of US citizens less than Sadam’s. And you served in the United States military? I’m glad you’re out, you would be fighting on the wrong side.
quote:
The U.S. Exectutive branch doen't give a RATS BUTT about iraqi civilians
What evidence do you have that would support this statement? Again…you’re not using simple logic. If the Executive branch did not give a “RATS BUTT” about Iraqi civilians, then we would not bother with smart weapons. We would just nuke the whole damn place or drop a couple hundred daisy cutters on Bagdad.
quote:
and you REFUSE to see the long term effects that this "terror war" will have both on American democracy a well as just generally pissing off the arab world, among others at the United States
I just addressed this. Since when do we care if we piss off the enemy? Did we care if we pissed of Germany by attacking Hitler? Did we care if we pissed off Japan by nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima? People get pissed off in war. I’d say the Arab world, as you put it, should worry about pissing off the United States next time. You aught to be ashamed to call yourself a soldier with that attitude. You‘re saying…“let’s not attack the enemy who is trying to kill us…we might make them mad”. A more cowardly, ridiculous, limp wrested comment, has probably not been made. An Iraqi soldier would laugh his ass off at that one.
quote:
I won't DIE FOR OIL. I served 4 years in the military and basically had no identity in order to serve the needs of corporate/inperialist interests and now I am here to EXPOSE them
I think you’re exposing your own irrational mindset if you ask me. You weren’t in the military to die for oil. You were there to fight for America.
quote:
You seem to believe that the U.S. government is innocent in this matter when in all actuality, what we are doing around the world has finally come back to bite us on the ass and now you are blaming someone else(other country) for it?
Pllllease! If Saddam IS a threat, we made him in the first place.
It's time for the U.S. to come clean!
You don’t blame Sadam? You blame the United States? You sir, should move to Iraq where your services would be of better use, because you are a better advocate for the enemy. It’s not IF Sadam is a threat. Sadam IS a threat. Apparently, your response would be to do nothing about that fact, but let him deliver a nuke to a US city. This is idiocy. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Sep 21, 2002 9:26 am
|
|
|
By what you are saying is then.. in effect .is that we are AT WAR with all ARABS?
That is maddness.
I wonder what my Moroccan friend would say about that who I graduated college with.
Whatever I say will have no consequense or effect.Thus as it has always been with most forward thinkers throughout history. In fact...you have nothing to fear because you are literally aping EXACTLY what BUSH, POWELL,(who covered up the mi Li civilian massacre in Vietnam),RUMSFELD,FLIECHER,and CHENEY say. More than likely you will get exactly what you want and MY generation (x) will see the results.
You think that this is going to create peace...you are SORELY mistaken.
BLINDLY accepting what our so-called leaders say is just and justification of a full military campaign is shortsighted and as far as I am concerned SUICIDAL to our democracy.
By the way....i get the impression from some of your posts that you are a PILOT or at least knowlagable about FAA/FAR Rules?
YOUR WORDS..
"That is normal. This is exactly what you'd expect to see from airline traffic approaching or taking off in accordance to ATC published approach corridors and standard instrument departures. If they are making contrails then they are most likely flying on published airways having reached contrailing altitudes.
"Jets can appear from the ground to be flying in formation, when in reality they are complying with ATC vectors or approved IFR flight plans and flying well within proper ATC sequencing and separation standards for IFR aircraft. "
Are you a pilot or not? Wht do you know about IFR?
Inquiring minds want to know....
EYES WIDE OPEN NOW!!
\/
OO
"
O
MECH
[Edited 11 times, lastly by Mech on 09-21-2002] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 7:05 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
