Iraq submits weapon report.........

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Sad that old friends like Rumsfeld and Saddam can have such a falling out.

No, what is sad is that you know so little of the history of the region and what was actually going on.

I'm looking forward to seeing his reply.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech
Gaard,

You never answered my question, since it came first I'll let you answer first.

"What penalty do you think is appropiate for verbally supporting and encourging terrorism?"

Let me repeat my answer for you from my post with the 6:14 PM time stamp...<<You asked me what penalty is appropiate for verbally supporting and encouraging terrorism. My answer is...as far as a penalty from the state...none. Because it isn't a crime to say "Good job!.">>

Ok. Your turn.

 

[etech]

One follow up if I may.

Is that all that Saddam has said or done?



hagbard
I'm looking forward to seeing his reply.

I'll bet you are, stick around, you may actually learn something.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech
One follow up if I may.

Is that all that Saddam has said or done?

Of course not.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: hagbardProve your alligations.

Is that supposed to be something from Florida?

I had a feeling you were just trolling. You proved it.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: etech
One follow up if I may.

Is that all that Saddam has said or done?



hagbard
I'm looking forward to seeing his reply.

I'll bet you are, stick around, you may actually learn something.

No, actually I was thinking you'd be doing the learning.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: hagbardProve your alligations.

Is that supposed to be something from Florida?

I had a feeling you were just trolling. You proved it.

No proof eh? Figures. BTW, did you see 60 minutes tonight. Should just how deceptful the Bush Administration is.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Sad that old friends like Rumsfeld and Saddam can have such a falling out.

No, what is sad is that you know so little of the history of the region and what was actually going on.

Seems you missed the little trips by Rumsfeld to Saddam. Seems you missed the handshakes between them when Saddam WAS OUR FRIEND. Sorry you forgot about Iran. I am sure you will either deny it, post 10,000 words spinning it or some such. Too bad. It happened.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am going to do something I know I ought not to do, because I know explaining my position is a waste of time. However since the time is mine, I will spend just a little of it.

I have objected to this course of action for some time, based on moral and practical concerns. Those aside, I have a problem with ANY administration who spins the past to justify the present, and that is what I see here with Rumsfeld.

*Warning- pet peeve time*

I happened to live through those times and I believe my recollection is good enough to form opinions based on things other than internet sites.

We did support Saddam. We did want Iran to fall, and I find it hard that a man of Rumsfeld's nature and experience would be fooled into thinking Saddam was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Yes I know Rumsfeld was a private citizen, but that hardly matters. Remember Armand Hammer carried messages between the US and the Soviet Union on occasion. We knew exactly what Saddam was, because the world is full of petty dictators who we have used when it is in our best interest. Rumsfeld acted as a liasion which again is fine. The US has played one government against the other when it was believed it was in the best interests of our country. I don't think it is a shock to anyone, and this is not a moral judgement. It is. Now Saddam was given intelligence and dual use equipment by the US and others. Still ok, given the situation at the time. So what is my problem here? As has been put forward time and again by the administration, Iraq went to war with Iran, and the reason it is mentioned is to use it as another nail in Saddams coffin. Now if he participated in a war we liked to see, and we supported him, how can we criticize him on this issue? The answer of course is because we can. It was all Saddams fault. Everything. Bull. We helped and were glad to do it. Why can't someone say "We did support him, but that was a mistake and we need to correct it now". If that was done, I still would thinking launching a first strike would be wrong, but I would find the administrations positions more credible, even though I disagree. I did not like being lied to by Clinton, and because I happened to vote for Bush does not give him carte blanche to dissemble when the people would be best served by the truth.

 

[Moonbeam]

I hope you're not saying, Hayabusarider, that the US was cheering and supporting terrorism by supplying Iraq targeting info and insecticide equipment, wink wink, when Iraq was practicing against our enemy. That won't cut it, because terrorism is only what the enemy does, not what we do.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hope you're not saying, Hayabusarider, that the US was cheering and supporting terrorism by supplying Iraq targeting info and insecticide equipment, wink wink, when Iraq was practicing against our enemy. That won't cut it, because terrorism is only what the enemy does, not what we do.

I calls em likes I seez em M. Think of me as being OT cannon fodder

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I am going to do something I know I ought not to do, because I know explaining my position is a waste of time. However since the time is mine, I will spend just a little of it.

I have objected to this course of action for some time, based on moral and practical concerns. Those aside, I have a problem with ANY administration who spins the past to justify the present, and that is what I see here with Rumsfeld.

*Warning- pet peeve time*

I happened to live through those times and I believe my recollection is good enough to form opinions based on things other than internet sites.

We did support Saddam. We did want Iran to fall, and I find it hard that a man of Rumsfeld's nature and experience would be fooled into thinking Saddam was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Yes I know Rumsfeld was a private citizen, but that hardly matters. Remember Armand Hammer carried messages between the US and the Soviet Union on occasion. We knew exactly what Saddam was, because the world is full of petty dictators who we have used when it is in our best interest. Rumsfeld acted as a liasion which again is fine. The US has played one government against the other when it was believed it was in the best interests of our country. I don't think it is a shock to anyone, and this is not a moral judgement. It is. Now Saddam was given intelligence and dual use equipment by the US and others. Still ok, given the situation at the time. So what is my problem here? As has been put forward time and again by the administration, Iraq went to war with Iran, and the reason it is mentioned is to use it as another nail in Saddams coffin. Now if he participated in a war we liked to see, and we supported him, how can we criticize him on this issue? The answer of course is because we can. It was all Saddams fault. Everything. Bull. We helped and were glad to do it. Why can't someone say "We did support him, but that was a mistake and we need to correct it now". If that was done, I still would thinking launching a first strike would be wrong, but I would find the administrations positions more credible, even though I disagree. I did not like being lied to by Clinton, and because I happened to vote for Bush does not give him carte blanche to dissemble when the people would be best served by the truth.

That was a well thought out and worthy post. I applaud you.

Hell, I even agree with you. For the people that understand the situation at that time and are aware the Iran was considered to be much more of a threat than Iraq it makes perfect sense.

As far as I know the US was taken by surprise by Iraq starting the war with Iran but considering the very high danger that the US considered Iran to be to the stability of the Middle East I agree that we did not protest and actually supported the effort.

The problem I see is that far too few people have your understanding of the past history. All they would hear is "the US helped Saddam" and brainlessly conclude the US is bad and evil. They fail to see that politics and affairs of nations are not and cannot always be black and white. Sadly there must still be some shades of gray. You may rant and rail against it but that is the way it is.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yep, the ends justify the means, when you have no moral center.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I am going to do something I know I ought not to do, because I know explaining my position is a waste of time. However since the time is mine, I will spend just a little of it.

I have objected to this course of action for some time, based on moral and practical concerns. Those aside, I have a problem with ANY administration who spins the past to justify the present, and that is what I see here with Rumsfeld.

*Warning- pet peeve time*

I happened to live through those times and I believe my recollection is good enough to form opinions based on things other than internet sites.

We did support Saddam. We did want Iran to fall, and I find it hard that a man of Rumsfeld's nature and experience would be fooled into thinking Saddam was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Yes I know Rumsfeld was a private citizen, but that hardly matters. Remember Armand Hammer carried messages between the US and the Soviet Union on occasion. We knew exactly what Saddam was, because the world is full of petty dictators who we have used when it is in our best interest. Rumsfeld acted as a liasion which again is fine. The US has played one government against the other when it was believed it was in the best interests of our country. I don't think it is a shock to anyone, and this is not a moral judgement. It is. Now Saddam was given intelligence and dual use equipment by the US and others. Still ok, given the situation at the time. So what is my problem here? As has been put forward time and again by the administration, Iraq went to war with Iran, and the reason it is mentioned is to use it as another nail in Saddams coffin. Now if he participated in a war we liked to see, and we supported him, how can we criticize him on this issue? The answer of course is because we can. It was all Saddams fault. Everything. Bull. We helped and were glad to do it. Why can't someone say "We did support him, but that was a mistake and we need to correct it now". If that was done, I still would thinking launching a first strike would be wrong, but I would find the administrations positions more credible, even though I disagree. I did not like being lied to by Clinton, and because I happened to vote for Bush does not give him carte blanche to dissemble when the people would be best served by the truth.

Thanks. It was every bit as good as I thought it would be and worth the wait

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I am going to do something I know I ought not to do, because I know explaining my position is a waste of time. However since the time is mine, I will spend just a little of it.

I have objected to this course of action for some time, based on moral and practical concerns. Those aside, I have a problem with ANY administration who spins the past to justify the present, and that is what I see here with Rumsfeld.

*Warning- pet peeve time*

I happened to live through those times and I believe my recollection is good enough to form opinions based on things other than internet sites.

We did support Saddam. We did want Iran to fall, and I find it hard that a man of Rumsfeld's nature and experience would be fooled into thinking Saddam was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Yes I know Rumsfeld was a private citizen, but that hardly matters. Remember Armand Hammer carried messages between the US and the Soviet Union on occasion. We knew exactly what Saddam was, because the world is full of petty dictators who we have used when it is in our best interest. Rumsfeld acted as a liasion which again is fine. The US has played one government against the other when it was believed it was in the best interests of our country. I don't think it is a shock to anyone, and this is not a moral judgement. It is. Now Saddam was given intelligence and dual use equipment by the US and others. Still ok, given the situation at the time. So what is my problem here? As has been put forward time and again by the administration, Iraq went to war with Iran, and the reason it is mentioned is to use it as another nail in Saddams coffin. Now if he participated in a war we liked to see, and we supported him, how can we criticize him on this issue? The answer of course is because we can. It was all Saddams fault. Everything. Bull. We helped and were glad to do it. Why can't someone say "We did support him, but that was a mistake and we need to correct it now". If that was done, I still would thinking launching a first strike would be wrong, but I would find the administrations positions more credible, even though I disagree. I did not like being lied to by Clinton, and because I happened to vote for Bush does not give him carte blanche to dissemble when the people would be best served by the truth.

That was a well thought out and worthy post. I applaud you.

Hell, I even agree with you. For the people that understand the situation at that time and are aware the Iran was considered to be much more of a threat than Iraq it makes perfect sense.

As far as I know the US was taken by surprise by Iraq starting the war with Iran but considering the very high danger that the US considered Iran to be to the stability of the Middle East I agree that we did not protest and actually supported the effort.

The problem I see is that far too few people have your understanding of the past history. All they would hear is "the US helped Saddam" and brainlessly conclude the US is bad and evil. They fail to see that politics and affairs of nations are not and cannot always be black and white. Sadly there must still be some shades of gray. You may rant and rail against it but that is the way it is.

Did you read what the gentleman above said?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yep, the ends justify the means, when you have no moral center.

That's certainly the way I'm reading the attitude of the "bomb Iraq" club. Something I remember from the lates 70s was the "Bomb Iran" club. Americans were walking around signing "bomb..bomb..bomb...bomb Iran...boom...boom...boom...boom Iran..." I was never a fan of Carter, but he was at least sane.

 

[JellyBaby]

Americans were walking around signing "bomb..bomb..bomb...bomb Iran...boom...boom...boom...boom Iran..."

Beach Boys wasn't it?

 

[Gaard]

etech - I thought we had a deal? I answer your question(s) and then you answer mine.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard
etech - So, would you agree with me that the following statement is true?

etech believes the following are against the law...
Saddam Hussein has openly praised the attacks of September 11th.
Last week, on the anniversary of 9-11, his state-run press called the attacks "God?s punishment."
Gaard doesn't.

No, those statements would not be against the law as far as I know. I am not a legal expert and do not proclaim to know the nuiances of the law of all countries by any means.

Satisfied?

That was a lot of discussion for such a minor point though don't you think?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
etech - So, would you agree with me that the following statement is true?

etech believes the following are against the law...
Saddam Hussein has openly praised the attacks of September 11th.
Last week, on the anniversary of 9-11, his state-run press called the attacks "God?s punishment."
Gaard doesn't.

No, those statements would not be against the law as far as I know. I am not a legal expert and do not proclaim to know the nuiances of the law of all countries by any means.

Satisfied?

That was a lot of discussion for such a minor point though don't you think?

Yes it was a lot of discussion, but I'm not sure about it being such a minor point. This whole conversation, and correct me if I'm wrong, has been about whether or not it was illegal for SH to cheer the attacks. At one point I asked what proof we had that SH did indeed cheer. You quoted those two passages (along with a whole slew of others) as proof that he had cheered. Yet now you say those aren't illegal.

So what is it? You knew all along that it wasn't illegal, you just wanted to stir the pot? Or you suddenly changed your mind?

 

[etech]

You asked me in one post what the law was regarding statements that Saddam had made. Somewhere along the line the statement was limited to "good job" which is far from an accurate quotation I believe.

I posted what I thought were applicable laws. You persisted and then wanted my opinion .

I gave it, if all Saddam said was "good job", that would not be against the law of any country as far as I know.

Now if Saddam incited people to violence, illegal and or terrorist acts then that could be found illegal. If by cheering the acts that occurred on Sept. 11, saying that American deserve acts of that type and glorifying the terrorists and it can be proven that those statements of his incited other groups or people to emulate the acts then those statements could be found illegal as far as I know.

Personally, I think anyone that cheered what occurred that day are scumbags. Can it be proved in a court of law that it encouraged more terrorism? Probably not, but it sure as hell didn't discourage them now did it?

As far as stirring the pot, no, it is just one more piece of the story.

 

[Moonbeam]

The irony is that we're getting a hog load of BS as to why we need to attack Iraq. Looks a lot like incitement to terrorism to me.

 

[Gaard]

So in the end it all boils down to "What's your definition of cheering?"...is that it?

Accept my apology. All this time I thought we were on the same page. The very beginning of this, when MadRat said something about SH paying with his life for cheering (and charrison agreeing with him) I was picturing cheering as in throwing one's fist in the air yelling "Yeee-haww!" My mistake.

Bedtime.

 

[psianime]

im heading up to Canada if they draft gets reinstated... anyone want to join me?

 

[MinorityReport]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Iraq is making the claim that they dont. It is then up to the weapons inspectors to prove them wrong. The US says they have the proof, but for some "strange" reason, they sit on it. The inspectors have already requested the US hand over information that would make their efforts move more quickly.

we dont' sit idle on ANYTHING, heck we started bombing AF a month or so after 9/11. There is some reason we are sitting idle.

G W lost his balls now ... too much campaign stir and up=downs.

Need Regan .. he will bomb just about anyone on planet earth including Tele tubbies.