Pre-emption strike and Iraq; Do you agree?

[PainTrain]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

So long as Saddam remains in power, he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world.

Well now that he's gone it looks like the title of "LEADER WHO IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO PEACE" belongs to the Dubya

Aint that the truth

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD and JG,
The resolution that is missing from all the links and references is the one that gives authority for the US and 'The Willing' to invade. That was rejected. So regardless of what the prior resolutions said (all part by reference of 1441) there does not exist the authority to invade. Even the British dropped that argument (of inferred authority) when faced with the reality of the diplospeak contained in those resolutions. As a member of the UN the US had but one option to gain access to Iraq and that was Article 51 of the Charter. That is what they used... WMD and the exigent circumstance of their immanent use against us and others.

edit to add a space..

I don't think CkG or JohnGalt "gets" it, our boys are getting killed over there in Iraq on a daily basis. It's a hotbed of anti-americanism there right now as well as a magnet for terrorist groups. In fifteen years it could turn out to be another Iran, a theocratic islamic miltant state.

Yes saddam was a threat, I agree. But to what degree? Isn't North Korea's crazy leader more of a threat since he says he has nukes? Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction or even the remote capability to launch them at us. Bush overstated the threat and dragged us into a quagmire and hundreds of billions money pit... where there are no easy way out.

While CkG and Galt are still stucking in 1998 blaming Clinton, liberals, but never accepting the fact that they were just plain wrong; the rest of with a right mind know it's time for a change of leadership in this country.

I'm not stuck in '98 - read what I said.

CkG

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Yea, good point, Red; go to bed.

 

[PainTrain]

What you're saying is that from what you've dug up in the resolutions implies that the US is justified at enforcing UN sanctions without the consent of the UN, the support of the UN, simply all by ourselves. Iraq was being investigated when we kicked them out, during the weeks of investigations that occured prior to us removing them from the situation they had still found no evidence of WMD's that would constitute a violation of the UN resolutions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PainTrain

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
...and don't skip over resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March
1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001, and, of course, 1441....

I'm rifling through those resolutions as fast possible on ym dial-up, so while I'm doing that just make it easier on us all and cite a source that backs up the claim of a "ceasefire" being broken. From what I've gathered from resolutions 660,661, they simply spell out what Iraq had done to Kuwaitt necessitating reaction from the UN.

678, on the other hand, spells out the terms of post war Iraqi compliance. Maybe this is where you got mixed up with the term ceasefire as it states on item 1 Page 12: "Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goal of the present resolution including a formal ceasefire." What you've done is jumped to the conclusion that Iraq indeed had WMD's based on our intellignce reports (as the Bushies suggest) but in truth there were plenty of instances coming to light finally that the Bush cabinet was told that there was no immenant threat, that there were no WMD's to be found in Iraq. Ok, so then you say "well that's because they've moved them to another country." Yes, that tactic worked well for the Iraqi Air Force in the first gulf war. They didn't get their planes back.

The fact is, we had weapons inspectors IN IRAQ, doing their job, and requested more time to find EVIDENCE of WMD's. They had not found this evidence when they were kicked out by us leading up to the war. Iraq therefore did not violate the UN resolutions, did not violate the ceasfire. Obviously, since they didn't aggress anyone and we have no more proof now of WMD's than we had before the war.

And here we are quoting exerpts from the UN resolutions, as if you intend them to illustrate justification for our war waging. If the UN wanted us to go to war, they would've indicated as such by not outright condemning our action and refusing military support.

No - you and other's fail to see how the failure of Iraq to comply with the resolutions and the UN stating such - is all that is needed to use all neccessary means to secure the area and bring Int'l peace. WMDs has become a bastardized chant - the UN cease-fire resolution clearly defines what Iraq had to do in regards to WMDs. Inspectors weren't there to FIND WMDs - they were there to verify that Iraq had destroyed them, the reserch, and manufacturing capabilities of such.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PainTrain
What you're saying is that from what you've dug up in the resolutions implies that the US is justified at enforcing UN sanctions without the consent of the UN, the support of the UN, simply all by ourselves. Iraq was being investigated when we kicked them out, during the weeks of investigations that occured prior to us removing them from the situation they had still found no evidence of WMD's that would constitute a violation of the UN resolutions.

No - read the dasm resolutions - we(member states) were authorized to use all neccesary force to restore int'l peace and bring security to the area. We were stopped when the cease-fire agreement was put in place. The cease-fire was broken - therefore we were authorized to use force to ensure the security of the area and to bring int'l peace.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Smile Yz,

I don't think CkG or JohnGalt "gets" it, our boys are getting killed over there in Iraq on a daily basis. It's a hotbed of anti-americanism there right now as well as a magnet for terrorist groups. In fifteen years it could turn out to be another Iran, a theocratic islamic miltant state.


For me it is a simple 'Rule of Law' issue. Much like an illegal search and seizure here in the US. We uphold the Rule of Law as being the one thing that separates us from the evil that was SH and yet we violate it ourself. (IMO) To do this upsets me, greatly. The fact that we are there and some of us die is another story. That we use our $ for it and now try to cut Veterans benefits because of cost also upsets me. All that flows from an illegal act is not rightious, it is good act from a bad premise.


Yes saddam was a threat, I agree. But to what degree? Isn't North Korea's crazy leader more of a threat since he says he has nukes? Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction or even the remote capability to launch them at us. Bush overstated the threat and dragged us into a quagmire and hundreds of billions money pit... where there are no easy way out.

While CkG and Galt are still stucking in 1998 blaming Clinton, liberals, but never accepting the fact that they were just plain wrong; the rest of with a right mind know it's time for a change of leadership in this country.

I suppose they could or should blame Reagan too and Carter and maybe Bush the elder but, for what? They failed in the region too. Bush is at bat not Clinton. Sure there is another out recorded but, it is up to Bush to bat and if he argues with the umpire he'll be out too... I'm the umpire and you and CAD and JG and all of us.. the question is: Has he said something he should be thrown out for? Regarding Korea; the Soviet Union posed more a threat in its time but so did MAD. We are smart in choosing our battles. We negotiate with the powerfull and invade the weak. The foreign policy of the Bully. But, the weak use other tools like terrorism and that is a battle not easily fought.

 

[PainTrain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: PainTrain

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
...and don't skip over resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March
1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001, and, of course, 1441....

I'm rifling through those resolutions as fast possible on ym dial-up, so while I'm doing that just make it easier on us all and cite a source that backs up the claim of a "ceasefire" being broken. From what I've gathered from resolutions 660,661, they simply spell out what Iraq had done to Kuwaitt necessitating reaction from the UN.

678, on the other hand, spells out the terms of post war Iraqi compliance. Maybe this is where you got mixed up with the term ceasefire as it states on item 1 Page 12: "Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goal of the present resolution including a formal ceasefire." What you've done is jumped to the conclusion that Iraq indeed had WMD's based on our intellignce reports (as the Bushies suggest) but in truth there were plenty of instances coming to light finally that the Bush cabinet was told that there was no immenant threat, that there were no WMD's to be found in Iraq. Ok, so then you say "well that's because they've moved them to another country." Yes, that tactic worked well for the Iraqi Air Force in the first gulf war. They didn't get their planes back.

The fact is, we had weapons inspectors IN IRAQ, doing their job, and requested more time to find EVIDENCE of WMD's. They had not found this evidence when they were kicked out by us leading up to the war. Iraq therefore did not violate the UN resolutions, did not violate the ceasfire. Obviously, since they didn't aggress anyone and we have no more proof now of WMD's than we had before the war.

And here we are quoting exerpts from the UN resolutions, as if you intend them to illustrate justification for our war waging. If the UN wanted us to go to war, they would've indicated as such by not outright condemning our action and refusing military support.

No - you and other's fail to see how the failure of Iraq to comply with the resolutions and the UN stating such - is all that is needed to use all neccessary means to secure the area and bring Int'l peace. WMDs has become a bastardized chant - the UN cease-fire resolution clearly defines what Iraq had to do in regards to WMDs. Inspectors weren't there to FIND WMDs - they were there to verify that Iraq had destroyed them, the reserch, and manufacturing capabilities of such.

CkG

Bring int'l peace, you mean with peace keeping troops and such? We sent soldiers, not cops, not peacemakers, but individuals trained to kill and conquer. That seems excessive based on the circumstances, especially when we didn't even allow the inspectors to perform their duties and find us evidence leaning towards or against weapons violations. There are ways to reprimand a government without going war, and those options were thrown out the window. The tell tale factor of the whole debacle is our treatment of the weapons inspectors themselves. Hans Blix, the lead inspector himself, did not support our approach. We didn't like idea, so we kicked him out, replaced him with a yes man, and then kicked them all right the hell out and waged cowboy ware at the expense of everyone but the men who sent the soldiers to fight.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PainTrain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: PainTrain

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
...and don't skip over resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March
1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001, and, of course, 1441....

I'm rifling through those resolutions as fast possible on ym dial-up, so while I'm doing that just make it easier on us all and cite a source that backs up the claim of a "ceasefire" being broken. From what I've gathered from resolutions 660,661, they simply spell out what Iraq had done to Kuwaitt necessitating reaction from the UN.

678, on the other hand, spells out the terms of post war Iraqi compliance. Maybe this is where you got mixed up with the term ceasefire as it states on item 1 Page 12: "Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goal of the present resolution including a formal ceasefire." What you've done is jumped to the conclusion that Iraq indeed had WMD's based on our intellignce reports (as the Bushies suggest) but in truth there were plenty of instances coming to light finally that the Bush cabinet was told that there was no immenant threat, that there were no WMD's to be found in Iraq. Ok, so then you say "well that's because they've moved them to another country." Yes, that tactic worked well for the Iraqi Air Force in the first gulf war. They didn't get their planes back.

The fact is, we had weapons inspectors IN IRAQ, doing their job, and requested more time to find EVIDENCE of WMD's. They had not found this evidence when they were kicked out by us leading up to the war. Iraq therefore did not violate the UN resolutions, did not violate the ceasfire. Obviously, since they didn't aggress anyone and we have no more proof now of WMD's than we had before the war.

And here we are quoting exerpts from the UN resolutions, as if you intend them to illustrate justification for our war waging. If the UN wanted us to go to war, they would've indicated as such by not outright condemning our action and refusing military support.

No - you and other's fail to see how the failure of Iraq to comply with the resolutions and the UN stating such - is all that is needed to use all neccessary means to secure the area and bring Int'l peace. WMDs has become a bastardized chant - the UN cease-fire resolution clearly defines what Iraq had to do in regards to WMDs. Inspectors weren't there to FIND WMDs - they were there to verify that Iraq had destroyed them, the reserch, and manufacturing capabilities of such.

CkG

Bring int'l peace, you mean with peace keeping troops and such? We sent soldiers, not cops, not peacemakers, but individuals trained to kill and conquer. That seems excessive based on the circumstances, especially when we didn't even allow the inspectors to perform their duties and find us evidence leaning towards or against weapons violations. There are ways to reprimand a government without going war, and those options were thrown out the window. The tell tale factor of the whole debacle is our treatment of the weapons inspectors themselves. Hans Blix, the lead inspector himself, did not support our approach. We didn't like idea, so we kicked him out, replaced him with a yes man, and then kicked them all right the hell out and waged cowboy ware at the expense of everyone but the men who sent the soldiers to fight.

Read the Resolutions. Yes, All necessary means = troops.

Again - the inspectors weren't there to FIND WMDs - they were there to verify Iraq had destroyed and documented the relevant research, items and manufacturing capabilities. - READ!
It doesn't matter what Blix "thought" - the fact that Nuclear parts were in a garden proves that Saddam did not comply and that Blix was a tool - again - READ.

CkG

 

[sMiLeYz]

first... this isnt about the UN resolutions, since the republicans and the administrations declared the UN 'irrelevant'.

second... Isreal has far more violations of UN international law than Iraq. Why do we not invade Israel and remove Ariel Sharon from power? Israel clearly has biological, chemical and nuclear weapons... I mean we gave it to them... just a bit more than what weapons we gave Saddam.

Clearly, UN resolutions are a non issue. Only an excuse, and a pretty bad one.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
first... this isnt about the UN resolutions, since the republicans and the administrations declared the UN 'irrelevant'.

second... Isreal has far more violations of UN international law than Iraq. Why do we not invade Israel and remove Ariel Sharon from power? Israel clearly has biological, chemical and nuclear weapons... I mean we gave it to them... just a bit more than what weapons we gave Saddam.

This changes the game.. now it is hard ball and its been years since I've played hard ball... Israel operates under article 51 all the time.. in a constant state of self defense. The WMD are part of the MAD theory that may keep an invasion from occurring.. I guess.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
So long as Saddam remains in power, he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world. [/i]

Funny how you could substitute "BUSH'S REGIME" in for "Saddam" how that would ring true for the American people, the region here, and the World. Bush is a walking weapon of mass destruction.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Yea, good point, Red; go to bed.

If I would have made a few references in my post bashing France I bet you would have agreed with it

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
first... this isnt about the UN resolutions, since the republicans and the administrations declared the UN 'irrelevant'.

second... Isreal has far more violations of UN international law than Iraq. Why do we not invade Israel and remove Ariel Sharon from power? Israel clearly has biological, chemical and nuclear weapons... I mean we gave it to them... just a bit more than what weapons we gave Saddam.

This changes the game.. now it is hard ball and its been years since I've played hard ball... Israel operates under article 51 all the time.. in a constant state of self defense. The WMD are part of the MAD theory that may keep an invasion from occurring.. I guess.

Well, when you are attacked, you do defend or try to defend yourself. This way, every retaliation or action in your own defense can be brought under the limelight of Self Defense. Now this means that every issue can be called an action under Self Defense. So according to this, do you actually think that the Russians, Chechnians, Palestinians, Israel, India, Pakistan, Kashmir, Bosnia, US, Iraq, Iran, N.Korea and all other such issues exist because they are all in Self Defense?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Still no immediate threat.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: asadasif

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
first... this isnt about the UN resolutions, since the republicans and the administrations declared the UN 'irrelevant'.

second... Isreal has far more violations of UN international law than Iraq. Why do we not invade Israel and remove Ariel Sharon from power? Israel clearly has biological, chemical and nuclear weapons... I mean we gave it to them... just a bit more than what weapons we gave Saddam.

This changes the game.. now it is hard ball and its been years since I've played hard ball... Israel operates under article 51 all the time.. in a constant state of self defense. The WMD are part of the MAD theory that may keep an invasion from occurring.. I guess.

Well, when you are attacked, you do defend or try to defend yourself. This way, every retaliation or action in your own defense can be brought under the limelight of Self Defense. Now this means that every issue can be called an action under Self Defense. So according to this, do you actually think that the Russians, Chechnians, Palestinians, Israel, India, Pakistan, Kashmir, Bosnia, US, Iraq, Iran, N.Korea and all other such issues exist because they are all in Self Defense?

I suppose each nation has its own reason for developing defensive systems. Any nation that is similar to Iraq under SH would see its position and sovereignty threatened by the recent actions and statements out of Washington. Others may find it a prudent move to enhance their position among the world powers for any number of reasons. If the US tends to negotiate with holders of WMD instead of invading them... except for Iraq for some reason... MAD is a very good deterent except where terrorists are concerned given they expect to be consumed in the action. When every one has WMD then we will be all set for the end of humanity because once the use starts I don't think it will end easily.
I view it generally as a sort of life insurance policy that you hope you never need. Accidents happen as well as non accidents but, the end result may be the same.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Still no immediate threat.

To whom? Us or the use of them or the capability of them, if they have them. Or do you mean they don't have em yet?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Still no immediate threat.

To whom? Us or the use of them or the capability of them, if they have them. Or do you mean they don't have em yet?

Well, LR I have been watching the pro war argument. It seems there was no WWII based on this logic. It was just a continuation of WWI. No, they twist and squirm, saying why it it was legal, and that in fact war was the intent of the UN based on their interpretation of 1441, but that is not how it was sold to us. It was all about WMDs they HAD. Not guessed at, extrapolated, deduced, inferred or otherwise speculated about. Saddam had them and that "fact" was used to say he was an imminent threat. If the threat wasn't immediate, then war was not necessary. There was no sign he was about to attack or cause an attack on neighboring countries. So he violated UN resolutions? I bet there are other countries who have. I believe Israel has been guilty of this. No matter, I don't wish us to attack them either.

There is was no evidence that Saddam was factually the threat to us that Bush said he knew Saddam to be

So onto legal justifications after the fact. No, this was a morally bankrupt war to begin with. Deception piled on deception. This Texan emperor has no clothes.

A Democrat will have my vote, and you can be sure I am going to participate in this next election.

 

[LunarRay]

WS,
Yes, I agree totally with your assessment and opinion.
It seems the Right leaning folks argue every angle but the one we invaded with and then they argue you can't prove he didn't have WMD. Or it was an invasion based on all sorts of other issues or the US had a 'right' to invade... in spite of the guarantee of Iraqi sovereignty in 1441 and before which is part of 1441. The only 'right' we had to invade (UN Article 51) requires at least some proof of the exigent circumstance beyond photos of what once may have been a building or that Clinton bombed something for some reason or Clinton bombed an aspirin factory and Bush fixed his mistake.
A fair reading of all of this must force a reasonable person to get by the first hurdle and that is the lacking of authority to invade Iraq using the established rule of law contained in the UN Charter. Any argument that holds as a premise that the UN is ineffective or of no consequence must by definition ignore the rule of law that the US agreed to. This then means we are the rule of law by virtue of our power and this scenario is contrary to our own philosophy. It would mean that the USSC had not the power to select Bush in the first place because Gore is stronger and the democratic voters should rise up against the rule of law and endorse anarchy.

 

[AFSOC_Commando]

JESUS... Enough already....



WE KNOW HE HAD WMD!!!! How do I know?

<U>WE GAVE THEM TO HIM OVER 20 YEARS AGO!!!
</U>

Saddam used them in the Iran/Iraq war. We helped put Saddam in power also.

In 1991 the reason we didn't drive into Iraq and remove Saddam was because a little DOVE in the Pentagon (Gen Powell) had the presidents ear. We had plans to drive right through the country up to Turkey!

See for all you young fellas and ladies on here who were still playing grab a$$ in grade school when Desert Shield/Storm was happening didn't ever talk to a Kuwaiti or Iraqi family, I have talked to dozens over the years, Of course I have spent alot of time in the Mid-East. He was loathed for the mass murders, executions, treatment and general sadism that he and his regime exacted on the people of both Kuwait and Iraq.

I love America and spent 17 years in the Service. Every conflict we have had has been to clean up a mess we created in a previous administration.

12 years after the end of Desert Storm and we were still shooting Saddam's Planes out of the air, he violated every Sanction and rule laid down by the UN. The people that have suffered have been the Iraqi people. Far less have died in this conflict so far then Saddam killed in a year.

I believe maybe we need to change our foreign policy and quit setting up puppet governments that we end up tearing down years later.

I also believe the American people need to learn about whats on the news from other sources then CNN and Fox, Library has great books on history and aren't written for ratings or a political party so the views many times aren't as skewed

 

[PainTrain]

Originally posted by: AFSOC_Commando
<STRONG>JESUS... Enough already....



WE KNOW HE HAD WMD!!!! How do I know?

WE GAVE THEM TO HIM OVER 20 YEARS AGO!!!


</STRONG>Saddam used them in the Iran/Iraq war. We helped put Saddam in power also.

In 1991 the reason we didn't drive into Iraq and remove Saddam was because a little DOVE in the Pentagon (Gen Powell) had the presidents ear. We had plans to drive right through the country up to Turkey!

See for all you young fellas and ladies on here who were still playing grab a$$ in grade school when Desert Shield/Storm was happening didn't ever talk to a Kuwaiti or Iraqi family, I have talked to dozens over the years, Of course I have spent alot of time in the Mid-East. He was loathed for the mass murders, executions, treatment and general sadism that he and his regime exacted on the people of both Kuwait and Iraq.

I love America and spent 17 years in the Service. Every conflict we have had has been to clean up a mess we created in a previous administration.

12 years after the end of Desert Storm and we were still shooting Saddam's Planes out of the air, he violated every Sanction and rule laid down by the UN. The people that have suffered have been the Iraqi people. Far less have died in this conflict so far then Saddam killed in a year.

I believe maybe we need to change our foreign policy and quit setting up puppet governments that we end up tearing down years later.

I also believe the American people need to learn about whats on the news from other sources then CNN and Fox, Library has great books on history and aren't written for ratings or a political party so the views many times aren't as skewed

AFSOC, just out of curiosity, why didn't you make it twenty years in service? This is not an attack on you whatsoever, just curious if you were one of the smart ones to accept early retirement in the mid to late 90's

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: AFSOC_Commando
<STRONG>JESUS... Enough already....



WE KNOW HE HAD WMD!!!! How do I know?

WE GAVE THEM TO HIM OVER 20 YEARS AGO!!!


</STRONG>Saddam used them in the Iran/Iraq war. We helped put Saddam in power also.

In 1991 the reason we didn't drive into Iraq and remove Saddam was because a little DOVE in the Pentagon (Gen Powell) had the presidents ear. We had plans to drive right through the country up to Turkey!

See for all you young fellas and ladies on here who were still playing grab a$$ in grade school when Desert Shield/Storm was happening didn't ever talk to a Kuwaiti or Iraqi family, I have talked to dozens over the years, Of course I have spent alot of time in the Mid-East. He was loathed for the mass murders, executions, treatment and general sadism that he and his regime exacted on the people of both Kuwait and Iraq.

I love America and spent 17 years in the Service. Every conflict we have had has been to clean up a mess we created in a previous administration.

12 years after the end of Desert Storm and we were still shooting Saddam's Planes out of the air, he violated every Sanction and rule laid down by the UN. The people that have suffered have been the Iraqi people. Far less have died in this conflict so far then Saddam killed in a year.

I believe maybe we need to change our foreign policy and quit setting up puppet governments that we end up tearing down years later.

I also believe the American people need to learn about whats on the news from other sources then CNN and Fox, Library has great books on history and aren't written for ratings or a political party so the views many times aren't as skewed

Ok, 20 years ago he had them. Now they arent there. When and where did they go? Simple enough for you to answer definitively I would think.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Has anyone ever looked back on the present, but changeable fact that since we cannot find the forbidden weaponry
that he actually had complied, the UN was substantiating that as fact, but the Administration would not accept the answer.

That places the presentation of false documentation to a higher scrutiny, as UN fact finding - if substantiated would defintly
breed distrust of the aggresive party, so by working up the mob mentality and hussling up a posse, premptive action might just
find something before all the circumstantial evidence was completely destroyed.

The only disparity in 'Saddam Haddem' was bookeeping, and we know how some governments use cookbooks.
Who's item count was more accurate, and by who's standard ? Gould they be a source of hanging chad ?

 

[LunarRay]

AFSOC,

Saddam used them in the Iran/Iraq war. We helped put Saddam in power also.

So that's where they went... OK now the mystery is solved. I seem to remember he gained power by his deeds in the party. He paid his dues and moved up. He became the former president's right hand man.. not sure how we helped him do this.


In 1991 the reason we didn't drive into Iraq and remove Saddam was because a little DOVE in the Pentagon (Gen Powell) had the presidents ear. We had plans to drive right through the country up to Turkey!

Well I seem to remember there was a UN resolution that was somewhat limiting in what the 'good guys' could do. Besides this, the Arabs didn't seem very interested in having the US in the mid east after they secured the sovereignty of Kuwait and all that oil.


See for all you young fellas and ladies on here who were still playing grab a$$ in grade school when Desert Shield/Storm was happening didn't ever talk to a Kuwaiti or Iraqi family, I have talked to dozens over the years, Of course I have spent alot of time in the Mid-East. He was loathed for the mass murders, executions, treatment and general sadism that he and his regime exacted on the people of both Kuwait and Iraq.
Anyone from a seasoned salt to a binky chomping tot should know that they may hate Saddam but, they like the Infidel (us) less.


I love America and spent 17 years in the Service. Every conflict we have had has been to clean up a mess we created in a previous administration.

I don't view the actions of Clinton as cleaning up after Bush or Bush after Reagan or Baby Bush after Clinton... I simply see it as life on planet Earth in this day and age.


12 years after the end of Desert Storm and we were still shooting Saddam's Planes out of the air, he violated every Sanction and rule laid down by the UN. The people that have suffered have been the Iraqi people. Far less have died in this conflict so far then Saddam killed in a year.

True and it was an issue for the UN not the US alone. The authority to shoot down those planes came from the UN. The UN is the Supreme Commander in this World Affair issue.

I believe maybe we need to change our foreign policy and quit setting up puppet governments that we end up tearing down years later.

We seem to set them up to thwart some other 'enemy' of ours at the time. When it ends then we are left with the leavings and who ever comes into power. Not a good way to do business all the time

I also believe the American people need to learn about whats on the news from other sources then CNN and Fox, Library has great books on history and aren't written for ratings or a political party so the views many times aren't as skewed

"Aren't as skewed" but, from the perspective and bias of the author. It is us who need ridding of bias where we reject what our bias finds rejectable and accept what we want to hear... or read. We are the problem. We need to sorta zero base our position and fact find without bias and then conclude from the facts or the obvious.

All my above are of course IMO.

 

[AFSOC_Commando]

No offense taken.

I left for 3 reasons

1. My family never saw me... I was home just over 4 years out of the 17... The rest of the time I was on the road...

2. Bell Atlantic (Verizon) offered me a very nice Job offer to manage the Optical Network

3. No longer believed in many of the missions we were doing, we had turned from a war fighting force to a political animal. I also had zero respect for then President Clinton due to his lack of integrity.
Now of course I did try to re-up right after 9-11 but the wife asked me not to, and I didn't due to all she had put up with. I did 4 combat zones and made it home in 1 piece and she thought I was playing with the devil, I am however OLD SCHOOL, I am a Patriot, I cry listening to the National Anthem and watching the body bags come back and the civilians dying on American Soil!

This is the first time I have believed in the missions our guys are doing so strongly. So now I try to keep the faith and check on the wifes of former comrades and support them as best I can.