• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Servicemen to be kidnapped in Iraq

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
An LA Times interview with some Iraqi guerilla commanders. LA Times Article U.S. Soldiers are to be kidnapped and given to Osama Bin Laden to exchange for Guantanamo prisoners. Makes sense to me. I have been strongly against this war from the beginning for at least three reasons.

1. Making a pre-emptive armed attack on a sovereign country you "think" might be dangerous is a very bad precedent. I work hard to get my children to not do that.

2. The evidence that the Administration had was extraordinarily flimsy. That was apparent even in October 2002.

3. We simply do not have the skill or resources to make this work out the way the Bush administration promised it would work out.

So, look for our guys (and gals) to start being taken prisoner. You heard it through the LA Times.
 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0
At least he acknowledges we are in fact on the ground in country.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Galt, me lad! I asked in a previous thread and you never answered. How come the Clinton quote spells "program" as "programme?" You sure that quote isn't from Billingsgate J. Clinton of Middlesex, England? I also asked previously, where did the quote come from? No answer to that either. We all love a mystery!
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Actually, JohnGalt. I've got the quote. Delivered December 19, 1998 after organizing a 70 hour strike for defying UNSCOM. Oh, John. If only you'd gone a little further with the quote. The two lines you quote are not contiguous but the entire line that you quote as your second line exists in this paragraph,

"So long as Saddam remains in power, he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world. With our allies, we must pursue a strategy to contain him and to constrain his weapons of mass destruction program while working toward the day Iraq has a government willing to live at peace with its people and with its neighbors." The Link. That's "with our allies" and "contain him."

Note that second sentence of the paragraph which you omitted. With our allies we must persue a strategy to contain him . . .. I wish you'd given us a hint about this second sentence of the paragraph, but just feel free to pick through stuff for pieces that you like and pick out the parts that support you. No need to give us an objective picture, we can ferrit it out.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Whitling
Actually, JohnGalt. I've got the quote. Delivered December 19, 1998 after organizing a 70 hour strike for defying UNSCOM. Oh, John. If only you'd gone a little further with the quote. The two lines you quote are not contiguous but the entire line that you quote as your second line exists in this paragraph,

"So long as Saddam remains in power, he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world. With our allies, we must pursue a strategy to contain him and to constrain his weapons of mass destruction program while working toward the day Iraq has a government willing to live at peace with its people and with its neighbors." The Link. That's "with our allies" and "contain him."

Note that second sentence of the paragraph which you omitted. With our allies we must persue a strategy to contain him . . .. I wish you'd given us a hint about this second sentence of the paragraph, but just feel free to pick through stuff for pieces that you like and pick out the parts that support you. No need to give us an objective picture, we can ferrit it out.
I guess France didn't want to be an Ally this time;) Containment wasn't working - ala his strikes. Containment still wasn't working - thus Bush's actions.

It's a nice try there Whitling but your buddy Bubba used a Unilateral "pre-emptive" strike against Saddam w/o UN authorization(did he even have Congressional approval?) I suggest you get off the Clinton thing though - as you know...it's in the past and isn't relevant now I guess;)

CkG
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
As I hope will become apparent with the passage of time, I bear scant love for the Democrats. I wasn't a fan of the 70 hour preemptive strike. I'm not a pacifist, I thought the first Gulf War was a pretty reasonable thing to do. But as far as hugging the Democrats, in my opinion, the chief difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want to cut the pizza into fourths and Democrats are willing to cut it into sixths. Both administrations will and do lie -- but, IMHO, the Bush Administration --- well let's let that go. I'm perfectly willing to leave Clinton out of this but I was curious about the (partial) quote that I've seen so often on John Galt posts. I have a strong preference for threads being based on traceable facts.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Whitling
Actually, JohnGalt. I've got the quote. Delivered December 19, 1998 after organizing a 70 hour strike for defying UNSCOM. Oh, John. If only you'd gone a little further with the quote. The two lines you quote are not contiguous but the entire line that you quote as your second line exists in this paragraph,

"So long as Saddam remains in power, he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world. With our allies, we must pursue a strategy to contain him and to constrain his weapons of mass destruction program while working toward the day Iraq has a government willing to live at peace with its people and with its neighbors." The Link. That's "with our allies" and "contain him."

Note that second sentence of the paragraph which you omitted. With our allies we must persue a strategy to contain him . . .. I wish you'd given us a hint about this second sentence of the paragraph, but just feel free to pick through stuff for pieces that you like and pick out the parts that support you. No need to give us an objective picture, we can ferrit it out.
I guess France didn't want to be an Ally this time;) Containment wasn't working - ala his strikes. Containment still wasn't working - thus Bush's actions.

It's a nice try there Whitling but your buddy Bubba used a Unilateral "pre-emptive" strike against Saddam w/o UN authorization(did he even have Congressional approval?) I suggest you get off the Clinton thing though - as you know...it's in the past and isn't relevant now I guess;)

CkG
Other than the fact that containment was working -- our invasion proved it -- and that Clinton launched a limited strike while Bush-lite invaded and occupied another country, getting us into an economy-busting quagmire with no visible exit strategy -- other than that ... wait, never mind. I read your post again. It's all wrong except the last sentence. You can't defend Bush-lite's actions based on what Clinton did.

(Didn't you post a message recently about accepting responsibility for one's actions? I'll have to look for that.)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Again Bowfinger misses the point. He thinks that my posting(to clarify something that someone else brought up) what Clinton did absolves Bush of any responsibility for his actions against Saddam. What he fails to realize is that I don't much care about the "how" as and most people here aren't only opposed to the "how" - it is the "why" that has been the focal point. My post just stated what Clinton did in regards to Iraq. Did Clinton not "pre-emptively" strike Saddam? Did Clinton get UN approval? Did Clinton even get Congressional approval? Did Clinton/US act unilaterally with his strikes?
Also I'd like to point out again that I supported Clinton's actions against Saddam. Saddam had never complied with his end of the agreement - period, and needed to be taken care of.
Now again, let me address this misconception Bowfinger has about my motives for posting how Clinton handled Iraq. None of Clinton's words/actions are "defending" Bush's - but you can't deny they are similar except for the "how". Actually - they aren't as similar as they could have been if Clinton had gotten UN, Congressional approval(did he?) or had gotten our Allies involved.
And also the notion that our invasion somehow "proved" containment was working is absolutely laughable and isn't realy a valid argument anyway since the cease-fire agreement doesn't state anything about "containment" - it specified absolute compliance.
Yes - I post quite often about "personal responsibility" but again it has nothing to do with my post as I wasn't trying to shift the blame anywhere or off of someone.

Someday Bowfinger will realize what I've stated repeatedly and have now once again had to post. I wish him the best an truly hope he finaly understands why Clinton's actions against Saddam are relevant to point out and discuss.

CkG
 

MrColin

Platinum Member
May 21, 2003
2,403
3
81
I think the whole affair makes more sense when you look at this 1997 statement of principles fromThe New American Century. They are a "non-profit" think tank in washington. CHECK OUT THE NAMES AT THE BOTTOM:disgust:
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Caddy, Caddy, Caddy. What will we do with you? You constantly harp about people missing your point; you just can't accept that your point is irrelevant. We aren't missing it, we are ignoring it. It is a distraction from real issues. It's not the "why" that matters, it's the "how".

You keep equating Clinton's measured response with Bush-lite's rash reaction, insisting that the "point" is both acted for the same reason. Wrong. That's like equating a guy going 70 mph in a 65 zone with a drunk guy driving down the sidewalk, running over people left and right. "But, but, ... They are both in a hurry, so their actions are comparable. You just don't get the point." Yeah, right. Maybe if you're blindly trying to defend the actions of the drunk.

To an objective person, the grossly mismatched responses completely override any commonalities in motive. You keep dismissing the "how" as if it's a trivial detail. It is not. How Bush acted is the fundamental issue. It's the one that really matters. It outweighs everything else. "Why" is NOT the point, no matter how much you wish otherwise.

Re. containment, (1) of course it was working. Bush's invasion proved Iraq's military was third-rate. It proved Iraq had no significant unconventional weapons capabilities. It proved Iraq was not a threat to us or to the region. In short, it proved containment was working.

(2) Having gamely insisted containment was not working, you then try to distance yourself by claiming containment isn't the point anyway. It's all about the U.N. resolution ... the same U.N. that did NOT approve your invasion. Bummer, another dart misses wildly.

This is tiresome. I suppose I might say the same things if I were in your shoes, but I wouldn't be able to look someone in the eye while saying it.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
I hope there won't be videos with US servicemen like we see from Chechnya or Danny Pearl thing. These people sure are savages.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Caddy, Caddy, Caddy. What will we do with you? You constantly harp about people missing your point; you just can't accept that your point is irrelevant. We aren't missing it, we are ignoring it. It is a distraction from real issues. It's not the "why" that matters, it's the "how".

You keep equating Clinton's measured response with Bush-lite's rash reaction, insisting that the "point" is both acted for the same reason. Wrong. That's like equating a guy going 70 mph in a 65 zone with a drunk guy driving down the sidewalk, running over people left and right. "But, but, ... They are both in a hurry, so their actions are comparable. You just don't get the point." Yeah, right. Maybe if you're blindly trying to defend the actions of the drunk.

To an objective person, the grossly mismatched responses completely override any commonalities in motive. You keep dismissing the "how" as if it's a trivial detail. It is not. How Bush acted is the fundamental issue. It's the one that really matters. It outweighs everything else. "Why" is NOT the point, no matter how much you wish otherwise.

Re. containment, (1) of course it was working. Bush's invasion proved Iraq's military was third-rate. It proved Iraq had no significant unconventional weapons capabilities. It proved Iraq was not a threat to us or to the region. In short, it proved containment was working.

(2) Having gamely insisted containment was not working, you then try to distance yourself by claiming containment isn't the point anyway. It's all about the U.N. resolution ... the same U.N. that did NOT approve your invasion. Bummer, another dart misses wildly.

This is tiresome. I suppose I might say the same things if I were in your shoes, but I wouldn't be able to look someone in the eye while saying it.
No - again you try to say that I am comparing their actions - which I have stated MANY times was NOT what I was talking about. No, again you are wrong - look at the posts here on the forum - it most certain is the "why" that you people have your panties in a bunch about. Sure there is a bit of "how" but AGAIN - that is NOT what I was equating when I stated the "WHYs" of Clinton. Got it yet? (for some reason I think you still don't/won't get it). The lack of UN/Congress/Allies is just a bonus that was added:D

No - Containment wasn't the objective - compliance was. He most certainly was a threat to the area - his NON-COMPLIANCE proved that.

Yes - the UN stated in the CEASE-FIRE resolution what Iraq MUST do - they didn't. The UN FAILED in it's duties to force Iraq to comply so the CEASE-FIRE is off. No "darts" missed - you just weren't paying attention and just assumed it missed;)

You are right though - it is tiresome to hear you blathering on about how what Clinton said/did is irrelevant to the current situation - it most cetainly IS relevant.

Someday you'll understand though...well, maybe.

CkG
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
John Galt asked if a copy of Jessica Lynch's book would suffice. Suffice for what? Jessica Lynch wasn't kidnapped. She was a prisoner of war. The kind of thing that is being talked about in the article is quite a different kettle of fish. I haven't read Jessica's book and am not likely to. It's hard to imagine what a woman who remembers nothing after the vehicle accident has to recount.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
<<it is the "why" that has been the focal point.>>

With our allies we must persue a strategy to contain him . . ..

<<No - Containment wasn't the objective - compliance was.>>
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<it is the "why" that has been the focal point.>>

With our allies we must persue a strategy to contain him . . ..

<<No - Containment wasn't the objective - compliance was.>>
"So long as Saddam remains in power, he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world. With our allies, we must pursue a strategy to contain him and to constrain his weapons of mass destruction program while working toward the day Iraq has a government willing to live at peace with its people and with its neighbors."

The REST of that quote;)

CkG
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: Whitling
Actually, JohnGalt. I've got the quote. Delivered December 19, 1998 after organizing a 70 hour strike for defying UNSCOM. Oh, John. If only you'd gone a little further with the quote. The two lines you quote are not contiguous but the entire line that you quote as your second line exists in this paragraph,

"So long as Saddam remains in power, he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world. With our allies, we must pursue a strategy to contain him and to constrain his weapons of mass destruction program while working toward the day Iraq has a government willing to live at peace with its people and with its neighbors." The Link. That's "with our allies" and "contain him."

Note that second sentence of the paragraph which you omitted. With our allies we must persue a strategy to contain him . . .. I wish you'd given us a hint about this second sentence of the paragraph, but just feel free to pick through stuff for pieces that you like and pick out the parts that support you. No need to give us an objective picture, we can ferrit it out.

Glad you found the quote and answered your questions by yourself...sick of thinking for other people.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY