OSAMA IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!!!!

Message boards : Politics : OSAMA IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!!!!
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6

AuthorMessage
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 1115408 - Posted: 10 Jun 2011, 14:02:26 UTC - in response to Message 1115326.  
Last modified: 10 Jun 2011, 14:03:17 UTC

i still can´t understand why usa started war with iraq after iraq was usa´s best friend in -80 in middle-east, and had nothing to do with 9/11.

You're skipping over a huge span of history. Iraq invaded Kuwait; the US led a coalition to oust Saddam and was headed into Baghdad when Iraq agreed to cease-fire terms. Those terms were continually violated for a decade, including the most critical violation, failure to allow complete UN inspections for WMD. After 9/11 the US opted to dissolve the cease-fire and resume military operations, all with the overwhelming agreement of Congress.

Who was or was not our "friend" in the early '80s is irrelevant, given the subsequent actions of a brutal, dangerous dictator.


i am still waiting when you start a war against saudi-arab,osama etc were coming from, like the 9/11 people, and some from egypt.
but of course i understand that it´s easy to mix up iraq, afganistan etc to saudi-arab or egypt, could happen to anyone, without map.
ID: 1115408 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1115420 - Posted: 10 Jun 2011, 14:37:52 UTC - in response to Message 1115326.  
Last modified: 10 Jun 2011, 14:42:37 UTC

i still can´t understand why usa started war with iraq after iraq was usa´s best friend in -80 in middle-east, and had nothing to do with 9/11.

You're skipping over a huge span of history. Iraq invaded Kuwait; the US led a coalition to oust Saddam and was headed into Baghdad when Iraq agreed to cease-fire terms. Those terms were continually violated for a decade, including the most critical violation, failure to allow complete UN inspections for WMD. After 9/11 the US opted to dissolve the cease-fire and resume military operations, all with the overwhelming agreement of Congress.

Who was or was not our "friend" in the early '80s is irrelevant, given the subsequent actions of a brutal, dangerous dictator.


Some might call the violations a response to outsider aggression an overflights into areas not covered in the surrnder terms but thats water under the bridge. WMD's really, Hans Blix made repeated visits and found nothing again and again. I recall Colin Powell pointing out that Iraq had missiles that violated the surrender agreement. within a week those missiles were destroyed. Iraq wanted no part of the US. Saddam already knew that he was weak and blustering in front of cameras was the only way to keep himself in power over his people. W and company took that blustering seriously even though we already knew he didn't have much of anything to defend himself with. BTW did one scud get launched during the second war. I think not. Any WMD found nope. why? because the one and only person feeding the US gov't hated Saddam and would say and do anything to get his regime oustered. Sadly, our brightest leaders failed to see what everyone else did. Iraq was no threat to anyone except its own people.

The only legitimate reason we had to invade was the genocide Saddam perpetrated on the Shia and guess what W never ever mentioned that as a just reason to invade.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1115420 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,199,902
RAC: 11
United States
Message 1115511 - Posted: 10 Jun 2011, 17:32:08 UTC - in response to Message 1115408.  

i still can´t understand why usa started war with iraq after iraq was usa´s best friend in -80 in middle-east, and had nothing to do with 9/11.

You're skipping over a huge span of history. Iraq invaded Kuwait; the US led a coalition to oust Saddam and was headed into Baghdad when Iraq agreed to cease-fire terms. Those terms were continually violated for a decade, including the most critical violation, failure to allow complete UN inspections for WMD. After 9/11 the US opted to dissolve the cease-fire and resume military operations, all with the overwhelming agreement of Congress.

Who was or was not our "friend" in the early '80s is irrelevant, given the subsequent actions of a brutal, dangerous dictator.

i am still waiting when you start a war against saudi-arab,osama etc were coming from, like the 9/11 people, and some from egypt.
but of course i understand that it´s easy to mix up iraq, afganistan etc to saudi-arab or egypt, could happen to anyone, without map.

What cease-fire treaty did the Saudis or the Egyptians violate? Your post asked why we went into Iraq, and I answered with the history that justified our the second invasion. To be clear, the Iraq war was justified by Saddam's violations of obligations he agreed to when Iraq lost the Gulf War; among other numerous violations, Hans Blix repeatedly told the UN that he was not allowed to fully inspect for WMD as required by the treaty.

I am well aware of the 9/11 terrorist's home countries, but that is also irrelevant to the invasion of Iraq in 2002. If you are wondering about inconsistency, maybe you should start a thread about why the US is bombing Libya but not Syria?
ID: 1115511 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 1115805 - Posted: 11 Jun 2011, 7:32:46 UTC - in response to Message 1115511.  

[quote][quote][quote] To be clear, the Iraq war was justified by Saddam's violations of obligations he agreed to when Iraq lost the Gulf War; among other numerous violations, Hans Blix repeatedly told the UN that he was not allowed to fully inspect for WMD as required by the treaty.



you never found anything, so there was no justification.
ID: 1115805 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1115844 - Posted: 11 Jun 2011, 10:16:23 UTC - in response to Message 1115814.  

WMD's were used against the Kurds. These were nerve agents delivered by artillery shells. these were obtained from the Russians most likely, We have them too.

Piles of artillery shells were found that could accommodate these agents. A mobile trailer that was a lab to make these agents was also found. Nerve agents can be easily made--akin to making bug spray.

Iraq was most likely invaded due to:

Their caper to annex Kuwait and all of their oil
Saddam's attempt to assassinate the senior president Bush.

The effort failed ( or produced a poor result) due to using far too few troops to control the looting and chaos after the initial invasion and the dismantling of the Army which created a class of unemployed who knew how to fight and handle weapons.
ID: 1115844 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1115918 - Posted: 11 Jun 2011, 15:29:18 UTC - in response to Message 1115844.  

someones watched fox news. Those mobile trailers existed. They were mobile weather monitoring stations. unfortunately Fox never ever retracts statements.

artillery shells were found. later to be mentioned that they were probably buried and forgotten before the first gulf war. Any WMD would have dissipated and or been rendered harmless from more than a decade exposed to desert heat. Lets also mention the shells were unusable. They had corroded and would have exploded in the gun.

I hate to rehash but, our only outlet for info on the WMD's was an angry anti Saddam Iraqi that spoon fed the US via the British info that was whole cloth lies. there was no info on the ground no smoking gun UN arms inspectors found absolutely nothing that could be used or construed as material evidence of any WMD production. We were told a lie. A lie that still exists, apparently in the minds of a few that still think the Iraq was had any justification.

Aside from the Spanish-American war which was prosecuted under shady circumstances, this war was the first time the US intentionally attacked a country without provocation.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1115918 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1115956 - Posted: 11 Jun 2011, 17:26:55 UTC - in response to Message 1115933.  

I hate to rehash but, our only outlet for info on the WMD's was an angry anti Saddam Iraqi that spoon fed the US via the British info that was whole cloth lies.


I have some difficulty believing that both MI6 and the CIA would be that naive or gullible. But what is clear is that Bush wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and the WMD issue gave him one. Blair in the UK was not keen, but got heavily leant on by Bush who told him that if he didn't support him, it would permanently jeopardise the "Special relationship" between the USA and the UK.

It's not about being gullible or the CIA. W and Cheney had been plotting a course to get into a fight with Iraq at all costs. 9/11 became an opportunity. The US just grabbed the UK's hand and drug them to the show


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1115956 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1115966 - Posted: 11 Jun 2011, 17:46:26 UTC - in response to Message 1115964.  

as much as pulling a thorn from the neighbors dog. It's not my dog or my responsibility. Perhaps telling the neighbor about the thorn would have been appropriate


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1115966 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,199,902
RAC: 11
United States
Message 1116081 - Posted: 11 Jun 2011, 23:13:53 UTC - in response to Message 1115805.  
Last modified: 11 Jun 2011, 23:15:40 UTC

To be clear, the Iraq war was justified by Saddam's violations of obligations he agreed to when Iraq lost the Gulf War; among other numerous violations, Hans Blix repeatedly told the UN that he was not allowed to fully inspect for WMD as required by the treaty.

you never found anything, so there was no justification.

I wasn't looking, so of course I never found anything. Hans Blix tried to look, but was prevented from doing what Saddam agreed to let him (the UN) do, so of course he never found anything either. Either way, Saddam's history of using WMD and his many other violations of his obligations under the cease-fire treaty was ample justification.
ID: 1116081 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 1116118 - Posted: 12 Jun 2011, 1:20:53 UTC - in response to Message 1116081.  
Last modified: 12 Jun 2011, 1:41:28 UTC

To be clear, the Iraq war was justified by Saddam's violations of obligations he agreed to when Iraq lost the Gulf War; among other numerous violations, Hans Blix repeatedly told the UN that he was not allowed to fully inspect for WMD as required by the treaty.

you never found anything, so there was no justification.

I wasn't looking, so of course I never found anything. Hans Blix tried to look, but was prevented from doing what Saddam agreed to let him (the UN) do, so of course he never found anything either. Either way, Saddam's history of using WMD and his many other violations of his obligations under the cease-fire treaty was ample justification.


hohohooo.

no, that was rude, you have just get used that president lie to you, so it´s okay if i tell you that i think you are right. right?
ID: 1116118 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1116255 - Posted: 12 Jun 2011, 14:05:50 UTC - in response to Message 1116194.  

deposed , yes.

By us, No

as I stated before. neither the US gov't nor the British mentioned one word of genocide when it was buildning up for the war. BTW we were having a troop buildup long before W put the word out that Saddam was in his crosshairs.

This was one time that W should have listened to his father and not invaded. George the first was told not to do it because of the ethnic violence that would erupt after an invasion


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1116255 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1116339 - Posted: 12 Jun 2011, 17:20:09 UTC - in response to Message 1115933.  

I hate to rehash but, our only outlet for info on the WMD's was an angry anti Saddam Iraqi that spoon fed the US via the British info that was whole cloth lies.


I have some difficulty believing that both MI6 and the CIA would be that naive or gullible. But what is clear is that Bush wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and the WMD issue gave him one. Blair in the UK was not keen, but got heavily leant on by Bush who told him that if he didn't support him, it would permanently jeopardise the "Special relationship" between the USA and the UK.

Where did you hear that the CIA and and MI6 said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

The evidence was based on a dossier mixed with a dissertation from a university student that was then edited even more to make it sound that people were certain that there were weapons.

The CIA and MI6 never reported that there were definitely WMDs.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1116339 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1116424 - Posted: 12 Jun 2011, 22:15:10 UTC - in response to Message 1116347.  

Telegraph

I will amend my previous statement. Both security services reported that there was significant belief that WMD existed and that it would be used. Whether or not that was based upon a doctored student thesis I do not know, but again it would seem unlikely that two of the Western worlds foremost Intelligence agencies would be duped in that manner.

What is clear that based upon the situation at the time, the invasion happened for two reasons. Firstly because it was wanted politically, and secondly because no-one wanted to take a chance that Iraq didn't have WMD. How would Blair have faced the British people if an ICBM landed on central London in the rush hour, killing thousands of people.

Ooops, sorry, didn't really think he had 'em?

No can't let that happen.

I'm expect the intelligence services were 100% certain the Saddam had the people to build WMD's. No question he had the people to build chemical ones, because he had used chemical in the past. He refused to allow inspections of some facilities. He was buying the things needed to make WMD's. He boasted he had them. He used them in the past. What is the reasonable conclusion? Sometimes a decision has to be made on scanty information.

ID: 1116424 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1116496 - Posted: 13 Jun 2011, 1:51:33 UTC - in response to Message 1116424.  

I recall his scientists testifying after the fall that they lied to Saddam. They kept asking for money and he paid and basically they gave Saddam Dr. Brown's pinball machine parts


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1116496 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 1116709 - Posted: 13 Jun 2011, 16:09:13 UTC - in response to Message 1116424.  


No can't let that happen.

I'm expect the intelligence services were 100% certain the Saddam had the people to build WMD's. No question he had the people to build chemical ones, because he had used chemical in the past. He refused to allow inspections of some facilities. He was buying the things needed to make WMD's. He boasted he had them. He used them in the past. What is the reasonable conclusion? Sometimes a decision has to be made on scanty information.


is this the same intelligence service that published two photos of dead osama, which were shown to be faked???
ID: 1116709 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1116714 - Posted: 13 Jun 2011, 16:18:40 UTC - in response to Message 1116709.  

is this the same intelligence service that published two photos of dead osama, which were shown to be faked???

No it wasn't the propaganda office.

ID: 1116714 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1116715 - Posted: 13 Jun 2011, 16:18:56 UTC - in response to Message 1116709.  

no those were internet fakes as I recall


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1116715 · Report as offensive
Profile MICHAEL W WATERS
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 May 11
Posts: 1
Credit: 392,912
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1121743 - Posted: 26 Jun 2011, 16:18:48 UTC

Well, myself...
I'm going to toast his demise with my new drink called the "Bin Laden" !
It's simply... Two Shots Followed By A Splash Of Water !

I'm happy that he is now with his... " 72 Sturgeons " !
(that's the fish species, for those that don't know).

Politics... What a waste of time, arguing over your different views !
You can not graft a new idea on a closed mind !
Most of the folks arguing here do not have the strength of character needed, to admit they are wrong even when faced with overwhelming evidence of that fact !
Of course, the folks engaging in these disputes all seem to have the inside track as to information !
So far from the truth it would be funny, if not the subject matter not so serious.
You were not involved in the intelligence gathering, the decision making and in most cases the prosecution of the decisions !
Therefore, the information that you are basing your strong views on is in reality...hearsay !
Seems most folks will look for the information that supports their claims and discount the rest as propaganda, on both sides of the fence.
And here I thought the folks posting on a Seti@Home Forum would be a scientific lot.
Shame on me for assuming so !
In closing, I would like to say... Lighten up folks, you will live longer !
We all have lenses we look at the world though, but were all capable of looking though our neighbors lens.
Question is, will you ?
The only way to truly change a person, is though example !
ID: 1121743 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6

Message boards : Politics : OSAMA IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!!!!


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.