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 · 7 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,436,947
RAC: 0
Burma
Message 1115301 - Posted: 10 Jun 2011, 3:59:21 UTC - in response to Message 1115137.  

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ME04Ak01.html

valid points here.
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.

We didn't. W and company did. It can be called payback for the attempted attack on Daddy Bush when he visited Kuwait after he was out of office
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1115301 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2932
Credit: 14,651,132
RAC: 6,239
United States
Message 1115326 - Posted: 10 Jun 2011, 7:13:41 UTC - in response to Message 1115137.  

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.
ID: 1115326 · Report as offensive
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: 9529
Credit: 44,436,947
RAC: 0
Burma
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: 2932
Credit: 14,651,132
RAC: 6,239
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 Chris S Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40776
Credit: 41,422,439
RAC: 1,236
United Kingdom
Message 1115605 - Posted: 10 Jun 2011, 21:08:55 UTC

maybe you should start a thread about why the US is bombing Libya but not Syria?


Isn't that only a matter of time?
ID: 1115605 · 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 Chris S Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40776
Credit: 41,422,439
RAC: 1,236
United Kingdom
Message 1115814 - Posted: 11 Jun 2011, 8:05:36 UTC

As far as WMD were concerned, there were only 3 possibilities.

1. There never were any, and Saddam was just sabre rattling
2. There were some but they were all destroyed before the war began
3. There were some but were hidden and have never been found

The USA and the UK Secret Services both advised Blair and Bush that Iraq did have WMD and was prepared to use them. That was one of the reasons they decided to go in. The truth is probably a combination of all three.
ID: 1115814 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3443
Credit: 1,468,052
RAC: 406
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: 9529
Credit: 44,436,947
RAC: 0
Burma
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 Chris S Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40776
Credit: 41,422,439
RAC: 1,236
United Kingdom
Message 1115933 - Posted: 11 Jun 2011, 16:21:26 UTC

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.
ID: 1115933 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,436,947
RAC: 0
Burma
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 Chris S Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40776
Credit: 41,422,439
RAC: 1,236
United Kingdom
Message 1115964 - Posted: 11 Jun 2011, 17:43:35 UTC

Well we both agree on the basic reason for it then! But with hindsight do we still think it was right?
ID: 1115964 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,436,947
RAC: 0
Burma
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: 2932
Credit: 14,651,132
RAC: 6,239
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 Chris S Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40776
Credit: 41,422,439
RAC: 1,236
United Kingdom
Message 1116194 - Posted: 12 Jun 2011, 11:19:29 UTC
Last modified: 12 Jun 2011, 11:21:23 UTC

I don't know if anyone else agrees, but aren't there two separate issues here about Iraq, although inextricably linked.

1. Was it right that Saddam should have been deposed and removed from power?
2. Was the Iraq invasion justified to achieve that?

There is ample evidence that Saddam was a dictator and a tyrant, and carried our crimes against humanity, and I think the world is a better place without him. However, was a total war, with the resultant loss of life on both sides, including civilians, a price that was worth paying for it. Could there have been another way?

And are we not seeing just the same scenario being played out now in Libya?
ID: 1116194 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,436,947
RAC: 0
Burma
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 moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,274
RAC: 64
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 Chris S Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40776
Credit: 41,422,439
RAC: 1,236
United Kingdom
Message 1116347 - Posted: 12 Jun 2011, 17:48:37 UTC

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?
ID: 1116347 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · Next

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


 
©2018 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.