Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 9:25:06 AM   
ModeratorEleven


Posts: 2007
Joined: 8/14/2005
Status: offline
Folks, lose the personal attacks or you'll go on an early Christmas vacation.

XI


_____________________________

This mod goes to eleven.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 10:48:52 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:


Primary data: eye witness accounts, raw data, photographs.......things that are not hearsay.

By your own standard, the quotes in the OP attributed to Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, et cetera, qualify as primary data.

_____________________________



(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 10:59:02 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:


Primary data: eye witness accounts, raw data, photographs.......things that are not hearsay.

By your own standard, the quotes in the OP attributed to Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, et cetera, qualify as primary data.


ok.....

"A tax will end the recession. A tax will ease money into markets where it is needed, and more efficiently than any other form of government intervention. "

...your own words there, clearly proving you are someone who believes that taxes are good.

Of course that's rubbish. i've fiddled with your quote to make it mean what i want it to mean.

The primary data is what you wrote in your tax plan thread. What i wrote was reporting....and slanting the words you typed in such a way as to suggest the exact opposite of what you really intended. Now, my example was highly blatant, but it is entirely possible to do so more subtley.........and that is the difference between primary data and hype. Take a truth, meddle with it a bit but leave most of it there, then report the doctored viewpoint, taking care never to report dissenting views. Left and right are equally guilty of it.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 12:59:47 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

Of course that's rubbish. i've fiddled with your quote to make it mean what i want it to mean.

Unless you are asserting a complete lack of integrity in mainstream media, this argument is a tautology.

_____________________________



(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 1:04:12 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Of course that's rubbish. i've fiddled with your quote to make it mean what i want it to mean.

Unless you are asserting a complete lack of integrity in mainstream media, this argument is a tautology.


...doesn't have to be a complete lack of integrity. A partial one will do it. Remember the Fox News reporter getting caught making stuff up?
Are you asserting that the mainstream media has 100% integrity?

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 1:22:10 PM   
scarlethiney


Posts: 492
Joined: 8/22/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You think I ignore your posts because what?

You think you backed me into a corner???






In a word..............................YES. She kicked your butt.

LadyEllen you are my hero!

scarlet


_____________________________

"The words 'I am...' are potent words; be careful what you hitch them to. The thing you're claiming has a way of reaching back and claiming you." - A.L. Kitselman.


see my profile masterkspet

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 1:47:06 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

Are you asserting that the mainstream media has 100% integrity?

Not 100%, but sufficient integrity that, absent a claim/proof to the contrary, a direct quote is at least devoid of "fiddling" (whether the selection and presentation of quotes is slanted or no is a different question altogether).

_____________________________



(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 3:10:04 PM   
HunterS


Posts: 553
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You think I ignore your posts because what?

You think you backed me into a corner???






In a word..............................YES. She kicked your butt.

LadyEllen you are my hero!

scarlet



Lady Ellen is too much of a lady to kick anyone's butt. 
What she did do was point out to Thomas the intellectual fallacies and ethical corruptness of his post. 
You are correct in that Lady Ellen is a hero to many.
 
H.

< Message edited by HunterS -- 12/17/2008 3:13:35 PM >

(in reply to scarlethiney)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 3:29:11 PM   
scarlethiney


Posts: 492
Joined: 8/22/2008
Status: offline
Thanks Hunter for so succinctly explaining what LadyEllen meant. 
I'm not quite sure how she has been able to post and be understood without your help.

scarlet


_____________________________

"The words 'I am...' are potent words; be careful what you hitch them to. The thing you're claiming has a way of reaching back and claiming you." - A.L. Kitselman.


see my profile masterkspet

(in reply to HunterS)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 3:43:11 PM   
slavegirljoy


Posts: 1207
Joined: 11/6/2006
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

It amazes me what reverence people give to the source of "news" rather than the content. Bin Laden and Saddam never forged any type of alliance.
 
Did you miss out on watching the ABC News report from 1990, during Bill Clinton's Presidency?  It’s on YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7n3ivH3pCQ. 



As reported by, Sheila Macvicar: “Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”

“Three weeks after the bombing, on August 31, bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan.”

“ABC News has learned that during these meetings, senior Sudanese officials acting on behalf of bin Laden ask if Saddam Hussein would grant him asylum.”

“ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi*, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden.” 

Or, how about the article from the New York Sun (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqi-official-testifies-to-links-between-saddam/39631/­):


Iraqi Official Testifies to Links Between Saddam and Al Qaeda
By ELI LAKE, Staff Reporter of the Sun | September 14, 2006

WASHINGTON  
A deputy prime minister of Iraq yesterday offered a sharp contradiction of the conventional wisdom here that Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection before the 2003 war, flatly contradicting a recent report from the Senate's intelligence committee.

quote:

What's more the history does not go far back enough. 


You’re right.  There is a lot more history there that should be read.  And, hopefully, people who care about knowing the facts of the events leading up to the ground attack in Iraq will do the necessary study of the history for them self.  As has already been mentioned by others, here, the OP was ridiculously long and trying to put more history into it would have not been a good idea.
 
Some of the important events that were not included in the OP:

October 22, 1979:  President Jimmy Carter grants deposed Iranian leader, and longtime friend of the U.S., The Shah, asylum in the U.S., after being overthrown in the Iranian Revolution.

November 4, 1979:  52 Americans are taken hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, a direct result of Carter’s decision. 

December 1979: USSR invasion of Afghanistan, followed by the Carter Administration secretly sending U.S. $ to the anti-Soviet, Afghan Islamist factions to help run the Soviets out. 

January 1980: President Carter proclaimed the "Carter Doctrine," declaring that the U.S. was willing to use military force if necessary to prevent "an outside power" from conquering the Persian Gulf.

January, 20, 1981:  Ronald Reagan is sworn in and the hostages are released, after being held captive for 444 days.

1982:  At the request of the Lebanese government, the United States established a peacekeeping force between Muslims and Christians in Beirut.

October 23, 1983:  Islamic Jihad (Hizballah) truck loaded with 2,500 pounds of TNT crashed through the main gate of the U.S. Marine Headquarters in Beirut, Lebanon killing 241 USA Army, Marine and Navy servicemen and wounding 81. Two minutes later another Islamic Jihad (Hizballah) truck packed with explosives crashed into a French base two miles away killing 58 soldiers. The attacks were carried out by Hizballah with the help of Syrian intelligence and financed by Iran.

November 1984: U.S. and Iraq restored diplomatic relations, which had been ruptured in 1967 and Washington extended a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq.

April 1986: Bomb explodes in a Berlin discothèque, known to be a favorite place for American G.I.s to visit, resulting in the death of a serviceman and 63 American military personnel injured.  Libya was found to be responsible.
 
April 15, 1986: President Reagan authorized the US to carryout a series of air strikes on ground targets in Libya.  The attack was designed to halt Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s ability to export terrorism, offering him "incentives and reasons to alter his criminal behavior.”
 
October 31, 1998:  President Clinton signed H.R. 4655 into law, which instituted a policy of "regime change" against Iraq.

October 12, 2000: Suicide terrorists exploded a small boat alongside the USS Cole—a Navy Destroyer—as it was refueling in the Yemeni port of Aden, killing 17 American sailors and injuring many more.

quote:

Sheeple are not aware that at one time we supported Saddam, Bin Laden, and even the Taliban.

The U.S. (and pretty much every nation on the planet) has been friendly with nations that we later had conflicts with and vice-versa. 
 
quote:

I wonder what would have happened if we had just left them all alone.

Asking what if is really pretty futile, since we can’t go back in time and undo what’s been done.  It’s more productive, in my opinion, to examine history and the events that contributed to a conflict and learn from it so that a similar problem might be prevented or handled better in the future.

quote:

All we've really accomplished is to become targets, taking the heat off of Israel who actually deserves it. It's called drawing the fire.

Are you seriously saying that Israel “deserves” to be attacked? 

quote:

You happy now ?


Why should any of this make me happy?  War is a terrible thing.  As a 12-year Army veteran, the possibility of going to war was a threat that hung over me on a regular basis.  But, war has been a part of human life for more than 5,000 years and it, undoubtedly, will not be going away any time soon.  So, it’s better to try to understand how they start and how they might be avoided or, at least, lessened.
 
By the way, for anyone interested, there is a very interesting video on YouTube of President Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright in a November 11, 1998 Charlie Rose show answering questions about Iraq.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSjR9SJVobI

Madeleine Albright on Charlie Rose: November 11, 1998

Partial transcript of interview:

Rose: Tell me where we are and what demands we are making of the Iraqi regime.

Albright: Well, the demands are really very simple because they’re the demands of the international community, which is that he [Saddam Hussein] comply with the [UN] Security Council resolutions that were imposed at the end of the Gulf War.

Rose: And our options are?

Albright: Well, all the options are on the table.  And, the President has spoken today at a Veteran’s memorial service, basically saying that we prefer a diplomatic option but, if he does not comply, we are also prepared to use force.  And, what Saddam wants to do are two things that are incompatible.  He wants sanctions to be lifted and he wants to have the ability to retain his Weapons of Mass Destruction.  And, he can’t have it both ways.  Weapons of Mass Destruction are too threatening to his neighbors, to the stability of the region, and to us.

Rose: The United States is prepared to use force with or without Security Council approval.

Albright:  Well, we believe that we have authority to use force already and that is something that we have said over the years and, most recently, the Security Council has again restated that if he does not comply there would be the severest consequences.  But, we have never questioned our right to use force.

Rose: What can force achieve?

Albright:  Well, the whole problem here, Charlie, that we’re trying to do, is to deal with the problem of this man, who insists on preserving or being able to reconstitute his Weapons of Mass Destruction.  He has, actually, he’s one of the few people in the history of the world that has used chemical weapons against his own people.  So, this is not kind of a theoretical issue as to whether he’s prepared to use these weapons.  He has.  So, we consider his ability to have them and reconstitute them a threat to the neighbors and to us.  So, the purpose, if we were to use force, would be to significantly degrade his ability to reconstitute his Weapons of Mass Destruction and to make sure that he cannot threaten his neighbors.

joy
Master David's erotic-domestic slave

< Message edited by slavegirljoy -- 12/17/2008 3:49:21 PM >


_____________________________

Don't ask yourself what the world needs; ask yourself what makes you come alive. And then go and do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive. ~Dr. Howard Thurman

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 3:51:05 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slavegirljoy

It started with Saddam Hussein, who refused to abide by UN sanctions and continued, for more than 20 years, to have, threaten to use, and actually use Chemical and Biological Weapons on neighboring countries and on his own people, making the Middle East extremely unstable.

We forced the inspectors out before OIF (they were told to get out or get caught by the war.)  We also knew, from various sources (including one of Saddam's in-laws) that the WMD effort ground to a halt after Desert Storm.  Note that his use of chemical weapons was before
Desert Storm.  His annoyance to us after Desert Storm was mostly taking pot shots at us when we flew the borders of the "no fly zone".  (Seems like Desert Storm would be good enough an ass-stomping after the Stark attack.) 

Just before OIF, we started to systematically destroy the infrastructure of their SAM systems.  We had no intent to follow the UN resolutions.  We geared up well before the start of the war.

quote:

slavegirljoy

This post is here for anyone, who wants to look beyond the "Bush is evil" chants and actually read and listen to the record of events leading up to the decision to put troops on the ground in Iraq and rid the world of a menace.

Saddam was a paper tiger.  He was no threat to the US, and had nothing left to threaten the region with.  This was a great example of "red-on-red" deception; our enemy was blustering and talking up his bad-assedness to fend off attacks from other regional enemies.  (Sources with the country were very few due to the tight hold he had on his populace.) His mistake was thinking we wouldn't go after him again.  Reportedly he was looking for a last-minute negotiation which was simply too late.

quote:

slavegirljoy

It is a ridiculously long thread but, it is a condensed account of more than 20 years of history that deserves to be looked at and understood in order to see how we got to this point in time.  For anyone who cares about the facts, it's worth the time to examine the record
 
joy
Master David's erotic-domestic slave

I was very surprised to see all the quotes from so much of the "liberal mainstream media".  So the infamous liberal media is ok to quote as long as it supports your views, I guess.

Each and every one of the excuses we used to go to war could be, and are said, about countries like North Korea, Somalia, and the Sudan.  We used to say even worse about China and the old Soviet Union.  It's no wonder that countries try to get nukes (Pakistan, anyone? Proliferator of choice?); that seems to be the only thing that holds us off.

thornhappy

< Message edited by thornhappy -- 12/17/2008 3:53:10 PM >

(in reply to slavegirljoy)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 4:09:55 PM   
HunterS


Posts: 553
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: scarlethiney

Thanks Hunter for so succinctly explaining what LadyEllen meant. 
I'm not quite sure how she has been able to post and be understood without your help.

scarlet



What can I say...I am a giver
H.

(in reply to scarlethiney)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 4:15:29 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
The point was that just because the media says it, that doesn't mean I believe it.

T

(in reply to thornhappy)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 4:29:27 PM   
HunterS


Posts: 553
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

It's no wonder that countries try to get nukes (Pakistan, anyone? Proliferator of choice?); that seems to be the only thing that holds us off. 
 


Maybe that is why we have not attacked Cuba. 
Oh yeah dey gots em.
 
H.

(in reply to thornhappy)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 4:47:13 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Here's a challenge for you...define primary data vs. news coverage and then please, explain what makes them different...define what makes these primary data sources objective vs. the biased "hype" you believe slavegirljoy posted.


...seriously you need some help with that? Well, ok, but only 'cos it's Xmas.

Primary data: eye witness accounts, raw data, photographs.......things that are not hearsay.

The vast majority of the stuff Joy typed out wasn't raw data (though to be fair the list of US military deaths by conflict was). Most of that was various op ed pieces from newspapers and the like. Essentially, interpretations of raw data.  Reporting hearsay as facts.
  Ahhhhhhhhhhh...sort of like the soldiers the left always manages to find who have nothing but bad to say about the military and the war and Bush...like the soldier from Colorado who "allegedly" deserted because he just couldn't "fight a war he did not support".  Funny...I don't remember the contract I signed with the U.S. having that clause about being able to walk away from a contract you signed that states specifically that you might actually be called upon to do what the military is for...fight.  ~gasp~  Or the photographs taken inside of a military prison showing...what?  5, 6, 7?  soldiers clearly committing crimes.  By the way, where are all those photographs of the soldiers...the vast majority...doing things right?  I guess those got lost somewhere, eh? 

quote:

quote:

Then, show me the data confirming that the left takes its ideology only from these primary data sources.


....oh, you poor thing. Is your mind so narrow that you think the only two possible opinions are right wingers who support the Iraq war and left wingers who decry it?


No...my mind is open enough to accept the fact that the premise that led the president into war against Iraq was a faulty one while at the same time accepting of the fact that we have accomplished a lot of good there, including getting rid of a dictator not afraid to kill members of his own political and religious party as well as those opposed to him.  My mind is open enough to accept the fact that in this war, just as in every other war we've fought since Korea, there are bad people masquerading as soldiers but there are the good ones too...those who've built schools and hospitals and roads and continue to do their best to show the Iraquis a different way of governing themselves.  My mind is open enough to know that not everyone that is conservative and believes in the idea that, while not everything can or should be solved with a military solution, neither is everything solved with endless discussion and choruses of Kumbaya is a right-winger of the ilk I believe you are referring to.  And finally, my mind is open enough to believe that not everyone who has a problem with this war has a problem with every war nor is a member of the left wing.

How about your mind?  Can you tell me one war that the U. S. has ever engaged in that you feel it was right for us to have engaged in?

One last thing...you mentioned a FOX reporter fired for making stuff up.  Care to bring that name forward and what exactly he was making up?  Certainly can't be of the caliber of Dan Rather's "investigative reporting" into Bush's military career...you know, the stuff that brought Mr. Rather down?  And while FOX might be a part of the "mainstream media" in that it has a news division, can you honestly compare FOX to CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, C-Span in any manner except to contrast one conservative voice to how many liberal voices?

And by the way, philosophy...your condescending and derisive nature?  While they may endear you to certain others...though not all...who think as you do, really isn't called for when I have said nothing to attack you personally. 

< Message edited by CreativeDominant -- 12/17/2008 5:00:19 PM >

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 5:55:59 PM   
HunterS


Posts: 553
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


Ahhhhhhhhhhh...sort of like the soldiers the left always manages to find who have nothing but bad to say about the military and the war and Bush...like the soldier from Colorado who "allegedly" deserted because he just couldn't "fight a war he did not support".  Funny...I don't remember the contract I signed with the U.S. having that clause about being able to walk away from a contract you signed that states specifically that you might actually be called upon to do what the military is for...fight.  ~gasp~

Are you saying that you have no moral obligation to do what you feel is right just because you signed a contract?
This must mean that you do not approve of divorce.  Because you sign a contract to be married "till death do us part"
The soldiers who have refused to fight...at least the ones I have read about...had already done a tour and decided based on their personal experience that what they were doing was tantamount to a "war crime".
When you were in the military,if you were told to do something that you felt was a "war crime" would you have done it because you had signed a contract or would you have taken a shot at a little brig time to keep faith with your conscience?


Or the photographs taken inside of a military prison showing...what?  5, 6, 7?  soldiers clearly committing crimes. 
How many people that were not in the photograph were necessary for that to occure?  I am sure you are aware of the term "chain of command".  That did not occure in a vaccum.


By the way, where are all those photographs of the soldiers...the vast majority...doing things right?  I guess those got lost somewhere, eh? 
Not at all.  They are on the six o'clock news with the rest of the propaganda that the administration is using to pimp this war.



No...my mind is open enough to accept the fact that the premise that led the president into war against Iraq was a faulty one while at the same time accepting of the fact that we have accomplished a lot of good there, including getting rid of a dictator
How about all the dictators around the world that we support?

not afraid to kill members of his own political and religious party as well as those opposed to him.  My mind is open enough to accept the fact that in this war, just as in every other war we've fought since Korea, there are bad people masquerading as soldiers but there are the good ones too...those who've built schools and hospitals and roads

Do you mean the schools,hospitals and roads that we destroyed?  Aren't we the benevolent ones for fixing what we fucked up.  Dang give me a medal.



and continue to do their best to show the Iraquis a different way of governing themselves.
Oh my, one of the oldest cultures on the planet needs help from one of the youngest to teach them how to govern themselves...."now ain't that a knee slapper"


My mind is open enough to know that not everyone that is conservative and believes in the idea that, while not everything can or should be solved with a military solution, neither is everything solved with endless discussion and choruses of Kumbaya is a right-winger of the ilk I believe you are referring to.  And finally, my mind is open enough to believe that not everyone who has a problem with this war has a problem with every war nor is a member of the left wing.

How about your mind?  Can you tell me one war that the U. S. has ever engaged in that you feel it was right for us to have engaged in?
The Revolutionary war and no other,all the rest have been wars of aggrandizement and aggression.




< Message edited by HunterS -- 12/17/2008 6:40:00 PM >

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 6:28:16 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

It's no wonder that countries try to get nukes (Pakistan, anyone? Proliferator of choice?); that seems to be the only thing that holds us off. 



Maybe that is why we have not attacked Cuba. 
Oh yeah dey gots em.
 
H.

We did try.  Remember the Bay of Pigs (I don't but I've read about it)?

thornhappy

(in reply to HunterS)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 6:39:52 PM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
One last thing...you mentioned a FOX reporter fired for making stuff up.  Care to bring that name forward and what exactly he was making up? 

I don't know which case that was, but there was recently (last 3 months) a scandal about a bunch of civilians killed in Afghanistan by an airstrike.  The locals claimed a dramatically larger number than the Army's figures. The Army believed the first report of few casualties, saying that the deaths were exaggerated. 

Their source was Oliver North (reporting for Fox), and it was his cameraman that did an admittedly cursory check.  The Army later ran a full investigation and the numbers came up much closer to the villager's claims.

As a side topic, 2 "liberal" newspapers, the Washington Post and the NYTimes, beat the drum for war right up to the invasion.  Any doubts about the intelligence, motives, etc. were buried in the back of the A sections. 

thornhappy

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 6:55:26 PM   
HunterS


Posts: 553
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

It's no wonder that countries try to get nukes (Pakistan, anyone? Proliferator of choice?); that seems to be the only thing that holds us off. 



Maybe that is why we have not attacked Cuba. 
Oh yeah dey gots em.
 
H.

We did try.  Remember the Bay of Pigs (I don't but I've read about it)?

thornhappy



The "Bay of Pigs" fiasco happened in 1961 before Castro had tactical nukes. 
I was in Cuba for the "misslie crissis" when LeMay &co. wanted to invade.
If they had, the entire invasion force, some 40,000 marines and their accompanying naval support and the base at Gitmo would have been evaporateed.
 
H.

(in reply to thornhappy)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype - 12/17/2008 10:05:08 PM   
slavegirljoy


Posts: 1207
Joined: 11/6/2006
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

We forced the inspectors out before OIF (they were told to get out or get caught by the war.) 


We didn't “force” the inspectors out.  We didn't have that authority.  The UN weapons inspectors were advised by the US to leave Iraq on March 17, 2003, 3 days prior to the start of the war.  This was a “heads up” to them to get out of Dodge before all Hell breaks loose. 
 
As it was, Iraq had only reluctantly agreed to new inspections in late 2002, as required by UN Security Council Resolution 1441.  And, the results of these inspections were mixed, with the inspectors discovering no WMD programs but concluding that Iraqi declarations failed to prove that all such weapons had been properly destroyed.
 
On January 27, 2003, Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, in his statement to the UN Security Council said, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.” 

Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.

"The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."  Statement by Hans Blix to the UN Security Council, January 27, 2003, (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0127entblixrep.htm)
quote:

We also knew, from various sources (including one of Saddam's in-laws) that the WMD effort ground to a halt after Desert Storm.  Note that his use of chemical weapons was before Desert Storm. 

As late as November 11, 1998, some 7 years after Desert Storm, President Clinton’s administration was expressing serious concerns about Saddam Hussein’s lack of compliance with the UN Security Council’s resolution, requiring the verified destruction of his Weapons of Mass Destruction, his ability to reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, and his continued threat to use chemical weapons against neighboring countries.  Clinton's administration continually cited the threat that Hussein posed to the Middle East and to us.
Madeleine Albright on Charlie Rose: November 11, 1998, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSjR9SJVobI)

quote:

His annoyance to us after Desert Storm was mostly taking pot shots at us when we flew the borders of the "no fly zone".  (Seems like Desert Storm would be good enough an ass-stomping after the Stark attack.)
Just before OIF, we started to systematically destroy the infrastructure of their SAM systems.  We had no intent to follow the UN resolutions.  We geared up well before the start of the war.


His "annoyance" of firing Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) and Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAM) at Coalition aircraft flying to enforce the no-fly zone happened from December 1998 to March 1999, during President Clinton’s administration, following, Operation Desert Fox, a four-day bombing campaign over Iraq, which resulted in Iraq announcing that they would no longer recognize the no-fly zones and began attacking Coalition aircraft.


U.S. aircraft over northern Iraq came under almost daily fire from Iraqi surface-to-air missile sites and anti-aircraft guns. U.S. aircraft responded by bombing Iraqi air-defense sites which fired on them, utilizing laser-guided bombs as well as AGM-88 HARM missiles and AGM-130 long rage air-to-surface missiles.http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1792
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/northern_watch-1999.htm

quote:

Saddam was a paper tiger.  He was no threat to the US, and had nothing left to threaten the region with.  This was a great example of "red-on-red" deception; our enemy was blustering and talking up his bad-assedness to fend off attacks from other regional enemies.  (Sources with the country were very few due to the tight hold he had on his populace.) His mistake was thinking we wouldn't go after him again.  Reportedly he was looking for a last-minute negotiation which was simply too late.
 
Yes, hindsight, with the benefit of his full disclosure, after being captured and spilling his guts to the FBI investigators, is 20/20.  If only he had been so forthcoming in the years prior to 2003.  If he had complied with the UN Security Council’s resolutions during the Clinton Administration, there would have been no question about whether he did or did not have WMD. 
 
Just six weeks prior to Clinton’s Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, he had signed the Iraq Liberation Act, authorizing Saddam’s overthrow—an initiative supported unanimously in the Senate and by a margin of 360 to 38 in the House.

The act states, in part:
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with
UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring
activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency
and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public
Law 105–235, which declared that ‘‘the Government of Iraq
is in material and unacceptable breach of its international
obligations’’ and urged the President ‘‘to take appropriate
action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws
of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations.’’.
IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998, (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf)

President Clinton's first explicit call for a "new government" in Baghdad and his pledge to implement a new plan for arming opponents of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein heartened opposition leaders yesterday.
 
Clinton's call for a new government in Baghdad yesterday, the official said, represents an explicit change in emphasis that dates back to a speech Albright made in March 1997 about U.S. policy toward Saddam Hussein.
Saddam's Iraqi Foes Heartened By Clinton, By Vernon Loeb, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, November 16, 1998; Page A17, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/iraq111698b.htm

Basically, Bush followed-through on what Clinton had initiated less than 4 years earlier.  Coincidentally, the original name of the war in Iraq, prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, was Operation Iraqi Liberation, which is very similar to Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act.
quote:

I was very surprised to see all the quotes from so much of the "liberal mainstream media".  So the infamous liberal media is ok to quote as long as it supports your views, I guess.

The term, “liberal mainstream media” has never been used by me, not ever.  It's an idiotic term that is irrelevant, in my opinion.  So, that statement simply doesn't apply to me or to the news accounts that were cited in my OP.
 
joy
Master David's erotic-domestic slave

_____________________________

Don't ask yourself what the world needs; ask yourself what makes you come alive. And then go and do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive. ~Dr. Howard Thurman

(in reply to thornhappy)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Iraq War - Know the History, Not Just the Hype Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109