RE: Now THAT'S funny... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tweakabelle -> RE: Now THAT'S funny... (4/1/2011 6:25:15 PM)

The announcement, by US Defence Secretary Gates^ that US forces engaged in the Libyan arena will stand down as of Sunday, really ought to seal this particular argument.

The Iraq fiasco which began on 20 Mar 2003 has lasted over 8 years and resulted in almost 5000 US military fatalities*. US involvement in Libya is measured in days with 0 (zero) US casualties.

Further comparisons of US involvement in Libya to Iraq by Obama's critics will be seen as cheap political point scoring, devoid of any basis in fact.

^ http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-to-stand-down-in-libya-20110402-1cs3c.html

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_(2003)




stellauk -> RE: Now THAT'S funny... (4/2/2011 6:01:12 AM)

Hence

[image]local://upfiles/1087187/ED66AD5B4FB24A7D9060EAE586C7CBF5.jpg[/image]




CreativeDominant -> RE: Now THAT'S funny... (4/5/2011 7:34:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


Funny how when it is a Republican president...who DID have congressional approval...did it, then it is wrong. Funny how we have NOT taken their oil wells. Funny how there IS no U.S. company that is "in charge/ownership" of Iraq. Funny how we were not possibly helping Al-Queda when we went into Iraq. Funny just how precise the U.S. Air Force pilots have suddenly gotten that there is NO collateral civilian damage, only Kha-daffy supporters. Funny how, despite Obama;s swearing to the "fact" that there were no Americans on the ground, it turns out that there WERE C.I.A. operatives on the ground.




The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Leaked portions of Iraq's "Full, Final and Complete" disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips. Both companies have since undergone reorganization and Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum is now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and discount fossil fuel company, while Alcolac International has since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc.[24]
http://en.wikipedia.orgwiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack#International_sources_for_technology_and_chemical_precursors
Differing perspectives, I guess...but I thought that the more interesting paragraph was located just above yours. That would be this one:
The know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained by Saddam's regime from foreign firms.[22] The largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie Ltd.) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[23]


quote:

Republican administrations do have such a unique intimate history with Saddam Hussein, don't they? No need to take my word for it of course - you can read all about how they cuddled up to each other, along with seeing a cute pic of Reagan's envoy, a certain Donald Rhttp://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nps/ccc_calabrese_nov04.pdfumsfeld (remember him?) shaking hands with none other than Saddam himself at this National Security Archive link:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
There is no doubt that our country is in a continuous tightrope-walking exercise. The notion that almost any country will always be our friend is about as wrong-headed s the notion that almost any country will always be our enemy. Hence, that is why I found the above damn near as interesting as some democratic administration's relationship with other terror states, in this case...Libya.. For a look at this from the perspective of someone looking at both democratic and republican administrations, folks might want to read what is to be found here....
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nps/ccc_calabrese_nov04.pdf

Of course, it DOES have some bad to lay on the Dems side so some might not be able to handle it.




joether -> RE: Now THAT'S funny... (4/5/2011 2:15:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I suspect more people here on the left acknowledged this is a war, far faster than the right did in the case of Iraq.  I remember some 2 years after having discussions with posters still here that it was not a war, rather a police action or other various and sundry euphemisms. 


Well, not saying that there might not be some poster who made that comment or argument, but I'm pretty comfortable saying that the majority of people - left, right or center - acknowledged the Iraq War as a war.

Perhaps you're confusing it with the Vietnam War? [8D]


Majority of people would be wrong on the defination of 'war' under the US Constitution's defination. The last time the United States of America formally declared war, was against Japan and Germany in 1941. Since that time, there have been a number of military engagements that have been authorized by Congress, but not declared war on: Vietnam War, Gulf War, even Iraq War.

So yes, Iraq and Afghanistan are just 'war zones' or 'authorized engagements', but we have not declared war on either.

Information Used





Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125