|
ISI Forum Forums General Discussion Soap Boxes, High Horses, and General Grievances can anybody answer this question ?|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
New Member |
Having served in Desert Storm I can mention a few things. WMD is a broad discription, so you must be specific with the weapon system. Nuclear weapons were not an immediate threat due to the Israeli intervention you mentioned. Biological weapons are difficult to deliver, epsecially in the desert, and have little effect on protected soldiers. That leaves chemical weapons. Again, difficult to deliver, but Saddam did it with Iran and the Kurds. But chemical delivery requires either an artillery shell, a rocket/missile, or aerial spraying platform. Artillery has to get close enough to be effective, and coalition forces were highly mobile, so placing the weapons in tactical positions that would be effective became impossible. There were many SCUDs capable of chemical delivery, but aiming them was difficult, and they are ineffective against battlefield forces. Aerial spraying was made impossible by U.S. airpower's domination of the skies.
Also, a little bird told Saddam that the use of WMDs in Desert Storm would result in a nuclear response from the U.S. While it was not true, it certainly scared him. He had already miscalculated in thinking no one would try to eject him from Kuwait. Remember, unless you are using NBC weapons as a terror device, they have limited battlefield utility unless they are part of a larger strategy. By decapitating the Iraqi commmand and control we made their use impractical. All the things I mentioned about the U.S. apply even more so to Israel. The Israelis would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon if they were attacked with a WMD and suffered a large number of casualties. My opinion is that what remains of the Iraqi WMD program is now in Syria. |
|||
|
|
Member |
quote:What did you experience in Desert Storm ? quote:The case against Saddam Hussein was that he will not hesitate to use WMD or to hand them over to the terrorists and I am saying that both conclusions are not based on history quote:There is no indication Saddam would have used nuclear weapons against Israel or the US according to Charles Duelfer and Saddam's intention was to protect himself against Iran quote:So if biological weapons are ineffective, why did we go to war ? quote:Yes, and after President Reagan scolded Saddam Hussein for using chemical weapons against the Kurds, Saddam Hussein listened to President Reagan and did not use chemical weapons again and the proof is when the Kurds and Shias rebelled against Saddam Hussein in the early nineties, chemical weapons were not used against them by Saddam Hussein quote:Could it also be used by the terrorists in the west bank in a suicide mission. Even though Saddam was angered by Israel and the US for many reasons, he never handed those chemical weapons to the terrorists in the West Bank. quote:Again another indication why war was not necessary against Saddam Hussein if chemical weapons are really ineffective quote:another reason why war was not necessary against Saddam Hussein since SCUDS are ineffective against battelfield forces..........IF WE WERE AFRAID OF SADDAM HUSSEIN BEING A DANGER TO US ARMED FORCES, YOUR POINTS JUST PROVE THAT THERE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A WAR.......ONE OF THE REASONS STATED FOR WAR AGAINST SADDAM WAS THAT HE WAS A DANGER TO THE US........HOW CAN A MAN BE A DANGER TO THE US IF HIS WEAPONS SYSTEMS ARE INEFFECTIVE quote:another reason we should not have gone to war with Saddam Hussein because if his armed forces were so ineffective, how could he be a threat to the US ? quote:So your saying Saddam Hussein can be deterred from using WMD and if he can be deterred from using WMD, why did we go to war against him ? quote:So Saddam Hussein was scared ? If Saddam Hussein was scared about the US, why did we invade his country ? if he was deterred by the US ? quote:Yes, Saddam Hussein underestimated the determination of the US, but if we did not eject him from Kuwait, we would not have stationed US military troops in Saudi Arabia and if we did not station US military troops in Saudi Arabia, we would not have had the attacks on September 11, 2001 because Osama Bin Laden stated that the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia defiled his religion and thats why Osama attacked the US on Sept 11, 2001. If the western world was afraid that Saddam's control of Kuwait would hike up the price of oil, that conclusion is not true either because during the Arab oil embargo against the west during the seventies, Saddam broke the embargo and sold cheap oil to the US. quote:what are NBC weapons ? quote:so if the Iraqi command was vulnerable to the US, why did we go to war ? Saddam proved himself weak against the US, so why did we go to war with him ? quote:Yes, Saddam was very angry at Israel for destroying his nuclear reactors and yet he did not hand over WMD to the terrorists in the West Bank because Saddam was clearly acting rationally and he was deterred from helping the terrorists in the West Bank with WMD and also he was wanting to be friends with President Reagan who did remove Saddam from the list of nations sponsoring palestinian organizations quote:Yes, so Saddam was acting rationally and he was deterred, so why did we go to war with him ? quote:Well, our ally Pakistan is also or at least in the past has spread WMD programs to North Korea, Libya and Iran through the A Q Khan network.............so do we go to war against Pakistan because WMD programs are being spread around ? if Syria wanted Iraq's WMD program, it could have also got it from Pakistan and North Korea. Russia has also helped countries with their WMD program, does that mean we go to war against Russia ? IF SADDAM DID FINALLY AFTER 25 YEARS HAND OVER WMD TO ANYBODY, ITS ONLY BECAUSE WE INVADED HIM AND NOT BECAUSE HE WAS READY TO HAND THEM TO ANYBODY OR TO USE THEM, RIGHT ? |
|||
|
|
New Member |
What did you experience in Desert Storm ?
I experienced Iraqi soldiers who were placed in the desertr by Saddam to be human speed bumps for our invasion. Many had no weapons, they had NO medical care, and most were malnourished and sick. This is not true of the Republican Guard, but of the several thousand regular infantry I treated (I was a paramedic), it was. The case against Saddam Hussein was that he will not hesitate to use WMD or to hand them over to the terrorists and I am saying that both conclusions are not based on history. I'm sorry, I do not understand your statement. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds. There is no indication Saddam would have used nuclear weapons against Israel or the US according to Charles Duelfer and Saddam's intention was to protect himself against Iran. I'm sorry. You are not using your critical thinking skills. Saddam considered himself the next Saladin (who ironically was Kurdish), and wanted to unite all of the Middle East under his rule. Read any bio. Saddam did not want to protect himself from Iran, he attacked Iran and used chemical weapons. Charles Duelfer's report is not the final chapter in this story either. You have to weigh the empirical evidence: ethnic cleansing, totalitarian state, political murders, genocide, use of weapons of mass destruction, invasion of neighbors, torture of children in front of their parents... Frankly, I am appalled that you are such a Saddam apologist. So if biological weapons are ineffective, why did we go to war ? Your question is illogical. The effectiveness of biological weapons on the battlefield was not the issue. They are highly effective in an urban environment, and that's where they would be used: Tel Aviv. Yes, and after President Reagan scolded Saddam Hussein for using chemical weapons against the Kurds, Saddam Hussein listened to President Reagan and did not use chemical weapons again and the proof is when the Kurds and Shias rebelled against Saddam Hussein in the early nineties, chemical weapons were not used against them by Saddam Hussein Wow. Scolded? The Kurds and Shias rebelled following Desert Storm. Iraq's army had just been decimated and was only allowed to fly helicopters afterwards. He did not have the capacity at the time to use chemical weapons because he had just lost a war and we had bombed his military infrastructure. His air force was gone and we enforced a strict no-fly zone (and he kept trying to shoot our planes down for 10 years). Plus, how would Saddam be using chemical weapons at the same time we were destroying his stockpiles? Could it also be used by the terrorists in the west bank in a suicide mission. Even though Saddam was angered by Israel and the US for many reasons, he never handed those chemical weapons to the terrorists in the West Bank. Let us not forget that Saddam paid suicide bombers' families $10K. Also, how would Saddam get weapons to the West Bank? Look at a map and explain to me the route he would take that would bypass U.S. and Israeli inspections. Sorry, there's no FedEx in Iraq. Again another indication why war was not necessary against Saddam Hussein if chemical weapons are really ineffective Chemical weapons are highly effective, but it depends on the target, environment and delivery system. You need to research this more before you draw conslusions. another reason why war was not necessary against Saddam Hussein since SCUDS are ineffective against battelfield forces..........IF WE WERE AFRAID OF SADDAM HUSSEIN BEING A DANGER TO US ARMED FORCES, YOUR POINTS JUST PROVE THAT THERE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A WAR.......ONE OF THE REASONS STATED FOR WAR AGAINST SADDAM WAS THAT HE WAS A DANGER TO THE US........HOW CAN A MAN BE A DANGER TO THE US IF HIS WEAPONS SYSTEMS ARE INEFFECTIVE Hello? What about the Israelis targeted by the Scuds, and the American soldiers killed in their barracks? Do you remember what the Germans did during WWII? They launched V1 and V2 rockets from Germany and France into London. They were crudely targeted, but they still killed thousands and were a weapon of terror. The Scud is the same thing as the V1 or V2: a terror weapon. Just because it cannot target a specific military asset does not mean it is not still a threat. another reason we should not have gone to war with Saddam Hussein because if his armed forces were so ineffective, how could he be a threat to the US ? You have got to be kidding. Saddam fielded the 4th largest army in the world prior to Desert Storm, and it was made up of top-of-the-line Soviet tanks, artillery, rockets and man portable systems. Furthermore, the issue prior to Desert Storm was not the threat Saddam's conventional forces posed to the U.S. Those forces posed a threat to the region. Saddam's threat to the U.S. after Desert Storm was his WMD program, and that those weapons could be used on U.S. soil. Specifically, Serin gas, Anthrax, or a dirty bomb. So your saying Saddam Hussein can be deterred from using WMD and if he can be deterred from using WMD, why did we go to war against him ? Because it would not be Saddam using a WMD, it would be a third party. Saddam had no delivery system for a WMD beyond several hundred miles, the range of the Scuds he had at the time. This is why he was working on an advanced Scud that could reach as far as Southern Europe. So Saddam Hussein was scared ? If Saddam Hussein was scared about the US, why did we invade his country ? if he was deterred by the US ? Ugh! Saddam never thought we would invade, that was the whole point of his invasion of Kuwait - he thought no one could do anything about it. If the Saudis had not let us stage on their soil, we never would have had Desert Storm. What Saddam was scared of was a nuclear response from us should he escalate the conventional warfare that was already going on. The threat was made by us once the fighting started and it worked. Yes, Saddam Hussein underestimated the determination of the US, but if we did not eject him from Kuwait, we would not have stationed US military troops in Saudi Arabia and if we did not station US military troops in Saudi Arabia, we would not have had the attacks on September 11, 2001 because Osama Bin Laden stated that the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia defiled his religion and thats why Osama attacked the US on Sept 11, 2001. If the western world was afraid that Saddam's control of Kuwait would hike up the price of oil, that conclusion is not true either because during the Arab oil embargo against the west during the seventies, Saddam broke the embargo and sold cheap oil to the US. First, Suadi Arabia was next on Iraq's list and they invited us in to protect them. They could not have repelled an Iraqi invasion. This is why we had been building bases there for years: for U.S. forces to defend Suadi Arabia. Where do you think all our planes landed? Municipal airports? No, modern air bases. Why did we have stae-of-the-art command centers? Becasuse this was a scenario we foresaw. Did you know that months prior to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, Norman Schwarzkopf and Central Command had just completed a war game where the scenario was Iraq invading Kuwait? The invasion was no suprise because we have always known that Saddam wanted control of the Burgan oil fields. Also, no one could have predicted Osama. He is a wild card and it is silly for you to include his actions in your arguments. Finally, Saddam broke the oil embargo for money, not to aid the U.S. what are NBC weapons ? Nuclear, biological, and chemical. so if the Iraqi command was vulnerable to the US, why did we go to war ? Saddam proved himself weak against the US, so why did we go to war with him ? Do you realize that your arguments are illogical? We went to war precisely because we could win. You never go to war against an enemy you can't defeat! Would you pick a fight with a guy holding a handgun? No. Not unless you had a machine gun. Yes, Saddam was very angry at Israel for destroying his nuclear reactors and yet he did not hand over WMD to the terrorists in the West Bank because Saddam was clearly acting rationally and he was deterred from helping the terrorists in the West Bank with WMD and also he was wanting to be friends with President Reagan who did remove Saddam from the list of nations sponsoring palestinian organizations Wow. Do you know why Saddam cozied up to Reagan? Because Iran had kidnapped 444 Americans and deposed the Shah, our longtime ally. Iran was now our enemy, and Saddam saw the U.S. as a means to help him win what became a 10-year war with Iran. Your understanding of the motitvations is really weak. Yes, so Saddam was acting rationally and he was deterred, so why did we go to war with him ? Tell me, what rational person invades another country, and then launches missiles into a third country to try to further a regional conflict? Saddam launched Scuds against Israel to provoke them. If Israel responded, it would have broken-up the coalition which included all the other Arab states except Iran. He did not need to use WMD's to provoke them, but if he had, Israel would have responded with a nuclear option and there would be nothing left of Iraq for Saddam to rule. Saddam never acted rationally. Get that notion out of your head. Well, our ally Pakistan is also or at least in the past has spread WMD programs to North Korea, Libya and Iran through the A Q Khan network.............so do we go to war against Pakistan because WMD programs are being spread around ? if Syria wanted Iraq's WMD program, it could have also got it from Pakistan and North Korea. Russia has also helped countries with their WMD program, does that mean we go to war against Russia ? IF SADDAM DID FINALLY AFTER 25 YEARS HAND OVER WMD TO ANYBODY, ITS ONLY BECAUSE WE INVADED HIM AND NOT BECAUSE HE WAS READY TO HAND THEM TO ANYBODY OR TO USE THEM, RIGHT ? You amaze me. You do not do any research, do you? First, Pakistan's government did not spread WMD programs. That was Abdul Qadeer Khan, their chief nuclear scientist, who was enriching himself. He led a worldwide black market in nuclear technology, and Pervez Musharraf granted him clemency after he confessed to selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Do you know why he was let off the hook? Because he made Pakistan a nuclear power and thus able to defend itself against India. Pakistan and India are long time enemies, so Khan is a national hero. Next, have you ever heard of the Cold War? It is that little standoff we had with the USSR for four decades while they armed countries against us. We did not go to war with the USSR, and we will not go to war with Russia for one very big reason: we all have nuclear weapons. MAD: mutually assured destruction. I have indulged your questions, but I have to say that you appear to be operating on personal bias that is not supported by any facts. What I see is that you are an anti-war Saddam apologist. You have no understanding of the broader political and historical issues and your arguments defy reason and logic. Your same arguments would also excuse Hitler. Deutschland uber alles, nicht war? You can be against the war all you want, but in my view your support of Saddam Hussein is born of ignorance and a callous disregard for the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children he executed to further his sick agenda. Remember, this forum that you are enjoying right now never existed under Saddam's rule because there was no free speech. Should there be any doubt in your mind, watch the video tape of the session of Iraqi Parliment where Saddam named traitors of the state and had them dragged outside and shot. That was the consequence of disagreeing with a despot. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Dear Steve,
Before I get into your comments, I must thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. It shows that you do really care about the issues facing our nation and I thank you for that. When I give a reason against the Iraq war, its only one of many reasons, so just don't look at that one reason and draw your conclusions, ok ? Try to look at all my reasons before you come to any conclusion, thanks. You state that there were several reasons why we went to war against Iraq and according to that logic, I am sure you accept the fact that there are several reasons why I opposed the war.
Its really sad what you wrote about the Iraqi soldiers. So we killed a lot of Iraqi soldiers who really could not fight ? How is Iraq a threat to us when its soldiers are in such a pitiful condition ? How can we justify liberating a people by killing off Iraqi soldiers who are either forced to fight or brainwashed from the time they were little...........liberation through mass killing of poorly equipped, sick and malnourished, unskilled, brainwashed or forced to fight Iraqi soldiers is not what the spread of freedom is all about and liberating Iraq civilians by causing collateral damage that has either killed or maimed tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children is not what the march of freedom should be all about (remember, this is only one of several reasons why i was against the war, so please don't come to your final conclusion, thanks) Here again, you prove a very important point, that the regular Iraqi army was weak and another reason why we should not have fought them...........ITS PITIFUL WHEN A STRONG ARMY LIKE THE US PRACTICALLY MASSACRES AN ILL EQUIPPED AND MALNOURISHED AND SICK IRAQI ARMY ......THIS IS NOT RIGHT ...........I never bought the idea that Iraq was a strong country and a danger to the world (MAYBE A DANGER TO TINY KUWAIT AND THE KURDS BUT NOT CAPABLE OF CONQUERING IRAN OR THE WORLD) You say the Republican Guard was the best, but didn't we destroy them in short order and if we did, our intelligence would have known that fact before the war even started, so why did we go to war against such a weak country ? WAS IRAQ REALLY A THREAT TO THE US ? I guess I was not clear enough............the two main reasons why we went to war against Iraq is that SADDAM WOULD NOT HESITATE TO USE HIS WMD AGAINST THE US OR ISRAEL AND HE WOULD NOT HESITATE TO HAND OVER WMD TO TERRORISTS...........WE HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH SADDAM USING HIS WMD AGAINST IRAN, IN FACT WE ONLY SCOLDED HIM FOR HIS WMD USE AGAINST THE KURDS BUT NOT AGAINST IRAN _ You need to explain to me why my conclusions are wrong. Not once in the past 25 years has Saddam used WMD against Israel or the US, so why would he use nuclear weapons against the US or Israel knowing fully well that he would not have a country to rule over if he did use nuclear weapons against the US or Israel......in fact this is your conclusion too , when you said Israel would have destroyed Iraq if nuclear weapons or wmd were used by Iraq. FURTHERMORE, THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM WANTED TO BE OUR ALLY ..........SADDAM TOLD CHARLES DUELFER (in the late nineties) THROUGH HIS OFFICIALS THAT HE WANTED TO START A DIALOG WITH THE US AND WANTED TO BE AMERICA'S BEST FRIEND IN THE MIDDLE EAST If Saddam did finally unite the Middle East, he probably would have got rid of Islamic fundamentalism that breeds terrorism. Saudi Arabia has numerous religious schools that preach the overthrow of governments to establish Islamic theocracies and out of these schools of thought came Osama Bin Laden. Saddam would have closed down the religious schools in Saudi Arabia. I am not condoning any of Saddam's actions, but the fact is Saddam hated people like Osama Bin Laden. SADDAM HAS HAD A LONG HISTORY OF KILLING OFF MUSLIM EXTREMISTS......I HAVE CHATTED WITH MUSLIMS WHO HATE SADDAM AND LOVE OSAMA BIN LADEN........THATS BECAUSE SADDAM KILLED PEOPLE LIKE OSAMA AND THE REASON WHY MUSLIMS LOVE OSAMA BIN LADEN IS BECAUSE THEY THINK OF OSAMA AS A RELIGIOUS PERSON, BUT THEY DON'T THINK OF SADDAM AS A RELIGIOUS PERSON BUT RATHER AN ENEMY OF ISLAM. Please do recommend a good bio of Saddam Hussein, thanks. Maybe you can copy excerpts and post it here, thanks. The reason Saddam attacked Iran is because he was afraid the Islamic theocracy of Iran would be spread to Iraq and wanting to conserve his power, he launched a preemptive strike against Iran. ACTUALLY SADDAM'S DOCTRINE OF PREEMPTION PRE DATED PRESIDENT BUSH'S DOCTRINE OF PREEMPTION. Charles Duelfer who has researched the WMD program of Iraq clearly stated that Iraq wanted WMD to protect itself against Iran, just like you mentioned that Pakistan has nuclear weapons to protect itself against India and don't forget, Pakistan has also attacked India in the past. AS FOR IRAQ USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST IRAN, IRAN ALSO USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST IRAQ AND THE UN HAD TO REPRIMAND BOTH IRAN AND IRAQ FOR USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST EACH OTHER DURING THE EARLY 80s. If Charles Duelfer who has spent years in Iraq studying and inspecting Saddam Hussein's WMD program and his report is not sufficient, what will be ? REMEMBER, CHARLES DUELFER, WHO IS A GREAT SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT BUSH, WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN THE NINETIES, INSPECTING SADDAM'S WMD PROGRAM, SO CHARLES DUELFER HAS BEEN AT THIS FOR YEARS NOW. The reason for going to war against Iraq was very specific.........Saddam using WMD against the US or Israel and Saddam handing over WMD to terrorists........all the other reasons were secondary, because if you are talking about going to war for humanitarian reasons, then why did we not take action against Rwanda OR AGAINST POL POT IN CAMBODIA and during the year 2002 when we were preparing for war against Iraq, millions already were mass murdered in the Congo and Sudan and mass murders were going on in 2002 in the Congo and Sudan and DURING 2002 NO MASS MURDERS WERE GOING ON IN IRAQ....MOST OF SADDAM'S HUMAN RIGHTS ATROCITIES HAPPENED IN THE LATE 80s when he did use WMD and the early 90s when he put down the kurdish and shia rebellions but without the use of WMD.... IS INVASION OF NEIGHBORS A REASON ? USSR INVADED AFGHANISTAN AND SUPPLIED NORTH VIETNAM WITH WEAPONS THAT KILLED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF US SOLDIERS, CHINA INVADED INDIA AND SUPPLIED WEAPONS TO NORTH VIETNAM THAT KILLED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF US SOLDIERS, CHINA INVADED TIBET AND CHINA KILLED THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN NORTH KOREA, INDIA INVADED GOA AND BHUTAN, PAKISTAN ATTACKED INDIA, NORTH KOREA INVADED SOUTH KOREA, NORTH VIETNAM INVADED SOUTH VIETNAM.......THE US INVADED HAWAII, THE PHILIPPINES, MEXICAN AND INDIAN LANDS.. AND I COULD GO ON ABOUT BRITISH, FRENCH, DUTCH, PORTUGUESE AND SPANISH IMPERIALISM......IF INVASION IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE ATTACKED IRAQ, THEN NOT ONLY SHOULD WE PROSECUTE OURSELVES FOR OUR VARIOUS INVASIONS BUT WE NEED TO KICK A LOT OF COUNTRIES OUT OF THE COUNTRIES AND AREAS THEY HAVE SINCE INVADED AND OCCUPIED. Why do you say I am an apologist for Saddam ? An apologist for Saddam would say that Saddam did no wrong........did I say Saddam did no wrong ? When President Reagan removed Saddam from the list of states sponsoring Palestinian liberation organizations, was President Reagan an apologist for Saddam Hussein ? off course not. When Mr. Rumsfeld, our present secretary of defense, shook the hands of Saddam Hussein IN 1983 WHEN SADDAM WAS ACTIVELY USING WMD AGAINST IRAN, WAS MR RUMSFELD A SADDAM APOLOGIST ? OFF COURSE NOT..When we were allied with Stalin during world war 2 when he was mass murdering tens of thousands of his own people, were we apologists for Stalin or communism ? off course not. When we hired Nazis after world war 2 to work in intelligence operations against the Soviets, were we apologists for Nazism ? off course not.......Just because I want to find diplomatic solutions to problems or try to explain the actions of Saddam Hussein, does not mean I am an apologist, does it ? When a psychologist is trying to explain the actions of a serial killer, is that psychologist an apologist for that serial killer ? off course not. Why do you say my question is illogical, you were the one who brought up the fact that biological weapons against our troops would be ineffective and all i was saying is if one of the reasons for going to war against Iraq is that Iraq would use WMD against the US, than if those weapons are ineffective, that just removes one of the reasons that Saddam was so dangerous to our troops. I NEVER SAID THAT BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS WAS THE ONLY REASON WHY WE WENT TO WAR OR ITS INEFFECTIVENESS THE ONLY REASON WHY WE SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO WAR, I WAS JUST TRYING TO REMOVE ONE MORE REASON THAT STATED SADDAM WAS DANGEROUS What was the issue then, that Saddam would hand over biological weapons to terrorists ? and why did it he not hand over biological weapons to the terrorists in the west bank when Israel destroyed his nuclear reactors in the early eighties ? He did not use his biological weapons against Israel because he wanted them as protection against Iran, according to Charles Duelfer and it does make sense. Saddam was very convinced that Iran was trying to influence the Shias in Iraq and eventually to overthrow Saddam from power. Yes, but Saddam in the past 25 years never handed over any WMD to terrorists in the west bank. WHEN ISRAEL STOPPED A SHIPMENT OF WEAPONS TO THE PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS, DID THEY FIND ANY WMD FROM SADDAM ? OFF COURSE NOT, BECAUSE SADDAM WANTED ALL WMD TO HIMSELF AND NEVER WANTED TO SHARE IT WITH ANYBODY, UNLESS HE HAD NO CHOICE LIKE WHEN WE OUSTED HIM FROM POWER IN 2003.........if any wmd are in the hands of the terrorists right now, its only because we kicked him out of power.........THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON HE HAD WMD, TO PRESERVE HIS POWER IN IRAQ AND TO BE ONLY USED AGAINST IRAN AND HE WOULD NEVER HAVE USED WMD AGAIN AGAINST THE KURDS, BECAUSE OF HIS PROMISE TO PRESIDENT REAGAN. Yes, following desert storm the Kurds and Shias rebelled and because of Saddam's wanting to be an ally of ex-President Reagan and the US, he never used the WMD against the Kurdish or Shia rebellion after desert storm. here is a breakdown of the Iraqi air force and as you can see in 1995, Iraq had over 360 bombers and fighters most of which could have delivered WMD and put down the rebellious Kurds and shias during the pre-no fly zone period. Iraqi Air Force Equipment Saddam's Air Force Introduction SYSTEMS Inventory 1990 1995 2000 2002 2005 2010 Bomber 16 ~ 6 ~ 6 ~ 6 - - Tu-22 8 4 4 4 - - Tu-16 4 - - - - - H-6D [PRC] 4 2 2 2 - - Fighter/Attack 390 216 116 96 - - J-6 [PRC MiG-19] 30 30 - - - - Mig-23 90 70 40 20 - - Mirage F-1 EQ/BQ 94 55 45 45 - - Su-7 30 20 - - - - Su-20 / Su-22 70 45 15 15 - - Su-25 60 25 15 15 - - Su-24 25 1 1 1 - - Fighter 245 140 90 85 - - J-7 [PRC MiG-21] 40 35 35 35 - - MiG-21 150 75 40 40 - - MiG-25 25 15 5 5 - - MiG-29 30 15 10 5 the US armed forces reported seeing Iraqi air force putting down the rebellion from the Shias and the Iraqi air force could have used WMD, but they did not because of Saddam's promise to Reagan, not to use WMD ever again. His air force still had the capability of putting down the Shia rebellion and according to the UN he still had WMD capability after Desert Storm. why do you think we had the no fly zone, its because his air force was able to crush the shia and Kurdish rebellion and thats why we imposed the no fly zone areas. No, Saddam's air force was not completely gone after Desert Storm and thats why we had the no fly zone restriction. IF HE HAD FIRING CAPABILITY, HE COULD LACE HIS MISSILES WITH WMD AND KILL A LOT OF SHIA AND KURDS, BUT HE NEVER DID THAT AFTER HE PROMISED PRESIDENT REAGAN HE WILL NEVER AGAIN USE WMD According to the UN, by 1993 at the chemical weapons decommissioning site of Al-Muthana, thousands of artillery shells loaded with toxic chemicals, as well as tons of bombs and rockets, went up in smoke. Perhaps the most accepted measure of UNSCOM's success is the fact that it destroyed more of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction than were eliminated by the combined forces of Desert Storm. IF IN 1993 THEY WERE STILL DESTROYING WMD, THEY MUST HAVE EXISTED IN 1991before the UN inspections AND THOSE WMD COULD HAVE BEEN USED AGAINST THE SHIA AND KURDISH REBELLIONS, RIGHT ? BUT BECAUSE OF SADDAM'S PROMISE TO PRESIDENT REAGAN, HE NEVER USED WMD AGAIN. WE GO TO WAR BECAUSE SADDAM PAID MONEY TO THE FAMILIES OF THE DEAD SUICIDE BOMBERS ? SAUDI CITIZENS HAVE BEEN SENDING TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO FAMILIES OF SUICIDE BOMBERS : After the 9/11/01 attacks, during 2002 Saudi Arabians gave the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $155 million dollars according to a recent report. Does that mean we go to war against Saudi Arabia ? If Israel is able to stop shipments of weapons to Palestinian terrorists, could not they stop the payments of money to the families of suicide bombers ? DO WE HAVE TO GO TO WAR TO STOP THOSE PAYMENTS ? WAS SADDAM ENCOURAGING PALESTINIANS TO BECOME SUICIDE BOMBERS BECAUSE HE WAS MAKING PAYMENTS TO FAMILIES OF DECEASED SUICIDE BOMBERS ? THE FAMILIES OF SERIAL KILLERS IN PRISON IN THE US ARE SOMETIMES ON WELFARE ROLLS, DOES THAT MEAN MORE PEOPLE ARE BEING ENCOURAGED TO BE SERIAL KILLERS BECAUSE THE US GOVERNMENT IS MAKING PAYMENTS TO THE FAMILIES OF SERIAL KILLERS ? the US financially compensates families of dead US soldiers, so does that mean we are encouraging more people to join the army ? People join the army for various reasons and not because their families are going to be compensated if they died in action....suicide bombers join because they want out off their "miserable" existence under "occupation" and they want to be heroes to the palestinian youth and because they want to go to paradise and live with 72 virgins, not because Saddam is going to pay their families for their suicide So IF ITS NOT POSSIBLE FOR SADDAM TO DELIVER WMD TO TERRORISTS IN THE WEST BANK, that removes one of the rationales for war against Saddam ? IF SADDAM COULD NOT POSSIBLY SEND WMD TO TERRORISTS IN THE WEST BANK, WHY DID WE GO TO WAR AGAINST SADDAM ? AGAIN, IF SADDAM COULD NOT SEND WMD TO TERRORISTS IN THE WEST BANK, WHY DID WE GO TO WAR WITH SADDAM ? WASN'T ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE WENT TO WAR AGAINST SADDAM, THAT HE WANTED TO GIVE WMD TO TERRORISTS ? and if he was able to send wmd to terrorists in the west bank, why did he not do it these past 25 years ? its because Saddam wanted wmd to protect himself against Iran. so explain to me why Saddam never used them against the US or Israel or handed them over to terrorists in the west bank ? AND IF IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL, WHY THEN DID WE GO TO WAR WITH HIM ? AND IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE DELIVERY OF WMD, THEN WHY DID HE NOT ATTEMPT TO DO IT THESE PAST 25 YEARS EVEN THOUGH WE HUMILIATED HIM, EMBARRASSED HIM AND ANGERED HIM THESE PAST 25 YEARS ?........IT JUST GOES TO SHOW HOW MUCH OF AN ALLY HE WANTED TO BE TO THE US, EVEN WHEN THINGS WERE NOT GOING WELL BETWEEN THE US AND IRAQ. what research do I need to do, its so obvious that Saddam either had the opportunity in which case he did not use WMD because he wanted to either be our ally or he was sufficiently deterred OR if your saying, its very difficult to deliver WMD and in that case, why did we go to war with Saddam to begin with ? BECAUSE THE TWO MAIN REASONS FOR WAR AGAINST SADDAM WAS , HE WILL USE WMD AGAINST THE US OR ISRAEL AND HE WOULD HAND WMD OVER TO TERRORISTS TO USE AGAINST THE US OR ISRAEL THATS NOT THE REASON WE WENT TO WAR.........THE US DID NOT GO TO WAR BECAUSE SADDAM HAD EFFECTIVE SCUDS........YOU WERE SAYING THAT HIS WMD ARE INEFFECTIVE, WERE YOU NOT ? AND IF HIS WMD WERE INEFFECTIVE, WHY DID WE GO TO WAR ? Are you saying Saddam used Scuds WHEN HE WAS unprovoked ? Was Israel not an ally of the US ? IN WAR, EVEN ALLIES WHO ARE NOT ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE FIGHTING ARE SUBJECT TO ATTACK........IN WORLD WAR 2, WERE THE CIVILIANS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN FIGHTING AGAINST THE US.........NO, BUT WE STILL BOMBED AND KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI, DIDN'T WE ? I AM NOT CONDONING WHAT SADDAM DID, I AM JUST EXPLAINING WHAT HAPPENS DURING WAR....During World War 1, the British Empire, in a pre-emptive strike, immediately landed an Anglo-Indian force at Basra, near the estuary of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. THIS PREEMPTIVE STRIKE BY THE BRITISH AGAINST THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE ALLIES ARE SUBJECT TO ATTACK EVEN THOUGH THEY DO NOT ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN A WAR. the v1 and v2 were used by the Germans because Britain declared war against Germany........the scuds were used by Iraq, because the US was ousting Saddam from Kuwait AND SADDAM WANTED THE COALITION TO COLLAPSE IF ISRAEL COULD BE PROVOKED TO ENTER THE WAR. Yeah, the scuds are a threat only if Saddam is attacked, right ? did he ever use scuds when he was not attacked ? and if you say Israel never attacked Saddam, how do you explain the destruction of his nuclear reactors by Israel ? again, i am not condoning what Saddam did, i am just explaining what happens in war. you just told me, his army was weak, malnourished, ill equipped and sick and you also told me that Saddam's WMD were ineffective against the US armed forces.........so by your definition, Saddam's army was very weak..........SADDAM SPENT A BILLION DOLLARS ON DEFENSE EVERY YEAR WHEREAS THE US SPENDS NEARLY 500 BILLION ON DEFENSE EVERY YEAR.........SO PLEASE TELL ME HOW SADDAM'S ARMY IS A FORMIDABLE FORCE............AFTER ALMOST 10 YEARS OF WAR AGAINST IRAN, HE DID NOT CONQUER IRAN, DID HE ? IF HE WAS SO POWERFUL, HE COULD HAVE TAKEN IRAN WITHIN WEEKS, LET ALONE TEN YEARS AND NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT, EVEN THOUGH WE HELPED HIM FIGHT IRAN. Are you saying if a country posed a threat to the region, we go to war against it ? China poses a threat to Taiwan, North Korea poses a threat to South Korea, North Vietnam has already invaded South Vietnam and China has already invaded and occupied Tibet...........if posing a threat is reason for war, are we going to war with North Vietnam again, North Korea again and China ? AND WHATEVER IRAQ POSED, THE ONLY THING IT COULD CONQUER WAS A WEAK KUWAIT........so what kind of threat was Iraq ? and even if Iraq did conquer the entire middle east, don't you think international Islamic terrorism would stop targeting the US and start targeting Saddam Hussein BECAUSE OSAMA BIN LADEN CONSIDERS SADDAM AN INFIDEL AND NO INFIDEL CAN OCCUPY SAUDI ARABIA. Saddam had several reasons to hand over WMD to Al-Qaeda because he was very angry with the US for ousting him from Kuwait, but he never did, because even after we bombed his palaces, kicked him out of Kuwait, sold weapons to Iran during the Iran-Contra scandal, prevented him from flying in the no fly zone, had crippling sanctions on him, tried to assassinate him in the nineties, he still told Charles Duelfer he wanted to start a dialog with the US and wanted to be America's best friend in the middle east. WE DID EVERYTHING TO ANGER, HUMILIATE AND EMBARRASS SADDAM AND SADDAM THROUGH IT ALL STILL IN THE END WANTED TO BE OUR ALLY AND HE WAS DETERRED FROM EVER USING HIS WMD AGAINST THE US OR ISRAEL BECAUSE HE WAS RATIONAL AND THATS WHY HE NEVER HANDED OVER WMD TO AL-QAEDA TO BE USED IN THE ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 President Bush himself stated that Saddam was in touch with Al-Qaeda, so why did not Saddam hand over WMD to Al-Qaeda to be used in the September 11, 2001 attacks ? Mohammad Atta could have killed a lot more than 3000 people if he used a dirty bomb, anthrax and serin in New York City instead of hijacking planes, right ? ONLY 6 % OF CONTAINERS COMING INTO THE US ARE INSPECTED, AL-QAEDA COULD HAVE SMUGGLED TONS OF WMD TO THE US, BUT SADDAM NEVER HANDED OVER WMD TO AL-QAEDA BECAUSE NOT ONLY WAS SADDAM RATIONAL AND WAS DETERRED , HE HAS OVER THE DECADES WANTED TO BE AMERICA'S ALLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.......IN FACT, IF WE HAD LET SADDAM KEEP KUWAIT, HE WOULD HAVE SOLD CHEAP OIL TO THE US LIKE HE DID IN THE SEVENTIES...........HOW DO WE KNOW THIS ? SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD A LONG TALK WITH THE US AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ JUST BEFORE HE INVADED KUWAIT AND HE WAS BEING VERY DIPLOMATIC TO HER, EXPLAINING TO HER THE "TREACHERY" OF KUWAIT........IT WAS ALMOST LIKE HE WAS ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO INVADE KUWAIT..........MY OPINION IS , HE WANTED THE US TO SANCTION HIS INVASION OF KUWAIT AND IN RETURN HE WOULD SELL CHEAP OIL TO THE US........OIL TODAY WOULD NOT BE NEAR $50 A BARREL IF SADDAM WAS STILL IN KUWAIT, IT WOULD BE MUCH CHEAPER BECAUSE SADDAM IS INTERESTED IN KEEPING OIL FLOWING AND THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY SABOTAGE TO IRAQ'S OILFIELDS LIKE WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY........Saddam's desire to keep oil flowing like he did in the seventies and Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil fields operating at full capacity would have resulted in oil being at $30 a barrel today instead of near $50 a barrel Yes, so he could have used WMD against the Kurdish and Shia rebellions in 1991, but he did not AND WMD LACED SCUDS COULD HAVE BEEN USED AGAINST ISRAEL, BUT AGAIN, HE REFRAINED FROM USING WMD IF HE DID NOT USE WMD LACED SCUDS AGAINST ISRAEL, WHY WOULD HE BE SHOOTING AT EUROPE ? You still have not proved that Saddam was dangerous to the US or Israel. He was dangerous to Kuwait and to a much lesser extent to Iran, but other than to the Kurds, Shias and the Kuwaitis, he did not seem much of a danger to the US or Israel and if your going to point to this scud attacks on Israel, that only happened because the US attacked him. Yes, and if we never had desert storm, we would never have been in Saudi Arabia and Osama Bin Laden would never have attacked the US on 9/11/01, because the main reason for the attacks on September 11, 2001 was our military presence in Saudi Arabia that military presence of infidels defiled Osama's religion. So if Saddam was scared of us and deterred in using WMD or handing them to the terrorists, why did we go to war ? Our intelligence would have known how weak Saddam was, he could not even conquer Iran after 10 years of fighting. He wanted to be our ally according to how he treated President Reagan, how he discussed things with the US ambassador to Iraq before Iraq's Kuwait invasion, what he told Charles Duelfer and what he told Dan Rather......all indications of how much he really wanted to be our ally. What makes you think Saudi Arabia was next on Saddam's list ? and even if Saddam did conquer Saudi Arabia, he would have got rid of all the religious schools that produced Osama Bin Laden that preach hatred and the overthrow of governments in order to establish Islamic theocracies and he would have sold cheap oil to the US like he did in the seventies. IF SADDAM DID CONQUER SAUDI ARABIA, ALL MUSLIM TERRORIST GROUPS WOULD BE CONCENTRATING THEIR ATTACKS ON SADDAM HUSSEIN INSTEAD OF THE US...........IN FACT WHEN SADDAM WAS IN KUWAIT, OSAMA BIN LADEN TOLD THE KING OF SAUDI ARABIA THAT OSAMA BIN LADEN'S AL-QAEDA WILL FIGHT SADDAM IF SADDAM TRIED TO CONQUER SAUDI ARABIA. I don't know about that, according to you, Iraq's army was very weak, sick, malnourished, ill-equipped and it took them ten years to fight with Iran with nothing to show for it even though the US was helping Iraq fight Iran....SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IRAQ COULD HAVE CONQUERED SAUDI ARABIA, BUT IF IRAQ DID ACHIEVE THE DIFFICULT MISSION, please refer to previous remarks as to what would happen. IT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE US IF SADDAM HAD SAUDI ARABIA. THE US SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN SAUDI ARABIA, WHICH IS ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS.........DO YOU KNOW SAUDI ARABIA HAS PUBLIC BEHEADINGS AND DOES NOT TOLERATE CHRISTIANS AND THE FREEDOM TO WORSHIP........IN FACT, IRAQ UNDER SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD MORE RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE THAN SAUDI ARABIA............IRAQ UNDER SADDAM HAD CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.......SAUDI ARABIA HAS BANNED CHRISTIAN CHURCHES Sure, but do we do everything for noble reasons or is it for economic reasons ? Saddam wanted to be our ally, because he knew that being friends with the US would be a good thing and possibly keep him in power Thats the reason for war ? so we can win ? in that case, why don't we go to war with every small dictator on this earth, like Cuba ? I THOUGHT THE REASON FOR WAR IS BECAUSE A COUNTRY POSES A GRAVE THREAT TO THE US OR ISRAEL ? So if Saddam had nuclear weapons, we would not have gone to war ? Are you saying we go to war against a weak opponent who does not pose a grave threat to the US ? War is serious............children get maimed, paralyzed, maimed, deformed, blinded and end up in wheel chairs for the rest of their lives......lets not go to war just because we can win. So if Saddam can cozy up to President Reagan, could we not have let him cozy up again instead of going to war ? Iran has done more than that, Iran is financing the terrorists in Lebanon who killed hundreds of US soldiers in Lebanon in the early eighties. Yes, meaning Saddam was capable of being an ally of the US and again in the late nineties, Saddam told Charles Duelfer that he wanted to be America's best friend in the middle east..........SADDAM KNEW THAT BEING ALLIES WITH THE US WOULD HELP HIM CONSOLIDATE HIS POWER IN IRAQ Everybody has motivations, the US and Iraq have motivations and both can work together and if its economic or strategic in nature, so be it. When President Truman ordered atom bombs to be dropped on the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was President Truman mad or acting rationally?......in my opinion, even though President Truman made a very cruel decision, he was still acting on a rational basis.............when somebody does something in anger, are they acting rationally or are they mad ? if every crime is attributed to madness, how can we get convictions in a court of law ? WAS THE US RATIONAL WHEN IT INVADED HAWAII IN 1893 WHEN HAWAII WAS A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY and posed no threat to the US ? RATIONAL PEOPLE CAN DO A LOT OF STUPID THINGS OR CRUEL AND MURDEROUS THINGS but they are still rational. Yes, probably as revenge also for the destruction of his nuclear reactors by Israel Yes, here again Saddam was acting rationally because he wanted the coalition to collapse. Yes, here again Saddam was acting rationally.......he wanted to preserve his power You have not shown me one case where Saddam had lost his mind or was mad........in fact, Stalin during his latter years was clinically unstable and yet we did not invade the USSR even though Stalin posed a grave threat to the US , especially since he was mentally unstable and in the possession of thousands of nuclear weapons and had invaded and occupied several countries during world war 2 and after world war 2 in order to establish communism. Sorry for my poor choice of words.........But Pakistan did not have the necessary security controls over its nuclear program to prevent A.Q. Khan from spreading WMD technology and even when Pakistan found out, Musharraff forgave A.Q. Khan and according to President Bush's doctrine of preemption we need to take out any country that poses a threat to the US............Pakistan by its complacency is clearly a threat because of their lack of control over their nuclear technology..............WE ACCUSED IRAQ OF HARBORING TERRORISTS.....PAKISTAN IS HARBORING NOT ONLY MUSLIM TERRORISTS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN KASHMIR BUT ALSO HARBORING A NUCLEAR PROLIFERATOR WHO WAS SELLING NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY TO TERRORIST STATES LIKE IRAN, LIBYA AND NORTH KOREA. I AM NOT FOR WAR AGAINST PAKISTAN, BUT IF WE CAN BE DIPLOMATIC TOWARDS A COUNTRY THAT ALLOWS A PROLIFERATOR OF NUCLEAR WEAPONRY TO HAVE FREEDOM AND MUSLIM TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS TO HAVE FREEDOM, DON'T YOU THINK WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALSO DIPLOMATIC TOWARDS SADDAM WHO WAS NOT PROLIFERATING WMD TO ANYBODY AND WHO HAD NO CONTROL OVER TERRORISTS WHO WERE OPERATING IN THE NO FLY ZONE OF NORTHERN IRAQ ? If Pakistan has no controls over its nuclear technology and its scientists are selling nuclear secrets to terrorist states, Pakistan is clearly a threat How many other Pakistani scientists are engaged in the world wide black market in nuclear technology ? IT SEEMS THAT PAKISTAN BY ITS LACK OF CONTROLS IS INADVERTENTLY A NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY PROLIFERATOR AND MUST BE SEEN AS A THREAT AND YET WE ARE DIPLOMATIC TOWARDS PAKISTAN.........COULD WE NOT HAVE BEEN DIPLOMATIC TOWARDS IRAQ WHICH WAS NOT PROLIFERATING NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY OUTSIDE IRAQ ? you are convinced that Pakistan has nuclear weapons to defend itself against India. Pakistan has also attacked India in the past. So why aren't you convinced that Iraq wanted WMD to protect itself against Iran ? Charles Duelfer clearly stated that the WMD program in Iraq was because Iraq wanted protection against Iran. The attack against Iran by Iraq was a preemptive strike in order to prevent the Islamic theocracy in Iran from spreading into Iraq and overthrowing the secular Saddam Hussein.. Are you saying that a country that sends arms to Vietnam and those arms are used to kills tens of thousands of American soldiers is not more of a threat to the US than Iraq was ? Iraq never sent arms to any country to fight the US and yet we went to war with Iraq instead of the USSR which sent arms to Vietnam and those a This message has been edited. Last edited by: loveverybody, |
|||
|
|
Member |
quote:When Saddam in his younger days did exactly what Hitler did, trying to violently overthrow the government and he ran off to Egypt when the coup failed, we should have apprehended him through our covert operations in Egypt and brought him and his thugs to a secret trial in the US and apprehended him and his thugs for life or until rehabilitated. AS FAR AS GOING TO WAR FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS...............WE DON'T LIBERATE A PEOPLE BY KILLING OFF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN THROUGH COLLATERAL DAMAGE, AND THATS WHAT WAR DOES,...........IT KILLS A LOT OF INNOCENT PEOPLE AND MAIMS A LOT OF CHILDREN FOR LIFE.........WE SHOULD NEVER SACRIFICE THE LIVES OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, OUR SOLDIERS INCLUDED, IN ORDER TO SAVE OTHER LIVES, LIVES THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE IN DANGER.........BECAUSE NO LIFE SHOULD BE MORE VALUABLE THAN ANOTHER LIFE..........THATS WHY I AM AGAINST STEM CELL RESEARCH.......BECAUSE THAT EMBRYO IS JUST AS PRECIOUS AS A LIVING HUMAN BEING AND WE SHOULD NOT BE DESTROYING EMBRYOS........IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT AS MANY AS 200000 PEOPLE DIED IN THE GULF WAR AND AS MANY AS 100000 PEOPLE DIED IN THE IRAQ WAR.....THIS IS NOT RIGHT.........WE SHOULD NOT LIBERATE PEOPLE BY KILLING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS...........DIPLOMACY SHOULD BE OUR STRONG SUIT, NOT WAR........ANYBODY CAN KILL BUT A TRUE HERO SAVES LIVES WITHOUT KILLING ANYBODY IN THE PROCESS quote: Yes, open discussion of points is a mark of a democracy.....if we all agreed , we wont be living in a democracy, because in Iraq everybody had to agree or be thrown in jail quote:Yes, but do we go to war against every despot ? and if that despot has nuclear weapons, does he suddenly become benign to the US ? the reason we don't go to war against North Korea even though Kim Jon Il has purposely starved and killed a million of his own people through concentration camps and starvation is because he has nuclear weapons ? WE NEED TO GO TO WAR PURELY FOR SELF DEFENSE PURPOSES AND THAT IS WHEN THE ENEMY IS SENDING HIS PLANES, WARSHIPS AND TROOPS TO OUR SHORES TO INVADE AND DESTROY US AND LIKE SWITZERLAND, I BELIEVE IN PURE SELF DEFENSE.........I DON'T WANT ANYBODY FIGHTING ON MY BEHALF, I WILL DO MY OWN FIGHTING IF THE ENEMY COMES KNOCKING ON MY DOOR, BUT UNTIL THEN WE SHOULD USE EVERY DIPLOMATIC TECHNIQUE TO AVOID WAR . I UNDERSTAND THAT WAR IS BIG BUSINESS BUT CORPORATIONS AND POLITICIANS NEED TO REALIZE THAT THERE IS MORE MONEY TO BE MADE AND MORE PROSPERITY AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY IN PEACETIME RATHER THAN WAR TIME..........YES BUSINESSES THAT PROFIT OFF WAR WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF WE DON'T HAVE A WAR, THOSE BUSINESSES SHOULD DIVERSIFY AND FIND WAYS AND MEANS TO PROFIT DURING PEACE TIME AND JUST NOT RELY ON MACHINES OF WAR IN ORDER TO MAKE THEIR MONEY |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 17 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | ISI Forum | ||
| Servlet | eve2da022 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "TEST" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
ISI Forum Forums General Discussion Soap Boxes, High Horses, and General Grievances can anybody answer this question ? | View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
