Rumsfeld: Lack of evidence could mean Iraq's hiding something - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-19-2003, 05:05 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by gabrielvox

The US attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki after Japan had surrendered. That was not self-defense.
I would sincerely like to know where you learned your history?


Quote:
Originally posted by gabrielvox

Are you expecting us to swallow that the Iraqi soldiers and civilians who died in the Gulf War died because of Saddam?? The last time I checked, it was US bombs and missiles that rained down on military installations, towns, homes, schools and day care centers. The soldiers that died died trying to defend their country against a foreign aggressor (read: self defense as in your earlier argument??)

If I'm not mistaken these poor souls died invading a foreign country.
The Gulf War was about the United States invading as a foreign agressor? Again....I would like to know where you learned your history....Sincerely I am interested.

Quote:
Originally posted by gabrielvox

This entire post is just the grossest misrepresentation of data I've seen in a long time.
Right back at ya!

Quote:
Originally posted by gabrielvox

Did it ever occur to you that a country that is being attacked would probably move tanks or other military means into areas to try and actually protect them? After all, it was the US that was bombing these schools, if you will recall. Isn't that what we do when we're attacked? Try and protect our civilians?
So are you saying you believe that US soldiers intentionally bomb schools?

Your above words make no sense....if they are trying to protect civilians, why would they hide equiptment in schools, near schools? You sincerely believe that they do it to protect their children?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-19-2003, 07:08 PM   #32
War Child
 
Cow of the Seas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Njosnavelin
Posts: 834
Local Time: 05:53 PM
__________________

__________________
those evil natured robots
theyre programed to destroy us
she gotta be strong to fight them
so shes taking lots of vitamins
cause she knows that
it be tragic
if those evil robots win
Cow of the Seas is offline  
Old 01-19-2003, 10:50 PM   #33
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,838
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Perhaps you missed the first sentences of my post Dreadsox. Reread it.

I don't expect you to swerve from what you've been brainwashed to beLIEve as 'history' or 'fact', just realize that alot of people both inside and outside your country have quite a different perspective on whether the US military campaigns in the last 50 years have been acts of aggression or self-defense.

I should qualify what I meant by 'surrender' in terms of Japan. Many have alleged that Truman knew full well that Japan would surrender and was actively seeking peace in the days before the attack if the US would drop the condition of the removal of the Emperor.

Perhaps the most balanced conclusion lies somewhere in the middle, but pure 'self-defense' these acts were most certainly not.
__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 01-20-2003, 02:12 AM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Gabrielvox,


"The US attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki after Japan had surrendered." Well if everyone in the USA education system is brainwashed and everything I have ever read is a lie, maybe you might be right. You have undisputed evidence to prove this allegation, I'd be interested to see it.

The United States supported the people and government of South Vietnam that did not want to live under Communism. The North Vietnamese supported the Vietcong in the South that would continue to attack and attempt to control the countryside. The USA helped the South Vietnamese defend themselves against these attacks. Soon the North Vietnamese began sending troops into South Vietnam. The USA continued to increase its involvement as the war became more intense to prevent the Vietcong and North Vietnamese forces from taking over the country. In the early 1970s the USA largely withdrew its forces(January 1973) and for the first 2 years without USA military aid, the South Vietnames were able to protect themselves. Then in the Spring of 1975, the North Vietnames launched a massive offensive similar to the spring offensive of 1972 which had been defeated with the help of US airpower. The USA did not come back to the aid of the South Vietnames. Several military failures by the South Vietnamese led to the North Vietnamese military being, within a few weeks, just outside Saigon. The city was then taken and the war was essentially over. I don't see where your "US Invasion" comes in.

US intervention in South America was an attempt to prevent Communism or states that would support the Soviet Union from coming to power. Soviet communism was a serious threat to the USA and its allies during the Cold War and it was clearly in the interest of the USA and its allies to prevent other countries from being dominated by such influence given the potential for World War at any time.

"You can try and pacify your concience by manipulating perspective to believe that these acts were self-defense, but by and large the rest of the planet sees these types of acts as aggression."

Sorry, but I try to be as objective as possible.


"Which acts are those? There is no use quoting statistics and acts committed pre-1991, isn't that what the first Gulf war was 'for'?"

Saddams acts of aggression to name a few, are his invasion of Iran, invading Kuwait, invading and attacking Saudi Arabia, attacking Israel. His unlawfull acts in Iraq are to numberous to list.

"That 1,000,000 number has been hotly disputed, and Iran certainly will never admit that they lost so many. Iran also sent old women and children to the battlefield to fight. Hardly respectable and hardly Saddam Hussein's fault."

It certainly is Saddam Husseins fault, since as dictator and ruler of Iraq, he has complete control of the Iraqi armed forces and started the war. He is responsible for their deaths as well as the Iraqi deaths.

Iraq did have "muted" support from the USA during that time in the form of military intelligence, food, trucks, and transport helicopters. This was done in part to prevent Iraq from being defeated which could have created an immediate Iranian threat to Kuwait and the rest of the Arabian pennisula. Not only was it unlawfull for Iraq to attack Iran, but its extreme military failures and potential for collapse to the Iranian military, threatened the entire Persian Gulf region.

I'll agree with you that I don't understand the logic behind sending Tow Missiles to Iran to get hostages released and fund Contra rebels in Central America. But the sell of the Tow Missiles may have prevented the Iraqi military from taking large area's or all of Irans Southwestern province of Khuzestan which contains 10% of the worlds oil reserves.

But rather than being heavily responsible for the casualties of the war, the USA is partly responsible in keeping the conflict contained which prevented far greater casualties that would have resulted in a total victory situation by Iran or possibly by Iraq. The region really has the Soviet Union to thank for supplying 80% of the military aid to Iraq which prevented Iraq from being defeated by Iran.

Its more accurate to say that the USA and coalition liberated Kuwait rather than invading it. Iraqi troops were not in Kuwait to defend it. None of the deaths that occured in the Gulf War would of happened if Saddam had not invaded Kuwait in 1990.

"to follow you then, a leader is responsible for all deaths in his country as a result of the mismanagement of that country?"

In a dictatorship and police state like Iraq, thats probably true. In a democracy, that responsibility is largely divided among different branches of government, representives, organisations, and people etc.

You were the one who started the comparison between George Bush and Saddam or the USA and Saddam. There is no comparison in either case.

"So, now it is 'attempting'? I thought he had them? I thought there was an immediate danger to Americans?"

Saddam has chemical weapons and at least the biological material for biological weapons. He is attempting to get or build Nuclear Weapons.

"You've completely missed the point obviously. The UN hasn't had the balls to stand up to the US and force it to abandon ITS WMD programs in light of ITS capabilities and ITS atrocious record of killing with them. That there are likely no rules under Chapter VII that address the US is precisely the problem."

It could be that most members of the United Nations realize that WMD is primarily only a problem with certain countries that engage in behavior like Iraq which is offensive and unlawful rather than countries like the USA which are defensive and lawful in its actions.

"That would be after the country was pretty much decimated from the bombings that came before the actual invasion??"

It was after the 40 day airwar that did succeed in softening up Iraqi defenses in the Southern Kuwaiti desert to around 50%. Iraq's armored and mechanized divisions were to the north in northern Kuwait and the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border area. Most of these divisions were still at full strength at the time of the ground war. Later study of the intelligence revealed that Iraqi forces still had 75% of their equipment at the start of the ground war, although mass desertions severely weakened the regular army in Kuwait. The Republican Guard though was largely untouched and much of the intense fighting in the ground war happened with Republican Guard divisions.

At the battle for Kuwait International Airport, the regular army Iraqi First Mechanized Division and Third Armored Divisions put up stiff resistence but eventually surrendered. At Madinah Ridge and 73 Easting, The Republican Guards Tawakalnah Mechanized division and half of the Munawrah Armored divisions fought to the death.



"Did it ever occur to you that a country that is being attacked would probably move tanks or other military means into areas to try and actually protect them? After all, it was the US that was bombing these schools, if you will recall. Isn't that what we do when we're attacked? Try and protect our civilians?"

What protection does a T-72 tank provide a school or a house from an air attack from several thousand feet? None. Only weapons that have anti-aircraft capability can provide any type of protection against long range air attack. Most of Iraq's military equipment is not anti-aircraft guns or missiles. So when Saddam moves Tanks, Armored Personal Carriers and Artillery into civilian area's, its not for the defense of that area, rather it is for the defense of the tanks. It was harder for Saddam to move military aircraft into civilian area's and often these aircraft would take off and fly towards Iran to escape destruction. Iran never returned the 130 Iraqi military aircraft that flew to Iran to escape destruction, but Saddam would have lost them anyway if he had kept them in their hangers or flown them against US forces, as had already happened in the first two weeks of the air war.

But even if we contain your arguement to the movement of just Iraqi Anti-aircraft defenses close to civilian buildings, one does not have to move such weapons so close to the area it is trying to defend. For example, most US Patriot Missile batteries(Anti-Aircraft, Anti-Missile) in Israel, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia are not in such close proximity to civilian buildings that if they were hit it would cause damage to civilian buildings. Anti-Aircraft weapons have ranges in thousands of meters and don't have to be so close to say, a residential area its trying to defend, in that if the weapon system were hit, it would cause damage to the area it was providing air defense for. Shells from Air defense guns firing explosive shells sometimes cause damage on the ground as the shell when it clearly misses its targets or fails to properly detonate comes back to the ground potentially causing damage.

The USA does not target civilians, if we did, few Iraqi's would have survived the 1991 Gulf War.

"But there is no UN coalition this time around, is there? (yet, granted)"

So far there is. If war becomes necessary there may not be a UN coalition, but there will be a coalition of countries.

"Does George Bush stay in the White House if the US comes under attack?"

Maybe not but he does not go for a walk or sleep in residential neighborhoods like Saddam does. The President leaves the city and gets on Airforce One or goes to a secret bunker temporarily, that is away from civilian areas.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-20-2003, 09:55 AM   #35
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,838
Local Time: 06:53 PM

I'm only going to comment on one thing you've said Sting, as it relates in general to everything you, I or anyone else comments on:

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Gabrielvox,
You have undisputed evidence to prove this allegation, I'd be interested to see it.
It is neither my intent nor my obligation to provide a history lesson for Interference. If thats your bag, thats fine, but it isn't mine.

The name of this forum is Free Your Mind. Free your mind from what? My interpretation of that is from whatever the powers that be have spoonfed us to believe while we were captives of their educational system or perhaps from whatever the idiot box tells us to believe. The fact that you can make a statement that implies that everyone educated in the USA probably believes the same simply proves my point.

My desire is simply to get people to challenge, note, not necessarily change, their opinions on what they've been taught to believe. Taking what I, you, or anyone else says as historical fact and not doing your own research is just as dangerous as accepting verbatim what the teacher at the head of your class or the pastor at the pulpit tells you.

Sometimes it takes a caustic statement for a person to give pause and seriously question their own perspective. Many things that others have said on this forum, including yourself at times, have caused me to do this. Sometimes my opinion gets reshaped as a result, sometimes it does not.

I will not provide the myriad of links or sources that I have reviewed over the years that has lead me to the conclusions I currently hold. There are plenty of keywords and phrases in my comments that a seriously interested person can follow up on, both online and offline at their local library.

And if in all that they have a change of opinion, well that's great. If their currently held opinion is made even stronger, that's great too.

We all have the responsibility to inform ourselves to form our own reality. My reality leads me to conclude that historically and currently war and violence is not an effective or successful way to acheive peace and security.
__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 01-20-2003, 09:55 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Sting....I admire your persistence.....I have come to the conclusion that in this instance.....it is no longer worth replying. I need to go back to my brainwashing classes.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-21-2003, 07:17 AM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Blair sees linkages between al-Qaeda, Iraq


British PM sees evidence Iraq involved in developing WMD, British press sees war on Baghdad looming.


LONDON - British Prime Minister Tony Blair told a parliamentary hearing Monday that there is evidence of "linkages" between individuals in Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.

Speaking a day after a dramatic police raid on the Finsbury Park mosque in north London, in which seven people were arrested, Blair also said that an attempted terrorist attack on Britain was "inevitable."

Blair said he was unaware of any evidence that "directly links" al-Qaeda, Iraq and "terrorist activities" in Britain.

But he added: "There is some intelligence evidence about linkages between members of al-Qaeda and people in Iraq." He did not identify who the individuals might be.

Blair said there was "overwhelming" evidence that Iraq was involved in developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"Iraq is not the only problem in relation to weapons of mass destruction," he said, noting that North Korea's nuclear program was "extremely worrying."

But he said Iraq was unique, not least because it has already used weapons of mass destruction.

"If George W. Bush was not raising the issue of weapons of mass destruction, I would be raising it," said Blair, who is to travel to the United States to see the president on January 31.

Meanwhile, British press commentators said on Tuesday the mobilisation of a quarter of Britain's army to join US forces in the Gulf means that war with Iraq is increasingly likely, as the government kept up the pressure on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to bow to UN demands on weapons of mass destruction.

"The momentum of military deployment means time is fast running out," the Independent reported, after Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon told the House of Commons that some 30,000 troops would be heading to the Gulf in the next few weeks.

"The size and scale of the allied force being deployed has reinforced the growing consensus of the inevitability of an impending war on Iraq," the newspaper said.

The right-wing Daily Telegraph noted that the numbers being mobilised were far greater than expected, and matched the British force which saw action in the Gulf War in 1991.

For the Guardian the mobilisation is the "clearest sign yet that the British government believes the US is preparing to call time on the UN weapons inspectors' mission and launch an invasion."

The size of the force reflects "the Pentagon's advice that as large a force as possible is needed to give the military a wide range of options for an invasion of Iraq," the left-wing newspaper reported.

Britain's military commanders are determined that if Prime Minister Tony Blair sends his troops and decides to go to war, "Britain's contribution must be more than a token one," it added.

According to a commentary in the paper London has pushed for a highly visible role in any campaign despite the Pentagon's request for "light" British forces.

"You really share the burden, you take risks and not just on the periphery," said a senior military source, quoted in the article.

The first job for some 10,000 US marines based in the Gulf could be an "amphibious assault on the south-eastern Iraqi city of Basra in support of a 'spontaneous uprising' by locals against Saddam," The Independent said.

This is a scenario favoured by some senior Pentagon figures, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the paper added.

It also reported that following the recent visit to Ankara of General Richard Myers, US President George W. Bush's top military adviser, the two countries are close to agreeing the deployment of 15,000 US troops to Turkey.

This would be the "first tranche of a force of 80,000 which could go into Iraq from the north through Kurdistan," the paper said.

Turkish press reports have however suggested that Ankara will continue to balk at Washington's request for the larger force.

As newspapers reported the drumbeat for war getting louder in political circles, support for military action amongst the British public fell to its lowest level yet, according to a poll published Tuesday.

Just 30 percent of those polled said they would approve of a war - down six points from a similar poll four weeks ago and lower than at any point since the ICM polling company began testing opinion on the subject in August.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-21-2003, 05:03 PM   #38
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,838
Local Time: 06:53 PM
To sum:

'There is no direct link between Iraq and Al-Queda however there are some linkages between people involved in Al-Queda and people living in Iraq'

That can be said about every single country in the world and Al-Queda, including the US!

I guess they'll be invading Canada next, I mean, we bred the terrorists, right?
__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 01-21-2003, 07:27 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Gabrielvox,

I respect your attempts to challenge if not change people's views here on the forum. I also respect the fact that through your research you have come to the conclusion that war and violence are not an effective way to achieve peace and security.

Realize though that many people here have also done extensive research on this and have come to very different conclusions.

Free Your Mind is: "This is an off-topic forum. Discuss politics, spirituality, religion, world events." Nothing less nothing more.

We all need to remember to stick to the debate and not engage in statements that attempt to personally discredit or lable any member of the forum in any way. Such statements do not further that persons point of view or contribute to the debate. At "Free Your Mind" everyone is equal.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-22-2003, 12:41 AM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by gabrielvox

I repeat my challenge: anybody who thinks the US should be in Iraq in this world can go sign up, pick up a gun and march across that desert to fight man to man. Otherwise sitting here typing words of support is just like being an armchair football critic who's never played the game.
I sent in my draft card when I turned 18.

I think the current forces of the US, Britain and Australia will be able to complete the mission. If they need bigger numbers, they'll run the draft. That's what it's for, isn't it?
__________________
speedracer is online now  
Old 01-22-2003, 06:58 AM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:53 PM
Your telling supporters of US foreign policy to enlist is pretty silly. Many have friends and loved ones in the service. Many of us who post here have served in the US armed services. It is almost as if you are accusing people us of being cowards because we have not volunteered to enlist for this. IF I am misenterpreting or reading to much into it that is fine. Your insulting personal attacks have lead me to read into it.

But your silly challenge deserves and equally silly response......

If you feel so strongly about it, stop being an arm chair quarterback, and posting words on the boards. They are looking for human shields in Iraq, I am sure they would welcome you.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-22-2003, 08:30 AM   #42
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,838
Local Time: 06:53 PM
War is not the answer.

Only love can conquer hate.

If you find that insulting, seek help.
__________________

__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com