Soldiers say Iraq pullout would be devastating - 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 11-06-2006, 09:02 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by kellyahern


Why was it necessary? Yes, he was an evil person who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, but there are quite a few evil murderous dictators in the world whose countries we don't invade.

Saddam didn't have WMDs (as Bush led us to believe) and wasn't involved with Al-Qaida (as he also led us to believe). So why was it necessary to remove him and not Kim Jong Il, who does have WMDs?
Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD's as required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement. The strategy to contain him was crumbling with no sanctions or weapons embargo enforcement along the whole border with Syria by the year 2000!

Given this and Saddam's past behavior, the invasion and attack on four different countries, the near seizure or sabotage of much of the planets oil supply, the fact that the world is even more dependent on Eastern Saudi Arabia than it was in 1991 and Saddam was still in close proximity to Kuwait and Eastern Saudi Arabia with 450,000 troops, 2,700 tanks, unaccounted for stocks of WMD to include 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of sarin gas, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells and an air force that still had 300 combat aircraft, its rather obvious that regime change was a necessity.


North Korea is a totally different situation involving a regime that has not invaded or attacked another country in nearly 60 years, unlike Saddam who has attacked and invaded 4 different countries and used WMDs on the battlefield more times than any leader in history. North Korea has never used WMD on the battlefield.

At the same time, North Korea has spent decades massing artillery in the mountains just north of Seoul South Korea with its population of 10 million people. In fact it is the largest concentration of conventional artillery in the history of the planet, all of it well with in range of Seoul's 10 million person metropolitan area just across the border. Any conflict would like result in hundreds of thousands of deaths in Seoul with in the first few hours. This is part of the reason why Clinton did not use any military options in 1994 to stop the North Koreans from developing their first Nuclear Weapons, because the cost of doing so would likely be as great as if the North Koreans had actually launched an attack with such weapons.

North Korea is different from Iraq and Saddam, because it is highly unlikely that they would launch an attack given they haven't in 60 years, while Saddam's has launched more unprovoked invasions and attacks then any single leader over the past 30 years. Second, the cost of regime change in North Korea vastly exceeds anything that has been seen in Iraq. It would create the situation we have been trying to avoid on the Korean pennisula for the past 60 years. 1 hour of a war with North Korea would kill more people than have died in Iraq over the past 4 years, and that does not include the use of Nuclear Weapons by North Korea.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 09:03 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Is nobody in this stupid, corrupt administration at all accountable for the chaos in Iraq?

Anybody? Bueller?
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 11-06-2006, 09:05 PM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD's as required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement.
So, where are they (the WMDs)?
__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 09:06 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by kellyahern


These WMDs that you keep talking about, he had a lot of them didn't he? We found tons of them when we invaded, didn't we? Oh, right . . .
Yeah, thousands of Iraqi's and Iranians are DEAD from his mass use of such weapons! Not finding such weapons is not proof that they did not exist. Even if that was indeed the case, it does not change the fact that Saddam was never more than a couple of years away from creating a mass stockpile. He didn't have any WMD in 1979 when he came to power, but was using extensively against the Iranians by 1982.

The only way to insure that Saddam would never again threaten the region as he had before was to remove him.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 09:09 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by kellyahern


So, where are they (the WMDs)?
Thats a question for Saddam and his regime, not the United States and the coalition. Saddam invaded and attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel, in the process using WMD more times than any leader in history. It was not incumbent upon the United States to prove that Saddam had WMD it was incumbent upon Saddam to prove that they did not have WMD. Saddam was the guilty party.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 09:10 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Yeah, thousands of Iraqi's and Iranians are DEAD from his mass use of such weapons! Not finding such weapons is not proof that they did not exist. Even if that was indeed the case, it does not change the fact that Saddam was never more than a couple of years away from creating a mass stockpile. He didn't have any WMD in 1979 when he came to power, but was using extensively against the Iranians by 1982.

The only way to insure that Saddam would never again threaten the region as he had before was to remove him.
I'm not saying that the WMDs never existed in the history of his regime, but we didn't find them when we invaded. He didn't have them any more. So we went to war because he might have them in the future? Why didn't the Bush administration use that as there justification? Why the whole Colin Powell vial of anthrax presentation at the U.N.?
__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 09:11 PM   #37
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Thats a question for Saddam and his regime, not the United States and the coalition.
I would say that is very much a question for the United States and the coalition, since that was the justification for going to war in the first place - that Saddam was an immediate threat and he had WMDs he was capable of using right now.
__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 09:16 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by kellyahern


I'm not saying that the WMDs never existed in the history of his regime, but we didn't find them when we invaded. He didn't have them any more. So we went to war because he might have them in the future?
No, not finding WMD in a country the size of Texas is not proof that Saddam did not have ANY WMD. But even if it were the case, better to remove him now before he would get a hold of WMD considering that Sanctions and the weapons embargo had already long fallen apart and there was little hope of restarting them at the level required.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 09:21 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by kellyahern


I would say that is very much a question for the United States and the coalition, since that was the justification for going to war in the first place - that Saddam was an immediate threat and he had WMDs he was capable of using right now.
The central justification for the war was that Saddam had failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD in violation of UN Security Council resolution 1441 which authorized military action if Saddam failed to comply with this and other UN resolutions. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions when the Coalition invaded in Iraq in 2003, all of them passed under Chapter VII rules allowing for the use of military force to bring about compliance.

In the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire, it was incumbent upon Saddam to verifiably disarm of all WMD. There was NEVER any requirement of any member of the United Nations to prove that Saddam had WMD. All of the requirements were on Saddam ALONE! Military force was to bring Saddam into compliance with the resolutions was authorized as far back as resolutions 678 and 687 from 1991!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 09:24 PM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


No, not finding WMD in a country the size of Texas is not proof that Saddam did not have ANY WMD. But even if it were the case, better to remove him now before he would get a hold of WMD considering that Sanctions and the weapons embargo had already long fallen apart and there was little hope of restarting them at the level required.
I see, just because we can't see find them (after 3+ years of looking), doesn't mean they're not there

So who else should we go after now, just in case they get a hold of WMDs?
__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 09:42 PM   #41
Blue Crack Supplier
 
kellyahern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here
Posts: 34,698
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Nevermind, I give up .

Someone else, please take over.
__________________
kellyahern is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 11:13 PM   #42
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Sting, do you believe that the Bush Administration has handled Iraq in a good way?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 11:37 PM   #43
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:51 PM
this thread reeks of desparation.

how embarassing.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 11:38 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
Sting, do you believe that the Bush Administration has handled Iraq in a good way?
There have been a lot of mistakes, but despite that, they still have a strategy that is making progress, while the DEMOCRATS have no plan, no strategy, except to withdraw which is not a plan, strategy or anything that will protect the security of the region and the USA.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 11:39 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
this thread reeks of desparation.

how embarassing.
Funny that your responding to it then.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 12:51 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