"Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President" - Page 2 - 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 09-24-2003, 05:13 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn


No, Bill Clinton didn't serve either. But Bill Clinton did not start this war, he did not pre-emptively attack Iraq. Nor did 8 of 10 Democratic candidates. Bush did. And that's a big difference (to me).
Let's see Bill Bombed an Asprin Factory......ooopssssss
He bombed Iraq on mulltple occasions....ooooppsssss
He Bombed Afghanistan.......oops.....

But that was not prre-emtive?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 05:43 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Popmartijn,

"No, Bill Clinton didn't serve either. But Bill Clinton did not start this war, he did not pre-emptively attack Iraq. Nor did 8 of 10 Democratic candidates. Bush did. And that's a big difference (to me)."

"And the point is not to view any event through the prism of Vietnam. It is the point of having people in command who have no hands-on experience and them overruling the opinions of those who do have the experience."

Bill Clinton bombed Iraq on multiple occasions over an 8 year period. Operation Desert Fox in 1998 was one of the largest bombing raids of the 1990s with the exception of Gulf War and Kosovo war. In addition Clinton engaged in 78 days of bombing over Serbia and Kosovo and was ready to send in large numbers of ground troops if that did not work. Clinton also bombed Bosnia for several weeks as well in 1995 and sent in large numbers of troops.

Half of the Democratic Candidates who were in Congress at the time VOTED for Bush's resolution to invade Iraq. They voted to "pre-emtively attack Iraq". So no, there is no difference on this issue for them.

Colin Powell had hands on experience in Vietnam. Rumsfeld was a Navy Pilot for 7 years and then served over 30 years in the Navy Reserve. There are multiple persons apart of this administration who have a wide variety of service in both the Military, State Department, National Security Staff, CIA, DIA and other important foreign policy related organizations.

Bush did not overrule anyone. The Majority of the military and State Department supported the moves against Iraq. The Majority of the United States Senate 77 out of 100 members, supported the Presidents position on Iraq, including the majority of Democrats!
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 05:47 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 02:00 PM
I think a lot of people supported the military strike on Iraq at the time because they were given false information.

_______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 05:50 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Scarletwine,

Thats Bush talking about events in early 1991. In no place does he refer to it as Vietnam. At the time that was the right policy. But it was also Bush SR. administration that wrote the UN resolutions authorizing the use of force if Saddam failed to comply with the requirments of the 1991 Ceacefire agreement and multiple other UN resolutions. Trying to disarm and remove Saddam through other means at the time was the right strategy, but Bush Sr. always new that the removal of Saddam may become a necessity if Disarmament failed, which is why the resolutions and Ceacefire agreement authorized military action if the process failed. The Disarmament process did fail and Bush took the legal course of action in accordence with the UN resolutions and Ceacefire agreement that his father set up!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 05:52 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Womenfish,

The fact that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm was not false but a simple fact. Can you name any UN resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations that Saddam complied with?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 06:14 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 02:00 PM
The reason given by the administration was that they knew he had weapons and even nice little power point presentations and satellite photos to show us where they were. Not only that, it was an imminent threat to the U.S.

You fail to realize that if Iraq didn't live up to a UN resolution, it's up the UN to hold them accountable.

We went in to Iraq not because of the resolution failure but because we were told that Iraq had WMD's that were an imminent threat to our country, if we didn't act immediately it would be too late.

______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 08:06 PM   #22
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 02:00 PM
"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
Colin Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001


Riiiight....
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 08:14 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:00 PM
womanfish,


"The reason given by the administration was that they knew he had weapons and even nice little power point presentations and satellite photos to show us where they were. Not only that, it was an imminent threat to the U.S."

#1 Saddam was required to disarm of all WMD under the 1991 UN Ceacefire agreement because the international community defined WMD in the hands of Saddam to be an imminent threat to the international community.

#2 If you look at the resolutions you will see that Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all authorize the use of force if Saddam fail to comply with any or all the resolutions passed against him as a result of the 1991 Gulf War. Other statements and things aside, this is the legal case presented for war by the Bush administration.

#3 UN Weapons inspectors confirmed that in 1998, Saddam had 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas. Inspectors were kicked out in 1998 and Iraq only let them return in 2002. Saddam claimed that he destroyed the WMD that he had 4 years later but he did not show any evidence to prove that. Failure to verifiably disarm is a violation of the resolutions and a material breech of Iraq's requirments. Under such conditions member states are authorized by resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 to take military actioni to bring Iraq into compliance

"You fail to realize that if Iraq didn't live up to a UN resolution, it's up the UN to hold them accountable."

The United Nations already authorized the use of force to if Iraq failed to meet its obligations. Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 do so.


"We went in to Iraq not because of the resolution failure but because we were told that Iraq had WMD's that were an imminent threat to our country, if we didn't act immediately it would be too late."

Any type of military capability that Saddam has whether it is conventional or non-conventional weapons, that is a threat to the safety and security of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey is a threat to the United States.

We did go to Iraq because of Iraq's failure to comply with the resolutions. Those resolutions required that Iraq had to verifiably disarm of the WMD he had. Saddam never did this. Saddam's possession of WMD was defined back in March of 1991 to be an imminent threat to the region and the world. That is why he was required to disarm completely and verifiably or face military action that would do that.

I'll ask you again, which UN resolutions of the 17 that were passed against Saddam did Saddam comply with?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 08:28 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:00 PM
TylerDurden,


""He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.""

This took place 2 years after UN Weapons inspectors left Iraq and might be true in some instances with regards to development of NEW WMD. But it does not change the fact that Iraq had failed to account for 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, and hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas. As long as these things are unaccounted for, Saddam does have significant capacity to launch un-conventional attacks against his neighbors.

Iraq may be unable to take back Kuwait or Saudi Arabia in a conventional military attack, but that does not preclude the ability to launch the attack in the first place and to use banned WMD in the process as well.

Saddam was required to disarm 100%, and nothing in Powells statement shows that anyone had concluded that Saddam had done that. In addition this was only 1 month after coming into office, and new intelligence may have been available suggesting other possible senerio's. In any event, it does not change the fact that 100% compliance was required and had yet to be achieved. Saddam nearly built a Nuclear Weapon back in 1990 prior to the first Gulf War. If left unchecked, this would eventually happen again.

Unless Saddam of course had a change of heart and finally complied with the resolutions and Ceacefire Agreement of the first Gulf War. I ask you, can you name any resolutions that Saddam complied with?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 07:54 AM   #25
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Well it looks like he complied with all of them, except admitting anything, probably for self-preservation against Iran, according to the reports coming from Kay.

President Bush's Inspectors Find No Weapons to Support his Claims about Imminent Threat


A desperate five-month search by a team of 1,400 U. S. investigators reportedly has failed to find any new physical evidence of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, despite President Bush's continuing insistence the weapons not only existed but posed an imminent threat to the United States.1

The failure of the U. S. team, led by Bush appointee David Kay, seriously undermines the integrity of the President's assertion two days prior to the war: "Intelligence gathered...leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."2

Bush's bold declaration, according to a subsequent review, was based on old and faulty intelligence data. Former CIA official Richard Kerr, who helped with the review, said Bush's assessment ignored "caveats and disagreements" in the data3 and relied "heavily on evidence that was at least five years old."4 Even the Pentagon's intelligence agency had warned in a classified September 2002 report that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons."5

Bush continued to claim otherwise, saying inaccurately in May, "We found the weapons of mass destruction" and predicting "we'll find more weapons as time goes on."6 The widespread search he initiated, however, now has turned up not a single weapon of mass destruction.

Sources:
1. Inquiry Unlikely to Report Finding Iraq Arms, Reuters, 9/24/03, http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...UJ0CRBAEZSFEY? type=topNews&storyID=3502138
2. Presidential Speech, 3/17/03, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030317-7.html
3. "U.S. Used 'Old' Data",
4. "Gauging a threat with little data ; Withdrawal of UN inspectors created intelligence vacuum", New York Times, 7/22/03.
5. Defense Agency Issues Excerpt on Iraqi Chemical Warfare Program, State Department, 6/7/03, http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/03060720.htm.
6. Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, 5/29/03, http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 06:10 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Scarletwine,

FACT: UN inspectors reported in 1998 that Saddam had 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax and hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas. UN inspectors were forced to leave at the end of 1998 and Saddam did not let them back in for four years.

FACT: Saddam let inspectors back in in November 2002. When asked what had happened to the 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax and hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, he claimed to have destroyed them but show no evidence to verify this. This in itself is a violation and material breech of multiple UN resolutions which required Saddam to VERIFIABLY DISARM all his WMD!

FACT: if Saddam in fact destroyed the WMD where are the remains? This is not stuff that disappears into thin air. 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells is a lot of metal. The only way Saddam could fully comply with the resolutions would be to account and verify the destruction of the WMD in question. Failure to do so is a violation of the UN Ceacefire Agreement, multiple UN resolutions, and member states of the UN are authorized to use force to bring about full compliance.

FACT: There are UN resolutions that Saddam continued to be in violation of that did not involve WMD. Thousands of Kuwaiti citizens are still missing from Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

FACT: The United Nations has NEVER certified Saddam to be in full compliance of any of the 17 UN resolutions passed against him. Failure to comply with the UN ceacefire agreement and UN resolutions means member states of the UN are authorized to use all means necessary to bring about compliance.

FACT: Whether WMD material is found or not in Iraq by the coaltion is irrelevent to the basis for war against Saddam. It was incumbent upon Saddam to verifiably destroy the WMD under strict UN supervision and HE NEVER DID THAT!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 06:33 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Scarletwine,

Do you believe the WMD never existed, or existed and were properly destroyed by Saddam's regime?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-27-2003, 09:43 AM   #28
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:00 AM
I feel they were destroyed mostly by the UN inspectors the first time around as stated by Scott Ritter(? I think that's the right name) and the rest were destroyed or sold by Sadaam.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-27-2003, 07:23 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Scott Ritter stated in 1998 when UN inspectors left that Iraq still had 30,000 Bio/Chem shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, and hundreds of pounds of mustard gas.

Any WMD destroyed by Saddam must be verfied by the United Nations or else it is a violation of the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement and multiple UN resolutions. Any WMD that Saddam did destroy, he would have the means with which to show the remains of. Failure to do so is a total violation of the resolutions and provides the authorization for military action as stated in resolutions 678, 687, and 1441.
__________________

__________________
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 09:00 AM.


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