New weapons in Iraq... Tic.. Toc.. Tic.. Toc....

[diver123 0]

You can't be serious... Maybe you should re-read the newspapers and U.N. reports. The issue has NEVER been whether or not Iraq has breached the resolution (multiple times), but rather, what we're (the U.N.) willing to do about it and how. This is exactly what's so frustrating about this whole anti-war movement. You guys are all denying that he's not in compliance when even the main opposition in the U.N. doesn't deny that he's breached it... Bill Von mentioned earlier that he'd give his full support if the U.S. would just propose a resolution with a firm deadline demanding complete disarmament. Even if the U.S. wanted to do that, France clearly stated yesterday in their news conference that they would VETO ANY resolution calling for force regardless of the stipulations. So S.H. would just be allowed to continue playing games.

"pull high! It's lower than you think..."

[VectorBoy 0]

Quote

That makes about as much sense as saying that we were afraid to follow him back to Baghdad in 1991 because of all the US-built Stinger missiles he has, or that we're afraid of him now because he has US-built bombs and howitzers that Saudi Arabia sold him, or that we won't fight because we gave him billions in aid in the mid-80s.

Think, man!

We didn't go into bagdad because
1 the UN cooked up a sweet deal of a cease fire if you chill out ( which he still hasn't complied with)
2 It would have been very ugly for innocennts.
3 Our goal as far as gettin him out of Kuwait was done lickity split.
Oh and by the way we gave EVERYBODY that was on our side against the soviets all over the planet billions of dollars. I personnally was there in europe in a "high dollar hardware festival of biblical proportions" that was our answer to the cold war.
It didn't hurt that he wasn't sweet on IRAN either.
Think man Glen

[rgoper 0]

i just went back and reviewed all of the posts in this topic, and carefully considered before posting this response.

it serves no purpose for someone to constantly try to agitate a very serious issue with useless rhetoric and inuendos, ie: tic.. toc.. tic.. toc....

are we united? no, i think not. let's unite like real americans should. if we want to change something, let's carefully consider it, and be united as we proceed. enough of flaming and agitating, it doesn't help anything. it seems as if there are a select few in these forums who are frothing at the mouth to attack iraq, this is the wrong attitude, we as a nation are "bloodthirsty". and yet, these same folks are the ones who whined and cried about the arab nations dancing in the streets with joy after 09/11, what's up with this? are "we" any better?

*notice* this is a "sidebar comment"

has anyone given any thought about the catastrophe that would follow, let's say if hoover dam were taken out, maybe the golden gate bridge, disneyland i could go on, but it would serve no purpose. i'm not trying to incite fear, just trying to get a few to think about some of the things that may or could happen post war iraq.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[billvon 2,400]

>I could take that as a personal attack, Bill...considering how
> vehemently anti-american you appear to be and your continual
> position that everyone is wrong but you . . .

I support actions that will reduce US fatalities both here and in our troops abroad. It does take a pretty distorted view of the world to claim that's anti-american, but if it makes you feel better to go after me like that, well, you go girl!

>Better yet, please post a link to that, so that everyone can see it.

Here's the post I was referencing; I apologize that it was not yours - I misread the name when I originally replied to it (and assumed you had written it.)

"No, we don't need anyones blessing to go to war. Anything or anyone that was involved in murdering 3,000 people on Sept 11, 01 are fair game in my opinion." (from MC208B, in the "go to war in 10 days" thread.) Sorry about the mis-reference.

[wmw999 2,123]

Good post.

The strength of terrorism is the same as that of guerilla warfare; an individual who is willing to sacrifice himself can do a huge amount of damage to a bigger entity. It's awful, but that's the way it works.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Did they pay in marks, dollars, francs, lyra... or crayons?"
Crayons Dude, more widely accepted than dollars, deutschmarks or francs, easier to carry than Lira, and they arouse less suspicion than bullion or diamonds.
Have you never heard the phrase "The colour of money"?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[jfields 0]

Quote

Have you never heard the phrase "The colour of money"?

Sure have. It is "The color (note spelling) of money" not "Color the money".

You should also note that "Money laundering" only works if the water is hot enough to melt the wax.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

You can't be serious... Maybe you should re-read the newspapers and U.N. reports. The issue has NEVER been whether or not Iraq has breached the resolution (multiple times), but rather, what we're (the U.N.) willing to do about it and how. This is exactly what's so frustrating about this whole anti-war movement. You guys are all denying that he's not in compliance when even the main opposition in the U.N. doesn't deny that he's breached it... Bill Von mentioned earlier that he'd give his full support if the U.S. would just propose a resolution with a firm deadline demanding complete disarmament. Even if the U.S. wanted to do that, France clearly stated yesterday in their news conference that they would VETO ANY resolution calling for force regardless of the stipulations. So S.H. would just be allowed to continue playing games.

Wrong! I'm not denying anything because I don't have any actual data. Neither do you. All we have are reports that amount to hearsay.

You trust the Bush administration, and I don't. I don't know your reasons for this trust. I have repeated my reasons for distrust over and over, but in brief, it's because more US administrations have lied to the people than haven't in the last 60 years. I find GWB's locking of the records of his father's administration particularly disturbing - they are hiding something embarrassing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[flyingferret 0]

Even Blix says he is in non-compliance. Who would you trust? Blix is there and has the info. We are not debating compliance, but rather what to do about it.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[btvr 0]

Mirage F-1: Iraq operates about 50 of these French built interceptors – a modern and extremely capable aircraft

Mirage F-1. He may have them but remember, they are French built. It would probably have a compelling urge to turn 180 degrees and fly like hell away from it's enemy!, or throw up it's wings to surrender! It doesn't matter what kind of birds he has, If his half assed pilots don't have the skill, they will just be shot out of the sky! If I went and bought a PD Velocity or Icarus Extreme with only 70+ jumps. Would that make me the best swooper in the sport? I highly doubt it. It would be suicide. The same for his pilots if the go up against our Fly boys. When I was in the USMC for the first time out in 91. The news made the republican guard out to be seasoned battle hardened vets! Against who? That's right 9 year old Iranian kids! And what happened? They tucked tail and ran!!! I hope for the guys over there sake that nothing happens,but that would be like living in fantasy land.

[Jessica 0]

Quote

I could take that as a personal attack, Bill...considering how vehemently anti-american you appear to be and your continual position that everyone is wrong but you and those which dovetail to your particular brand of liberalism...

I generally stay out of this stuff, but I'd just like to pipe in here and say that Bill's posts have never struck me as anti-American.

Skydiving is for cool people only

[wildblue 4]

Quote

Bill's posts have never struck me as anti-American.

I was actually having a similar converation the other day. We were talking about all this Iraq crap, and how I thought it was stupid and makes no sense to invade, and you're just going to justify a retaliation, and someone even made the commment "You know, some people might call you anti-American." I about fell out of my seat.

BTW - this is the argument I really don't get, but I've heard many different variations of: "We need to attack now, before he does something else, like take down the Sear's tower!"

So, you want to destroy some small part of some small country, because you think they might try to blow up one of our buildings? (even though, as was stated before, there hasn't been a good link to AQ established yet I don't think) I'm pretty sure if we invade, you can almost put money on the fact that there will be an attack on US soil, so that argument of "It's to protect us!" doesn't make sense at all.

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[billvon 2,400]

> . . .and someone even made the commment "You know, some
> people might call you anti-American." I about fell out of my seat.

In the book "the threatening storm," Kenneth Pollack (director of Gulf Affairs on the National Security Council) makes the case for war against Iraq. He is arguably one of the world's leading authorities on America's problems with Iraq. He's pro-war, yet this passage is interesting:


"Today, we face possibly the most important decision on Iraq we have ever had to make . . . We are at a fork of the road of our policy towards Iraq, and the path we choose to take will have enormous repercussions. We are part of the world's most vibrant democracy; our choice must be a collective one. We cannot simply leave it to the government to decide what is best, because the choice we make could affect us all in profound ways - and because the President and Congress are going to need the support of the American people on whichever path they take. Consequently, it is critical that we engage in a comprehensive and informed public debate and make a choice that the American people can strongly support."


So you can use this the next time someone accuses you of being anti-american. From Pollack's point of view, the more anti-american position would be "just leave it to the government."

[Canuck278 0]

hmmm...sounds scary.....can you imagine if you were there....wait a minute, I am....I'm posting from my ship actually.. Havn't jumped since i left in Sept. I miss it. Hope to see you all a little more frequently soon. Blue Skies, and drink some beer for me
Steve

"Ignorance may be bliss.....however ignorance will not last forever.....and the truth afterwords is twofold"

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Even Blix says he is in non-compliance. Who would you trust? Blix is there and has the info. We are not debating compliance, but rather what to do about it.

I trust Blix - and I trust his recommendations too. I for sure don't trust the White House, regardless of who the occupant may be at any given time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Michele 1]

Edited for clarity...I am at work...)

Quote

Here's the post I was referencing; I apologize that it was not yours - I misread the name when I originally replied to it (and assumed you had written it.)

"No, we don't need anyones blessing to go to war. Anything or anyone that was involved in murdering 3,000 people on Sept 11, 01 are fair game in my opinion." (from MC208B, in the "go to war in 10 days" thread.) Sorry about the mis-reference.

Bill, it was a serious allegation, inflammatory on its face and deliberately so; and I about fell out of my seat (speaking of seats), when I read that last night. I was angry - and honestly still am upset, but not nearly as much so...but I still think that you should check and cross reference things like that before you post...attention to detail, I guess, is what I am saying.

Quote

I support actions that will reduce US fatalities both here and in our troops abroad. It does take a pretty distorted view of the world to claim that's anti-american, but if it makes you feel better to go after me like that, well, you go girl!

LOL, I could just see you snapping your fingers...

I support actions that will reduce bloodshed from anyone, any time, for any reason. I also think that isn't the point. Your constant reference to how much money we spent 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, arming Tom Dick and Harry, but you also don't seem to speak to the attempt at re-purchasing the Stinger Missles, the connections between '93 and 01 (and there are several...) and so forth - is very one sided (and those are only two examples). That is what I am referring to. Instead of addressing questions which are directly asked of you, you bring in something which whacks the US around. No kidding, we've done some bad things. Made some bad choices. Elected some real jokers. But we are not bad.

I started researching something about a week ago...and this was simply and solely because of your rhetoric. I appreciate that you've stirred at least me into checking things out one step farther than I had previously. You will not like the fact that it has solidified something in a different way then you intend, but still, thanks for pissing me off and getting me to think about things.

As for calling you anti american, I am really tired of reading, over and over, the same examples, rhetoric, and, in my opinion, inflammatory things. It is utterly american to voice your views (mine included, right?). It is polite and respectful to not call names at those who's views differ from yours. As I have been remiss in being polite and respectful (albeit justifiably so due to your inaccurate post), I hereby tender sincere apologies for saying something which, should I have taken the time to phrase more properly, would have read quite differently.

(And, PhillyKev, at no time did I say BillV was unamerican...the quote I was refering to is the following from your post above..."...anyone who disagrees with the current administrations policies is unamerican. Would you please define "american" for me?").

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

And, PhillyKev, at no time did I say BillV was unamerican...details...).

No, you said anti-american. I believe you listed the details in your own post.

[seedy 0]

Quote

not trying to incite fear, just trying to get a few to think about some of the things that may or could happen post war iraq.

So you think these things are only possible if we go to war? I think not. I think we are in danger of that continually - not that I live in fear of it, but I have thought often that the terrorists could and probably will do much more damage than 9/11.

Whether we go to war or not.

I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.

[billvon 2,400]

> Your constant reference to how much money we spent 30 years ago,
> 20 years ago, 10 years ago, arming Tom Dick and Harry . . .

Yep, those constant references to the past are what other people call history. I think we can learn from it.

>Instead of addressing questions which are directly asked of you, you
> bring in something which whacks the US around. No kidding, we've
> done some bad things. Made some bad choices. Elected some real
> jokers. But we are not bad.

That's exactly right!! We are not bad; indeed, we try harder than most to do the right thing, most of the time. But at the same time we've done some bad things. We will not become better unless we look at those mistakes of the past in the harsh light of reality, not through flag-colored glasses.

We armed the Mujahideen in the 1980's to kill Russians for us. That came back to bite us in the form of Al Qaeda. One possible response is "we should probably be careful about doing that in the future." Another possible one is "If the US did it, it must have been the right thing!" I prefer the first interpretation; the second interpretation leads us to make the same mistakes over and over.

So in reply to the above, ask me a direct question. I can't promise you an answer; I don't know everything. But if I do answer, it may contain some history to back up my reply. Ignore that if you like, but that's what you will get in an open forum. Sometimes you get answers you don't like.

>You will not like the fact that it has solidified something in a different
> way then you intend, but still, thanks for pissing me off and getting
> me to think about things.

Are you kidding? If my posts here do nothing more than make people really think about the issue, then I will have succeeded. If 60% of the people in the US vote against my candidate during a presidential election because they want a different candidate, that's democracy in action. If a candidate wins because no one bothered to look up his record, and they are just voting for him because everyone else in their party is voting the same way - then we all lose, and ignorance wins.

>As for calling you anti american, I am really tired of reading, over
> and over, the same examples, rhetoric, and, in my opinion,
> inflammatory things.

Well, as I've said before, it's easy to see who posted what, and ignore the posts you know to be just rhetorical and inflammatory. I do that.

>I hereby tender sincere apologies for saying something which, should
> I have taken the time to phrase more properly, would have read
> quite differently.

No problem. And like I said before, sorry I attributed someone else's quote to you.

[diver123 0]

That's certainly within your rights. So now everyone is lying right...? You completely missed the point. It's just a refusal to accept what's right in front of you. The proof came from our very own U.N. inspector and was admitted to by Iraq. There is NO confusion about that (except for maybe on your part).

"pull high! It's lower than you think..."

[rgoper 0]

Quote

So you think these things are only possible if we go to war?

that's not what i said. "Murphy's Law" is ever present and it's my thoughts that our enemies would sure have way more incentive to strike if we do, and if you think a few of our historical landmarks and populated amusement parks and fuel storage cells, etc...isn't on their hit lists i don't know what to tell you. you know, "it takes a bigger man to walk away, than fight" that's an old indian saying i just made up.

another very important point i was trying to convey was, we need to be, as americans "united" because if we're not, then what exactly are "we?"

in all seriousness, someone has to be the first to stop, who will it be? we'll see, because we are witnessing history in the making in the here and now.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

That's certainly within your rights. So now everyone is lying right...? You completely missed the point. It's just a refusal to accept what's right in front of you. The proof came from our very own U.N. inspector and was admitted to by Iraq. There is NO confusion about that (except for maybe on your part).

I think it is you that misses the point. Just because I don't trust the White House to come clean doesn't mean that 100% of what they claim is untrue. It simply means that I would like some independent verification before I believe it. I suspect most people who lived through the Johnson and Nixon administrations might feel the same way. There have been a number of no-good lying ba$tards in the White House in my lifetime, and they weren't all called "Bill".

Ronald Reagan (of Iran-Contra fame) got it right when he said "trust - but verify". The current administration is altogether too enmeshed in events (Rumsfeld/Cheney/Powell/Bush) going back to when the US supported Iraq to be believable without some form of independent verification.

What exactly is executive order 13233 about if they don't have something to hide?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Wrong! I'm not denying anything because I don't have any actual data. Neither do you. All we have are reports that amount to hearsay.

well the whole world thinks he does and You don't. I guess it's because he outlawed them.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

So now everyone is lying right...?

yep SH never gassed anyone, he never invaded anyone. All lies made up by the US goverment. The French never sold them Parts and Hans is not German he's Polish......

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

and Hans is not German he's Polish......

A little research please, Blix is a Swede.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.