billvon 2,476 #26 January 17, 2003 >Hypothetically if you were stopped by the police and they searched your car >and found a holster but no gun. What do you think will happen? In the US? You'd probably be held until they found out if you had a gun and if it was legal. If that, even - if they had no reason to think you were suspected of a crime involving a gun they'd probably just let you go if you had a good excuse (like "I bought it as a present for my husband.") If they treated you like we seem to want to treat Iraq? You'd be shot on the spot; after all, a holster means you're a dangerous madman and copkiller. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoobieCootie 0 #27 January 17, 2003 Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Saddam is a madman. Saddam wants to kill Americans (and that's just one among his list). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #28 January 17, 2003 QuoteIf they treated you like we seem to want to treat Iraq? You'd be shot on the spot; after all, a holster means you're a dangerous madman and copkiller. Actually, we treat Iraq that way because they have financially supported a terrorist plot to assassinate a former president, attacked a neighboring country unprovoked, used chemical weapons on their minority citizens, taken threatening actions against US and UK aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, openly supported financially terrorist attacks on Israel, and have broken 16 of 17 UN resolutions (still working on the 17th one) placed on them. Not to mention there are several sources connecting them with the attacks on 9/11. Now we find empty chemical munition rounds that they claim were declared and you say they didn't have to declare. Come on now. It is not the smoking gun yet but you can start easing back on your support of them now. They probably were used to throw confetti at Saddam's last birthday party...... right? "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoobieCootie 0 #29 January 17, 2003 Quote They probably were used to throw confetti at Saddam's last birthday party...... right? It'd be funny if they contained diced ham and chopped pork liver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #30 January 17, 2003 >Saddam wants to kill Americans (and that's just one among his list). So does Kim Jong-Il. And Bush wants to kill Iraqis. "Oh, but that's totally different, they're bad," you say. Well, they think the same thing about us. From their point of view we want them all dead. We keep proving it, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoobieCootie 0 #31 January 17, 2003 That's because if the Iraqi people don't believe Saddam, Saddam will kill them! As for Kim Jong-Il, you obviously missed the last James Bond didn't you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #32 January 17, 2003 >they have financially supported a terrorist plot to assassinate a former president, And we supported them militarily while they were gassing the Kurds. >attacked a neighboring country unprovoked, As we attacked North Korea after getting involved in a Korean civil war. To the Iraqis, the Kuwait war was not unprovoked. There was a border dispute going on, and Kuwait was flooding the market with oil trying to drive Iraq into financial ruin. We think they were wrong; but then North Korea thought we were wrong, too. >used chemical weapons on their minority citizens, With our support. They still haven't used nukes against civilians; only one country on earth has done that, and against one specific race of people. >taken threatening actions against US and UK aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone They illuminate a plane with a search radar and we destroy the installation and kill whoever's there. This is another example of how we're right? >openly supported financially terrorist attacks on Israel, We openly _created_ Al Quaeda and gave radical terrorists millions of dollars and tons of money. I'm getting sick of the "US - god is on our side! We are morally superior!" rhetoric. We're not. We have a lot of stains on our conscience, and any claim that we're wearing the white hats in a battle against a foe of consummate evil comes more from saturday morning cartoons than any historical reality. We do try to do the right thing more often than not, but we are nowhere near the bastion of purity and moral goodness that you like to pretend. We win wars because we have more guns, not because we're always right. >It is not the smoking gun yet but you can start easing back on your >support of them now. I don't support them. I support what our president said he would do - support UN inspections, wait for the report, then take action based on the report. That action could be nothing if they are 'clean' (unlikely) could be UN enforcement if there are minor violations (like empty warheads) or outright war if the violations are bad (i.e. stockpiles of VX found.) Don't you support what our president agreed to through meetings with the UN? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoobieCootie 0 #33 January 17, 2003 Quote only one country on earth has done that, and against one specific race of people. Thoughts of Pearl Harbor runnning through my head... Thought's of the Rape of Nanjing... Hmm... They never got that message that they'd have a taste of their own genocide prescription? Hmm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #34 January 17, 2003 QuoteAnd we supported them militarily while they were gassing the Kurds. Huuuh? You are thinking of Iran. They gassed the Kurds after the Gulf War. QuoteAs we attacked North Korea after getting involved in a Korean civil war. To the Iraqis, the Kuwait war was not unprovoked. There was a border dispute going on, and Kuwait was flooding the market with oil trying to drive Iraq into financial ruin. We think they were wrong; but then North Korea thought we were wrong, too. So where was the physical attack that provoked them? Iraq does not give the same excuse for attacking Kuwait as you give. They claim Kuwait belongs to them based on historical claims to the land. Also, we were already in Korea when the Korean War started. Have you ever heard of Task Force Smith? Americans were some of the first to be killed. We didn't "get involved". We were in the fight from the beginning. The Korean Peninsula was divided into a Northern and Southern portion based on an agreement between the US and the USSR. North Korea decided they didn't like the agreement and attacked our troops and invaded South Korea. Quote With our support. They still haven't used nukes against civilians; only one country on earth has done that, and against one specific race of people. We are talking recent history here. BTW, our purpose was to defeat an armed force that we were at war with not subdue a radical element of our own population. It also was not aimed at a race. It was aimed at a country that happened to be of one race. Don't throw the race card out on this one. QuoteThey illuminate a plane with a search radar and we destroy the installation and kill whoever's there. This is another example of how we're right? Exactly, the next thing that happens after illumination is a SAM up your butt. Are you willing to wait until the round is in the air before you take action? Any pilots here care to educate Bill on that philosophy? I don't think we would have many pilots for too long after instituting that policy. QuoteWe openly _created_ Al Quaeda and gave radical terrorists millions of dollars and tons of money. This was not done directly. They_were_not a terrorist group when we were giving them money. Get that through your thick skull. QuoteI'm getting sick of the "US - god is on our side! We are morally superior!" rhetoric. We're not. That's fine. Get sick as you want. I'm tired of the "blame America first" mentality that you have. You are extremely critical of the government and all of the people that are doing their best to do the right thing. Yet, you are unwilling to give up a high paying job to sacrifice and serve your country and do what you believe is the right thing. That is your decision, but it is extremely hypocritical for you to do nothing but criticize. QuoteI support what our president said he would do - support UN inspections, wait for the report, then take action based on the report. So far he has supported the inspections. He has taken no action but you still are highly critical. The real issue is that you don't like him. The US never agreed to wait for another UN resolution after the inspections failed (if they do) before attacking Iraq. BTW, you will never find a post by me stating that we should immediately attack Iraq. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #35 January 17, 2003 >Thoughts of Pearl Harbor runnning through my head. . . Of course. The Japanese were no more 'right' than we were; indeed, during WWII we had more justification than most in committing our atrocities, which were justified in the name of defense under the classic "but he started it!" theme. We still killed a third of a million noncombatant Japanese with nuclear weapons, most via radiation and thermal burns. I'll buy the "it ended the war sooner" argument, but we still better be very careful with the claims that any country that would use weapons of mass destruction against innocents is the devil incarnate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrumpySmurf 0 #36 January 17, 2003 What we need to do convince Iran and Iraq to start that whole 'It's an 'N'' vs. 'It's a 'Q'' thing - and let them fight it out again - seems to keep 'em busy enough they forget about the Western World Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ECVZZ 0 #37 January 17, 2003 QuoteYou'd probably be held until they found out if you had a gun and if it was legal. Um...sorry Bill, but not in Nevada. G. Jones "I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ducky 0 #38 January 17, 2003 Well in the end our country, it's gov't and it's military will do the right thing. I also believe any decent American will stand behind that decision. If I felt myself or anyone I knew were more qualified to make the decision I would see to it that would happen, that's why I vote. That being said I hope everyone who has an opinion feels free to share it. As for me I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if we took out Saddam and every man woman or child within 5 squre miles of him. kwakSometimes your the bug, sometimes your the windshield. Sometimes your the hammer sometimes your the nail. Question is Hun, Do you wanna get hammered or do you wanna get nailed????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #39 January 17, 2003 >This was not done directly. They_were_not a terrorist group when we were giving > them money. Get that through your thick skull. Read up on that history. The CIA gave money and weapons pretty directly to the Mujahideen to kill Russians. How do you twist that to not be terrorism, other than the usual "if we like them they're freedom fighters" angle? If North Korea gave money to some Russians to kill Americans, would you claim they're not supporting terrorism? >You are extremely critical of the government and all of the people that are > doing their best to do the right thing. I don't doubt that a great many are trying to do the right thing. Some of them simply have an odd idea of what the right thing is. >Yet, you are unwilling to give up a high paying job to sacrifice and serve >your country and do what you believe is the right thing. We all serve our country in different ways. >That is your decision, but it is extremely hypocritical for you to do >nothing but criticize. Fortunately people here are free to do that, and even people who complain are sometimes heard. Sometimes it even ends up with results like peace. >So far he has supported the inspections. He has taken no action but you still > are highly critical. I am highly critical of some of his comments reflecting his intentions. If he does indeed keep his word, support the inspections and the resulting UN resolutions, I will be the first to congratulate him on either avoiding a war that could have killed thousands or at least tried every angle before going to war. >The real issue is that you don't like him. I don't even know him. I dislike many of his policies. He did a good job on diesel emissions and on appointments to his cabinet; Rice and Powell are both brilliant and have done a lot for this country. His handling of North Korea is so far pretty good, I think. He made some really stupid moves in Venezuela (recognizing a revolutionary government for the three days it existed) and from all outside indications he seems to be pushing for a war well before inspections have a chance to complete. If it's all just for show, good for him. If he intends to ignore UN inspections and just go in, then he's making a mistake. You have to be able to distinguish personal dislike for someone and disagreement with his policies. I jump with people who I disagree with; gotta remember that it's the policy and not the person you disagree with. It is especially important on the net. >The US never agreed to wait for another UN resolution after the inspections > failed (if they do) before attacking Iraq. It called for "serious consequences" as I recall; it didn't mention an attack. In any case, any action will have to wait until inspections are either complete or denied, and if we do attack, it will at least have to be coordinated with the UN. If we go in as part of a coalition force, we will face a much easier time healing the rift it will create between the western and arab world. > BTW, you will never find a post by me stating that we should immediately > attack Iraq. Good! We agree on that, then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #40 January 17, 2003 Bill, I agree our foreign policy can be short sighted. The aid to the mujahideen and our implicit support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war are prime examples. BUT it kinda goes to the "he's a bad guy, but he's OUR bad guy" philosophy. Sometimes the means to an end aren't pretty. And your America's the only country to use WMD argument is factual but based on emotion. For an educated guy like you that's the easy way out. The use of nukes was very necessary, it saved MILLIONS of lives on both sides. As far as using them on people of one race, hello, Mcfly, (bad 80's reference) those were the people we were fighting with! We didn't chose that path, they did. Given a role reversal, and Germany was an island, and they had a record of fighting to the last man, we would have nuked them too, and for good reason! Things have to come to a head, unfortunately, the current path is, IMHO, the right one. The world will be a better place after all the chips fall. And I'm one of the guys the chips might fall on!! I already missed an entire summer of jumping, to go play in the sand, and that REALLY sucks!! "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #41 January 17, 2003 QuoteRead up on that history. The CIA gave money and weapons pretty directly to the Mujahideen to kill Russians. How do you twist that to not be terrorism, other than the usual "if we like them they're freedom fighters" angle? If North Korea gave money to some Russians to kill Americans, would you claim they're not supporting terrorism? Even though the Mujahideen where given weapons by our Gov't they were not used to kill innocent civilians, they were used against an invading ARMY. Terrorists deliberately target innocent civilians as a means to inculcate fear in a society. There is a BIG difference in the two. Saddam has used state directed terrorism to control his populace and to influence his neighbors. When a countrys leader has members of his own staff put to death do you honestly think he has a problem killing anyone else? QuoteWe all serve our country in different ways. And how do you serve your country? Have you served in the military, built a widget that is used in our military/Gov't? If you have built widgets that are used in the military/Gov'tdoesn't that make you a hypocrite for supporting the very thing you oppose so strongly? Serving ones country must start with support from within, hence the catchy saying "United we stand ,divided we fall". From everything I've seen your posts on the BB have been hyper critical of the Gov't., that's your right but explain to me and everyone else how you "serve" this country. >kmcguffee stated:The real issue is that you don't like him. I think you hit the nail on the head KM, it is obvious that Bill, and a few others, are as far left as one can go when it comes to the current administration. I applaude your post in response to what bill said but I have come to the conclusion that trying to even get bill to consider any view other than his own is like trying to catch a greased pig. There is nothing that you and I or the Gov't can do that will make him and people like him happy or change their minds on issues like these. But that is his and others right and people like you and I ensure they have that right when they get up each morning. That is the ying and yang of things."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #42 January 17, 2003 Well said!! "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #43 January 17, 2003 Quoteonly one country on earth has done that, and against one specific race of people. Now you're quoting the party line. I thought you were above that. Remember Bill, the estimated US losses for an invasion of Japan were as high as 1 million US servicemen. Regardless of the accuracy of the estimate, it was the information that was available at the time and on which the decision was based to use the bomb. I also suspect that had the bomb been ready in 1944, it probably would have been used against Germany. I know the Russians wouldn't have hesitated to insist we use it after suffering the losses they did to the Germans. Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #44 January 17, 2003 These 'warheads'.....122mm artillery rockets / shells etc...Are they the same things that you fill with smoke or phosphor type agents for training etc? I'm not being rhetorical, for a change, just something I heard on the radio on the way into work his morning. Oh and does anyone here trust the Saudis to 'topple' Saddam? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2667051.stm -------------------- 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #45 January 17, 2003 Quote>they have financially supported a terrorist plot to assassinate a former president, And we supported them militarily while they were gassing the Kurds. Saddam gassed the Kurds after we withdrew support because of his use of WMDs against Iran. Quote>attacked a neighboring country unprovoked, As we attacked North Korea after getting involved in a Korean civil war. To the Iraqis, the Kuwait war was not unprovoked. There was a border dispute going on, and Kuwait was flooding the market with oil trying to drive Iraq into financial ruin. We think they were wrong; but then North Korea thought we were wrong, too. I love how you keep bringing the Korean War into the fray. South Korea was still under allied occupation after WWII and was essentially a "protectorate" of the US. US and other troops were attacked when DPRK invaded. It was almost too late, were it not for ROK and US troops holding the Pusan perimeter (IIRC). Iraq was accusing Kuwait of flooding the market, and slant drilling etc, but you must also factor-in that Saddam was suddenly isolated, smarting from a failure to conquer Iran and could not retire his debt as fast as he wanted (not to mention he just lost a military supplier in the US and was "betrayed" by us because of Iran/Contra). Kuwait was there, and he acted in an effort to secure a better financial position. Truth be told, he was surprised at the world reaction, especially the US. Quote>used chemical weapons on their minority citizens, With our support. They still haven't used nukes against civilians; only one country on earth has done that, and against one specific race of people. Unfortunately Bill, they don't have to use nukes. CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE CONSIDERED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Quote>taken threatening actions against US and UK aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone They illuminate a plane with a search radar and we destroy the installation and kill whoever's there. This is another example of how we're right? Not only do they paint a RADAR target, but they fire missles too, over 500 times last year. Quote>openly supported financially terrorist attacks on Israel, We openly _created_ Al Quaeda and gave radical terrorists millions of dollars and tons of money. We didn't create Al Quaeda per se, but we did train many of the principle members when they were part of the mujahadeen (sp?) fighting the USSR in the 80s. This was flaunted by us, it made great headlines, and provided a popular proxy against the Soviet Union at the time. QuoteI'm getting sick of the "US - god is on our side! We are morally superior!" rhetoric. We're not. We have a lot of stains on our conscience, and any claim that we're wearing the white hats in a battle against a foe of consummate evil comes more from saturday morning cartoons than any historical reality. We do try to do the right thing more often than not, but we are nowhere near the bastion of purity and moral goodness that you like to pretend. We win wars because we have more guns, not because we're always right. Honestly, I've not heard a great deal of that type of argument. I can only opine from my perspective on our past actions, and the reality that we have to clean it up now. There is no valid argument in today's world which can seemingly justify some of the things we did. We sold Iraq this, we sold Iran that, etc. What I can understand though is where they drew the brutal logic line in the grand scheme. It was messy, it was very risky and in the big picture, it worked. As we've more or less agreed, the biggest problem we had in the 60s, 70s, 80s was the USSR. Decisions were made or broken from that principal premise. Just a thought. QuoteI support what our president said he would do - support UN inspections, wait for the report, then take action based on the report. That action could be nothing if they are 'clean' (unlikely) could be UN enforcement if there are minor violations (like empty warheads) or outright war if the violations are bad (i.e. stockpiles of VX found.) Don't you support what our president agreed to through meetings with the UN? I too, would like to see the UN resolution fully carried out by the "world community". Unfortunately, for the past 13 years, the UN hasn't been very useful. Also, I have a gut feeling that this "empty warhead" piece is just the tip of what I think will be some big discoverys or disclosures very soon.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #46 January 17, 2003 QuoteThere is nothing that you and I or the Gov't can do that will make him and people like him happy or change their minds on issues like these. But that is his and others right and people like you and I ensure they have that right when they get up each morning. That is the ying and yang of things. Lou, I enlisted and served. I don't know what Bill does or does not do for the US, nor do I care. It is his business. When you throw everyone that casts a wary eye on US actions overseas together as unsupportive of our country, you are generalizing in the worst way. Even when I was in the military, I watched the news and disagreed with some of what the US did. That has no reflection on my desire to be a citizen, or in my commitment to my military obligation. There were times when I geared up and went to Greenramp for shit I thought was ridiculous. But I'd made a promise and I was prepared to fulfill it. Being a good soldier, or a good citizen does not require blind faith. Educated and informed support of the facets of policy we agree with is more important. The soldier is required to do even the things he does not like. The non-military citizen is not. It is that difference, and the freedom to criticize that helps mold future policy. Civilians can help keep people in the military safer by being gadflies and steering politicians down responsible paths of action, so the lives of soldiers are not thrown away without cause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mccordia 73 #47 January 17, 2003 So they found a couple of old, defunct unused SHELLS in someones backyard. Could someone now please give me an estemate on the number of WORKING missiles present in Iran, North Korea, Former ussia, China, Germany.....(add more if you like) I agree with the fact that Sadam is an ugly mofo who needs some serious spanking, but this whole screaming "we found weapons!!!!" is just another piece of US pro-war propagandaJC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #48 January 17, 2003 Yes they were, since they would have been apart of a bio-weapon program, etc, etc.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #49 January 17, 2003 "If you smell an odorless gas..." "Run men, I smell an odorless gas..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genie 0 #50 January 17, 2003 QuoteI don't believe they were even allowed to have weapons that could carry chemical weapons.. That is a delivery system according to the UN.. They have to stop using aerosol deodorants too then huh? They can be used as chemical and bioweapon delivery systes. Mace anyone??? Rhino Genie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
