This thread is directed at all those that are against us going to Iraq in the 1st place. A storm was brewing...... Europe stood silently as a mighty Army brewed, a madman came to power. Some countries of the world tried to bargain with him but they were betrayed in the end and were invaded. Millions of people were Starved, killed and became slaves to the German war machine. I would say that that madmans name was Adolf Hitler. Were there concentration camps in Germany? How many people died in world war 11 and how many lives and property along with years of life that was destroyed because no one did anything? Does history repeat itself from time to time? You tell me. Lets fast forward to Iraq for a minute.... Lets honestly look at the evidence against Saddams Iraq. 1 they invaded another country with a mighty army at least once so intent was there. 2 they used chemical weapons against other countries and against there own people. 3 they were trying to make chemical weapons and had them at one time along with ingredients to make nuclear weapons. 4 people in Iraq were starved, executed and slaves of the Saddam machine. 5 were there terrorist camps in Iraq? 6 would you say concentration camps and terrorist camps serve a similar purpose? 7 Saddam was rebuilding his army and weapons and the proof was on tv, the missiles dated January of last year from France proves that. About WMD's Do people hide things if there is nothing to hide? Does that make sense? You may argue with me and say that there is no way to compare Hitler and Saddam but I would argue you are dead wrong for many reasons. Would you consider Saddam and Hitler both dictators who killed ruthlessly? Are there more similarities than differences? They were both similar in alot of ways but I'll take you one step further... What if Saddam died or was killed and the brothers took control over that country? Everything i've seen on his sons makes me think they were crazier than Saddam and i would be more scared personnally. Is everything I've done here so far fetched that I'm an extremist war mongerer or something? "I'm really scared about where this world and country is going because I think we're turning into a Europe or France right before the storm" Peace at all cost scares me, thats what happened before WW11. I'm not a crazy war mongerer but sometimes you have to act to prevent future events from happening. Dr. Rice statement? Does everyone at least agree with the statement that Democracies react after something happens instead of being on the offensive. Is that a good policy to have after all the terrorist attacks today against all countries including the US? Can we be unpartisian enough to answer and discuss these questions honestly?
The article below about the Tet offensive is very interesting, particularly when you see what is going on today. Times Link
Thanks for that article dallastigers. I read it and used a little part for my sig because I'm totally stunned about what i just read! :shock: :shock: :dis:
@ Sourdoughman And the US and 32 other countries brought the war to him. Over 600,000 troops, fought for 42 days and beat his army. The US and the international community did it's job. Now I have to ask, why wasn't there 32 countries, including middle eastern countries as there were in the first Iraq war? And Europe did help, more european countries helped then any other area of the wrold, Europe isn't just France and Germany. Who gave him those weapons agian? And agian we delt with the problem, sending in UN insepectors. They left in 1998, with most illegal weapons destroyed. It worked then and it worked before the war, when the UN got Saddam to destroy illegal missles, just as the US had asked. That is a warrentless claim. So show us on this forum and those in the US that he was openly developing a WMD program. Even David Kay, the man we sent into Iraq, said that there was no WMD program and so did Bush, this assumption is based off bad intel. Ok, this still is no warrent to goto war, if that were true, then we would forced to go into alomst every corrupt 3rd wrold country. So, I have to ask, is this a legit reason to goto war, in the long run. You don't give us an answer or any warrent to back up thre claim. Yes, there might have been camps, but the question is, were they openly, or secretly supported by Saddam's government, with his approval. Now, I must ask, if you do say yes there were, I want to know, what groups were located in Iraq. If you just say Al-Qaudia, then I know, you ethier don't know, or are lying. Saddam and Bin Ladden have very differing veiws of the wrold, and Bin Ladden opnly spoke against Saddam's pro western policies. Yes and no. Yes, both kill inocents, who shouldn't die. Both use cruel forms of murdering people. No, because terrorist camps have some "political" under currents, while concentration camps were the senseless killing of Jews, homosexuals, Gipies and others that the reich didn't like and hurt the "purity" of the German race. Duh, he was rebuilding his army after it got destroyed in the Gulf War. I mean, if the US had most of it's army destroyed, won't you think it would be rebuilt? The missles you speak of, I don't think they were from France, in fact all most all weapons were bought from Soviet block countries, as long with the missiles, as I remeber. Saddam modified them to go longer then they should have and when this was found out, he promptly turned them over to be destroyed. I will take this challenge, for one reason, comparing Saddam to Hitler, lowers the level of what Hitler did. 1. Saddam did not start a war that cost the lives of over 60 million people, he did not gas 11 million people, in over 3 years. 2. Saddam, gave into western demands to disarm and give in, un like Hitler, who forced the Wester powers to fight till all was lost. Ther are more reasons, that I will get to later, it is 3:00 o'clock AM here on the west coast, gah. Now onto WWII history..... None of the western powers, including the US could have made an assualt on Germany, pre WWII. There was no way in which French forces, which had better armour could have won an offensive for two reasons, 1. They didn't have the manpowe too, remeber, both sides of the German-Franco border were heavily defended. That is why Germany would have went through the Ardennes. 2. They didn't have armoured formations down yet, so Germany, would have countered with their Panzer forces and the same effect would had happened in history. The, US couldn't have done anything ethier, still hurting from the depression, with no tank army, and 14th largest army, no where nere Germany, we couldn't do anything. Britian, they were in the same boat. Seeing as Britian is mainly and naval power, it would have been forced to take troops out of Asian, weakening their defense from Japan. The ONLY vaible threat to Germany, was Russia, which had better tanks and a massive army, one problem, Poland stood in there way. Overallm only attrition and technological inovations and Russian/USA manufacturing could have stoped WWII, which all came after it had already started. The Khaos Project
Anyone who thinks the inspectors "left" on their own and that is was ok or normal to be rebuilding his army with weapons banned by the UN regardless of whether they were WMD (attempt to purchase missiles from North Korea is one example) is incapable off offering intelligent opinions to this forum. Saddam and Syria were not supposed to be "friends", but that did not stop them from helping each other. Pakistan supported the Taliban, but that did not stop them from helping us. That is they way of the middle east. It is about who can help you today. In Iraq the Sunni rebels and the Shiite rebels have been at least having some communications at the lowest levels, and they hate each other. Just like the rebels Saddam and Osama had the hatred of the US in common and that can overcome a lot if differences. This subject has been gone over so many times you need to read the other threads. http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?p=130851#post130851 http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?p=124627#post124627 http://www.tigerforums.com/showpost.php?p=116035&postcount=22 http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?p=108571#post108571 Clinton in 98 http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?t=13254 http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?p=102208#post102208 http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?p=95276#post95276 Democrats on Board These are just some of them. There are many of them and many have links to articles for their documentation.
1. They didnn't leave on their own, I never said they did, what i did say, is when they left, they had done so much damage to his WMD program, that it couldn't recover. 2. I also never said that illegal weapons where ok, let me clarify, rebuilding his conventional army was ok, anything ilegal, not,ok. 3. I believe I am able yo have ab intelligent conversation, I just have a little bit of a differing veiw. 1. Saddam and Osama hated each other becuase they had vastly differing beliefs religiously. Osama thought Saddam lived to "western" for his liking and he also thought he wasn't a true follower of Allah. 2. You say that I must bring the proof, where is yours that they help each other, just becuase other Islamic countries helped each Osama of the Taliban does not mean that Iraq did too. 3. Iraq, even though hating the US knew it's power and didn't want to make them mad again. After 91, Saddam backed off of some of his hardlines and unwillingly allowed inspectors to say in his country for seven years, enough to destroy his WMD program. This is just one simple reason why he would "help" each other? The Khaos Project P.S. I don't provide links, becuase I don't have the time to, even though I am on spring break, I still have lots of work to do. Also I believe in logic, and debate has taught me that links and evedince is flawed and basis.
quote: P.S. I don't provide links, becuase I don't have the time to, even though I am on spring break, I still have lots of work to do. Also I believe in logic, and debate has taught me that links and evedince is flawed and basis. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evidence flawed?? I leave it at that!
Actually alot of it is. If you use sources like CNN and FOX, who use staff writers to write there articles, then there is no source cites. Now, you use evedince like FP or any other journal/think tank it is ok, since you can see where they got there info from. I am learned form two years of debate, most staff writers do a poor job of writing. The KhaosProject
So no one should take this as you implying that the UN inspectors left on their own with their mission accomplished and could just go back whenever they wanted to????? That does not leave much, so why would you even complain about someone's post regarding this. Maybe not. As for your proof I said you were incapable of bringing intelligent opinions to this forum, which you have still proven. If you are talking about some of my comments in the links I provided I do not think I knew in the past you were coming here to post. I would not say that (provide proof) to you as I know you cannot do this. I guess you missed the news flash that Saddam had to allow inspectors as part of the truce that ended the first gulf war and that Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998 and shot missiles at our planes that were following the UN. The UN still wanted to go back there, but saddam would not allow it until 200,000 to 250,000 US soldiers were at or arriving soon to his border. Saddam and Osama were both Sunni and hated the US and saw (and see) the US as one their biggest enemies outside of Israel, which can easily overcome differences in politics. Your logic on why they would not come together is flawed. If that was the case why would Pakistan go from supporting the Taliban to supporting us. They were much closer in beliefs to the Taliban. Your PS is spineless and to then come back and add that they ok if they come from a certain place makes it worse. Since CNN was using a transcript from David Kay which was the basis for the posts about what was found in Iraq I would hope the inspector's own words are a good enough source for you. It seems logical, but with your version of logic you can never be sure.
You want some evedince, here you go. This from "Iraq: The Wrong War" by: Charles V. Pena, published by the CATO Institute, a conservitive think tank. Look at ther other stuff to find out. A general summary of what they think, "The war against Iraq was the wrong war because the enemy at the gates was, and continues to be, Al Qaeda. Not only was Iraq not a direct military threat to the United States (even if it possessed WMD, which was a fair assumption), but there is no good evidence to support the claim that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaeda and would have given the group WMD to be used against the United States. In fact, all the evidence suggests the contrary. Hussein was a secular Muslim ruler, and bin Laden is a radical Muslim fundamentalist—their ideological views are hardly compatible." And Iraq's military was in shambles, " According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies’ Military Balance 2002–2003, Iraq’s defense expenditures were $1.4 billion in 2001 (compared to U.S. defense spending of nearly $330 billion).23 Its army consisted of 350,000 troops (the vast majority of whom were ill-trained conscripts) and had 3 armored divisions, 3 mechanized divisions, and 11 infantry divisions, as well as 6 Republican Guard divisions and 4 Special Republican Guard brigades. But despite the Iraqi army’s relatively large size, all of the divisions other than the Republican Guard were reported to be at 50 percent combat effectiveness. Moreover, the army (including the elite Republican Guard) was outfitted with older Soviet and Chinese equipment—such as the T- 55, T-62 and Type-59 main battle tanks—and half of all the army’s equipment was lacking spares.24 In other words, Iraq’s army wasn’t much of an army and probably not much of a real threat to its neighbors (especially if its wealthy Persian Gulf neighbors were willing to spend some of their oil money on their own defense), let alone the United States. Similarly, the Iraqi air force did not amount to much. Its aircraft inventory consisted largely of older Soviet aircraft—such as the MiG-21 and MiG-23—and a few French Mirage F-1s. Moreover, the serviceability of those aircraft was only about 55 percent. Compounding the problem was Iraqi pilots’ lack of flying experience; senior pilots averaged 90–120 hours per year and junior pilots as little as 20 hours.25 In comparison, U.S. Air Force fighter pilots average 205 hours.26 Military analyst Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies made the following assessments in a report published about a year before the Iraq war: • “Iraq has lacked the funds, spare parts, and production capabilities to sustain the quality of its consolidated forces. • “It has not been able to recapitalize any aspect of its force structure, and about two-thirds of its remaining inventory of armor and aircraft is obsolescent by Western standards. • “Equally important, the U.S. has made major upgrades in virtually every aspect of its fighter avionics, attack munitions, cruise missile capabilities, and intelligence, reconnaissance, and targeting capabilities. • “Iraq’s inability to recapitalize and modernize its forces means that much of its large order of battle is now obsolescent or obsolete, has uncertain combat readiness, and will be difficult to sustain in combat.”27 And according to another analysis of Iraqi military capabilities by Cordesman: • “About half of its land order of battleconsists of relatively low-grade infantry units, and only one of its seven corps really seems combat ready enough to conduct major offensive or defensive operations. . . . It’s land force equipment is at best mid-1980s technology and combat worn, and much of its is obsolescent. Even its much-touted T-72 tanks proved incapable of successfully engaging earlier models of the U.S. M-1 [main battle tank] during the Gulf War. • “Iraq lacks all of the modern airborne platforms, sensors, and other equipment needed to carry out effective air battle management for either air defense or offense. Only about one-third of its force now consists of relatively modern high performance aircraft like the Su-20, Mirage F-1, Su-24, MiG-25, and MiG-29. Even these airframes are now 1970s– 1980s models, with no major modernization of avionics, munitions, or electronic warfare equipment. While some individual pilots perform well, overall air battle training is outdated, unrealistic, and incompetent.”28 The bottom line is that the Iraqi military posed no real threat to the United States. That the Iraqi military was no match for U.S. forces was borne out by the war itself. Although the war was not the “cakewalk” that some observers predicted,29 U.S. military forces effectively swept away Iraqi forces in the span of less than four weeks.30" US and UN actions had destroyed Iraqis WMD program, " It is clear now that the administration’s concerns about Iraq’s WMD were overstated. Before and during the Iraq war, administration officials implied that the United States was relatively certain where WMD were located. 44 But after nearly six months of searching, David Kay, who is heading up the U.S.-led, 1,400-person inspection team in Iraq, testified before Congress that the United States has “not yet found stocks of weapons” and has discovered only “WMD-related program activities.”45 According to Kay, “It clearly does not look like a massive, resurgent program, based on what we discovered.”46 More pointedly, Kay admits that “information found to date suggests that Iraq’s large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced—if not entirely destroyed— during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions, and U.N. inspections.”47" Iraq did not try to give WMD to terrorists, "But those “doom and gloom” statements have to be contrasted with the fact that Saddam Hussein never gave chemical or biological weapons to anti-Israeli Palestinian terrorist groups that he supported. And after being briefed by David Kay in Iraq, CSIS military expert Anthony Cordesman has concluded that there is “no evidence of any Iraqi effort to transfer weapons of mass destruction or weapons to terrorists.”73" There was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, " If the evidence linking Hussein to 9/11 amounts to nothing, then the evidence of any active cooperation between Hussein and Al Qaeda is next to nothing. The first claim of a possible linkage between the former Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda was that Mohammed Atta (one of the September 11 suicide hijackers) met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001. But shortly after that claim was first made, U.S. officials stated that the meetings did not constitute hard proof that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks,84 NATO’s secretary-general Lord Robertson told U.S. senators that there was “not a scintilla”85 of evidence linking Iraq with the September 11 attacks, and Israel’s chief of military intelligence stated, “I don’t see a direct link between Iraq and the hijackings and terror attacks in the United States.”86 Even the Czech government has distanced itself from its original stance." Iraq had no connection to Ansar al Islam, "The second alleged link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Al Qaeda is based on the presence of the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group in northern Iraq. This was the case made by Secretary of State Colin Powell at the United Nations Security Council in February 2003.But as Secretary Powell himself acknowledged, Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam were based “in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein’s controlled Iraq,” which is hardly a strong case for close ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda (and raises the question of why the U.S. military did not take action earlier against an alleged Al Qaeda target inside the coalitioncontrolled no-fly zone). Moreover, the State Department describes Ansar al-Islam as “a radical Islamist group of Iraqi Kurds and Arabs who have vowed to establish an independent Islamic state in northern Iraq.”91 That is a clear divergence, not a convergence, of the ideology and goals of Ansar al-Islam and the former regime in Baghdad—again, not convincing evidence that Hussein and Al Qaeda were in league with each other." No Affinity between Hussein and Al Qaeda (Used this strait from the article, so it makes sense, this is the title for a new section) " In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. Rohan Gunaratna, director of terrorism research at Singapore’s Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies is considered one of the world’s foremost experts on Al Qaeda and was afforded the opportunity to examine several thousand Al Qaeda documents and videos after Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Gunaratna “could not find any evidence of Al Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein or the Baghdad administration,” and the videos he watched “speak of [Saddam] as a real monster and not a real Muslim.”92Even more telling is the fact that in the war’s aftermath the administration has not unearthed any new and compelling evidence to support its claim that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda. One would think that, with all of Hussein’s documents in the hands of U.S. military and intelligence and so many high-ranking members of the regime in custody, such evidence would have surfaced more than six months after the fall of the regime. Instead, the president and other senior administration officials simply keep repeating the mantra that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked without providing any real proof." IRAQ WAS CONSIDERED AN ILLEGIT GOVERNMENT THAT AL QAEDA TARGETED, " It is important to remember that Hussein was a Muslim secular ruler while bin Laden is a radical Muslim fundamentalist—their ideological views are hardly compatible. Indeed, Saddam Hussein’s regime was exactly the kind of government that bin Laden claims is illegitimate and would be a target for Al Qaeda."Now, I have to ask, are you happy now Here is the link to the article, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa502.pdf I would like you guys to look at all the links at the bottom of the article, to ALL of the sources that they used. The Khaos Project
