PDA

View Full Version : War Is Eminent



TomBrooklyn
03-17-2003, 05:22 PM
The troops have taken their Nuclear-Biological-Chemical (NBC) suits out of their packages.
U.N. personnel are leaving Iraq.
Journalists and Diplomats have been advised by the White House to leave Iraq.
President Bush is going on TV tonight at 2000hrs EST to address the US and the world.

The world changes again this week.

I was hoping this wouldn't happen, but now that it is, I have no choice but to back the effort. I hope it's swift.

Gayle in MD
03-17-2003, 07:45 PM
Hi Tom,
Like you, I had hoped against hope that it wouldn't come to this, but if we must have war, we should all stand behind the President.

When they showed the pictures of the little Iraqi children in the school yards this evening, during the news, I had a very heavy heart.

I do hope and pray they will be safe somehow, and that this will be over quickly, and that Saddam will be punished for the terrible crimes against humanity which he has committed.

Also, I hope the French are satisfied. I'm pretty fed up with the French.

Gayle in Md., Will buy no more Shalimar, wine or cheese from France.

Karatemom
03-17-2003, 09:43 PM
I'm not glad we're going to war, which will happen, but it is about time to do something about Saddam. He's been in power too long and needs to be eradicated. I would have liked UN support, but believe we can do it without their help.

Heide ~ knew there was a reason I didn't like French perfume

snipershot
03-17-2003, 09:59 PM
I am deeply disapointed that it had to come to war, I hoped other solutions could be achieved and war would be a last resort. Something has to be done about Saddam and It looks like war is the only answer, let's hope this is the final solution to the problem. Let's hope the right people are punished and innocent people aren't harmed.

Wally_in_Cincy
03-18-2003, 07:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
....When they showed the pictures of the little Iraqi children in the school yards this evening, during the news, I had a very heavy heart.
....<hr /></blockquote>

Let not your heart be heavy. Those little children will now grow up without the prospect of political imprisonment and torture chambers. Soon they'll have Nike's and Levi's /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

TomBrooklyn
03-18-2003, 10:21 AM
I'm not so sure they want Nikes and Levis. These people have a significatly different culture than that of Europe and the west. Americans tend to think that everyone loves the way we live. Many do, but not all. Devout Moslems think we are a hedonistic society, and in comparison to the values they hold dear, we are. To think that we are going to make their lives better with an infusion of our culture and values is probably being percieved as arrogant by a billion or so Moslems around the world.

Wally_in_Cincy
03-18-2003, 10:34 AM
Iraq, specifically, has been a pretty cosmopolitan, Western oriented society since after WWII. They are not nearly as fundamentalist as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

eg8r
03-18-2003, 10:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I hoped other solutions could be achieved and war would be a last resort. <hr /></blockquote> I would definitely call this the last resort. Saddam has been given 12 years to disarm. We have had 2 other Presidents try and get him to disarm and Saddam has done nothing. He has made a mockery of the UN and continued to keep his weapons.

Something that is funny in the news right now. All the papers and websites are showing articles about Saddam stating he used to have the weapons but he does not have them anymore. A month or so ago, he agreed he still had them when he signed 1441. During all this agreement time and him saying "Yes we have them, and we will get rid of them", he has continued to also turn the other cheek and say he does not have anything. Oh the web the media weaves.

He has the weapons still I am 100% positive but we will see when this is all over. It seems the other nations around the world only listen to what was last said and do not care what was said just prior. Saddam said he had the weapons in 91. Then he told Clinton numerous times he did not have them. Then he told the UN he did have them and would disarm. He never did. Clinton gave him his final chance (and did nothing). Then the UN gave him another chance and he promised to disarm. Why would Iraq promise to disarm if Iraq is telling everyone they do not have the weapons. It is a giant lie and he has made a joke out of diplomacy.

W then comes to office and has decided to finally do something about it. He offered 1441 and Saddam agreed and never disarmed. We get Blix' report from Iraq and Blix fails to make a bullet next to the section of where Blix and his inspectors have found the warheads (nothing inside) capable of carrying out the destruction, and unmanned vehicles (both are illegal according to the agreement with Saddam) used to carry the warheads. Blix then backtracks after the US finds this information and makes it newsworthy. France declares a veto no matter what. Bush goes over seas and gets no where and decides he has had enough.

If Saddam cared enough about his people he would leave. He doesn't. Next funny thing, Saddam states that if we invade he will use biological weapons against us. How is this possible if he did not have any. WHAT A LIAR. The other problem, is that he will be setting these off on his own soil thus killing his own people. He is a murderer and will prove himself that he has had these weapons.

eg8r

eg8r
03-18-2003, 10:50 AM
LOL, Gayle, have you seen the menu in the White House? No more French fries and french toast. They now make "Freedom" Fries and "Freedom" Toast. LOL

eg8r /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
03-18-2003, 01:19 PM
Hi Gator,
Yeah, I read or heard about that, LOL. I am sick sick sick of the French. They really are disgusting. I heard one of the former inspectors say that when we get in there and find out how much stuff the French and the Russians have sold to this monster we're gonna really see all this for what it has been all along, all this back stabbing from the French. And, it sure looks to me like Blix is right there with the French, &amp; Saddam, when it comes to being deceitful.

Can't even trust the UN inspectors? PAHLEEZE! /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-18-2003, 01:23 PM
Well the French were in the news again today. They stated, if Saddam uses biological weapons against US/UK military, then the French will join the US led side of the war.

Well, if the French believed 100% all the bull crap they have been feeding everyone the past month or so, why would they even say this. They do not believe there are any weapons of mass destruction according to their press releases and the US are crazy for thinking so. However, now the French are backtracking what they said, and are now saying they will join if Saddam uses it. Now the French are stating they know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, both biological and chemical, but they just don't want Saddam to use them.

Will the French make up their minds. Then surrender. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

03-18-2003, 06:04 PM
The U.S. is also guilty of weapon sells to iraq. Here is a link to a washington post article giving the details. If by chance the link doesn't work the title of the article is "U.S. had key role in Iraq buildup." It was printed on Dec. 30 2002, and written by Michael Dobbs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&amp;node=&amp;contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&amp;notFound=true

eg8r
03-18-2003, 06:11 PM
Yes sir, oh how the times have changed.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote small quote from your link:</font><hr> "Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in Prague. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."

What makes present-day Hussein different from the Hussein of the 1980s, say Middle East experts, is the mellowing of the Iranian revolution and the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait that transformed the Iraqi dictator, almost overnight, from awkward ally into mortal enemy. In addition, the United States itself has changed. As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. policymakers take a much more alarmist view of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

03-18-2003, 06:28 PM
Hopefully the times have changed in regards to U.S. foreign policy and we as a nation are finished with supplying weapons to dictators.

03-18-2003, 06:33 PM
The reason for my initial post with the link was to respond to the notion that the French gov't is bad or evil for possible weapons sells to Iraq. If it is justified for the U.S. to have sold weapons to Iraq, than it would seem that it is also justified for the French to have sold weapons to Iraq. So in the end they should not be singled out for something that we are also guilty of.

03-18-2003, 06:54 PM
"Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible." Danny Newton, former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad.

This quote by the U.S. ambassador in regards to U.S. weapon sells to Iraq displays the absurdity of world politics. So we have this dictactor, Saddam Hussein, who is repressive and lacks responsibility. However, both Hussein and the U.S. share a mutual enemy. We sell weapons to this irresponsible dictator in the hopes he will defeat our mutual enemy. After he has finished off the mutual enemy we hope that he has an epiphany and suddenly becomes a responsible and nonrepressive leader.

With this kind of political logistics I am sure the human race will experience a long and peaceful existence on planet earth.

bluewolf
03-18-2003, 06:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote johnnypanic:</font><hr> The reason for my initial post with the link was to respond to the notion that the French gov't is bad or evil for possible weapons sells to Iraq. If it is justified for the U.S. to have sold weapons to Iraq, than it would seem that it is also justified for the French to have sold weapons to Iraq. So in the end they should not be singled out for something that we are also guilty of. <hr /></blockquote>

I hope that we wont get a bunch of deadly stuff done over here in retaliation. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Laura

03-18-2003, 07:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I hope that we wont get a bunch of deadly stuff done over here in retaliation.

Laura<hr /></blockquote>

That is a worthy concern. One of my great concerns is this, Israel obviously is not a popular nation with the surrounding muslim countries. Israel has promised a full retaliation if Iraq attacks Israel. In the first Gulf War Iraq sent 39 scud missiles at Israel. I think it is highly likely that Iraq does have chemical/biological weapons. I think it is highly likely that Iraq will again send missiles towards Israel, this time possibly with chemical/biological warheads. I worry about an attack from Israel on Iraq setting off an undesirable series of events. I am also concerned that a war with Iraq will push terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah to begin taking aim on American targets.

Then of course I am also concerned about Kim Jong Il of N. Korea. North Korea has made no secret of it's intentions of constructing nuclear weapons. It is also likely that they already have nuclear weapons. They also have an army of over a million men. And for the past year or so Kim Jong Il has been playing the game of brinkmanship, which we have largley ignored. He seems to be acting like a child who does/says threatening things for the sake of attention. However, he is a "child" that has nuclear weapons and a million men army. He is the x-factor, as I really don't have any idea of what he hopes to accomplish. He was part of Bush's "Axis of Evil" so I suspect their may be some sort of confrontation with him in the future.

However, My greatest concern is simply the lives of friends that I have stationed in both the middle east and S. Korea. I don't want their lifes to be sacrificed for political policies that have a five or ten year expiration date... like the policies of supplying iraq with weapons in the 80's.

eg8r
03-18-2003, 09:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
With this kind of political logistics I am sure the human race will experience a long and peaceful existence on planet earth. <hr /></blockquote> This is not the first time it has happened. Not that I condone it or approve or whatever, but you sound surprised to find out this information. It has been widely known, and in case you did not know, we sold weapons to Iraq also.

Just to let you in, we also sell tons of stuff to Egypt. They are allies right now, but they still despise Americans.

I find it surprising that you don't think of this as possibly being strategic at the time. Certainly you are not able to tell the future, so would you not think it would be a good idea at the time. Also, don't you think there were stipulations upon the sale which Iraq did not live up to. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
03-18-2003, 09:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If it is justified for the U.S. to have sold weapons to Iraq, than it would seem that it is also justified for the French to have sold weapons to Iraq. <hr /></blockquote> I hardly think we are singling them out for this.

France was quite comedic today. They said they will join our side if Iraq uses biological or chemical weapons. This is just after France told us we should not go into war since we could not prove they had the weapons. What hypocrites.

France is like the Texas Rangers. Good news is the baseball season is starting, bad news is the Rangers are already mathematically eliminated. Just like France, they surrender.

eg8r /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

03-18-2003, 10:04 PM
"With this kind of political logistics I am sure the human race will experience a long and peaceful existence on planet earth"

Just to let you know, this is what some people call "sarcasm." Not that I expect you to be aware of this revolutionary new phenomenom.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it surprising that you don't think of this as possibly being strategic at the time. Certainly you are not able to tell the future, so would you not think it would be a good idea at the time. Also, don't you think there were stipulations upon the sale which Iraq did not live up to.
<hr /></blockquote>

It may have seemed like a great idea at the time. I'm sure Richard Nixon sending people to break into the Watergate hotel seemed like a great idea at the time. I'm sure the idea of containment of communism and sending troops to Vietnam sounded like a great idea at the time. Unfortunately great ideas don't always prove to be correct.

[ QUOTE ]
This is not the first time it has happened. Not that I condone it or approve or whatever, but you sound surprised to find out this information. It has been widely known, and in case you did not know, we sold weapons to Iraq also. <hr /></blockquote>

Seeing that I posted the link to the Washington post article which provided documented evidence that we did sell weapons to Iraq, I think by some extremely small chance I may have been aware of weapon sells to Iraq.

03-18-2003, 10:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I hardly think we are singling them out for this.
<hr /></blockquote>

This is the quote which prompted me to post the link to the Washington Post article:

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Gator,
Yeah, I read or heard about that, LOL. I am sick sick sick of the French. They really are disgusting. I heard one of the former inspectors say that when we get in there and find out how much stuff the French and the Russians have sold to this monster we're gonna really see all this for what it has been all along, all this back stabbing from the French. And, it sure looks to me like Blix is right there with the French, &amp; Saddam, when it comes to being deceitful.

Can't even trust the UN inspectors? PAHLEEZE!

Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>

I failed to quote this in my initial response, so I apologize for any confusion. I was so shocked by the statement that france was disgusting for weapons sells to Iraq(when we also sold weapons to iraq) I just immediately posted the link to show this poster that we were guilty of weapon sells as well.

[ QUOTE ]
France was quite comedic today. They said they will join our side if Iraq uses biological or chemical weapons. This is just after France told us we should not go into war since we could not prove they had the weapons. What hypocrites. <hr /></blockquote>

In regards to France, economically they should benefit from regime change in Iraq. There are many big buisness in France and Russia as well as other countries, which have preliminary deals set take over and refurbish Iraqi oil fields. The only thing stopping them are the trade sanctions against Iraq.

My theory on the French position in regards to Iraq is this: They are aware of all the chemical/biological weapons which has been sold to Iraq. I simply believe that without broad international support they are not willing to put their troops at risk of the threat of being attacked by chemical/biological weapons.

Perhaps I am just a pessimist, but I believe politics/politicians by nature are deceitfull. This is why I am skeptical about going to war. I certainly don't trust Saddam Hussein. But I also don't trust Jacques Chirac or George Bush either. My main concern is the safety of my friends who are stationed in the middle east and South Korea.
I simply don't want to risk the lives of my friends unless there are well-stated justifications for war. Seeing that George Bush struggles to put together a coherent sentence, and cannot pronounce "nuclear", I am wary about this commander in chief in times of war.

Vapros
03-19-2003, 12:57 AM
You're on the right track, TB. War is imminent.

bluewolf
03-19-2003, 06:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote johnnypanic:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I hope that we wont get a bunch of deadly stuff done over here in retaliation.

Laura<hr /></blockquote>

That is a worthy concern. One of my great concerns is this, Israel obviously is not a popular nation with the surrounding muslim countries. Israel has promised a full retaliation if Iraq attacks Israel. Then of course I am also concerned about Kim Jong Il of N. Korea. North Korea has made no secret of it's intentions of constructing nuclear weapons. It is also likely that they already have nuclear weapons. They also have an army of over a million men. <hr /></blockquote>

I had not thought of israel. It would be tragic if they were harmed because of this. I have also been concerned that while our military is focused on iraq, that n korea might take the opportunity to attack us.

I live 30 miles n of dc, which is a big target. My brother has a cabin on top of a mountain in a rural virginia town between roanoke and bedford. Since I am currently not working, I am seriously considering taking my dogs and going there. Still undecided. I have all the survival stuff needed in case the electricity goes out and the water goes out including a water filter which will filter out all bacteria and most viruses.

If I take this action, I would have room for a couple of friends also.

I think that it is good that we are talking about this here.

Laura

eg8r
03-19-2003, 07:19 AM
We certainly did sell the stuff to Iraq and yes we will find out how deep in bed France and Russia are with Iraq. Everyone knows France has been trying to play both sides and benefit likewise. It is not going to happen to awful much longer. Once we begin, we will not need the French.

As far as France benefitting from the rebuilding process, that has yet to be seen. France does not have any contracts just yet to rebuild oil fields because none have been handed out. There have only been bids put in. Bush has backpedalled twice now, first he said he would allow UN countries to help rebuild, and now he has said only US countries will get the opportunities. We will see when the time comes.

Currently France as a country stands to lose quite a bit considering they have billions tide up in contracts with Saddam and his oil. Also, French private industry also stands to lose a ton. I forget the name of the publishing company here in the US (they publish Car and Driver, and a few other mags here) is owned by a French firm. Well the leading stock holder in this company is none other than Saddam at 90 million dollars. He is in business all over the world but France just happened to be the first one to stand up for him. They will lose plenty if he gets pulled and loses all that fortune.

[ QUOTE ]
My theory on the French position in regards to Iraq is this: They are aware of all the chemical/biological weapons which has been sold to Iraq. I simply believe that without broad international support they are not willing to put their troops at risk of the threat of being attacked by chemical/biological weapons. <hr /></blockquote> This is in stark contrast to the French position at the UN. The French stated emphatically no matter how many votes the US received they would still veto. I guess you have an insider who explained the ulterior meaning to this. The French know this is going to happen so they completely changed their outlook (They also stated emphatically that Iraq did not have these weapons and we did not have proof) on Saddam and said "WHEN" he uses his weapons of mass destruction then they would join. Well, I guess that would be too late. If this happens I would suggest we hold France responsible for the lives lost because they dragged their feet and allowed Saddam the chance to do this.

[ QUOTE ]
I simply don't want to risk the lives of my friends unless there are well-stated justifications for war. Seeing that George Bush struggles to put together a coherent sentence, and cannot pronounce "nuclear", I am wary about this commander in chief in times of war.<hr /></blockquote> I am not sure what you would deem "justification" for war. I feel perfectly comfortable with the fact that Saddam agreed 12 years ago to disarm and to this day he has not disarmed a single bit. Sure he was dismantling those missiles, problem with this, is that we did not ask him to dismantle those missile. We don't care about the missile that only go 100 miles. Those missiles were not even in the document and he was perfectly legal having them. What a joke.

He said he would disarm, he has not. He has continued to kill his own people. He has continued to fly in UN sanctioned no-fly zones. He continues to lock onto our military aircraft. Saddam has done nothing for 12 years after agreeing to, so now someone is finally doing something about it.

eg8r

eg8r
03-19-2003, 07:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"With this kind of political logistics I am sure the human race will experience a long and peaceful existence on planet earth"

Just to let you know, this is what some people call "sarcasm." Not that I expect you to be aware of this revolutionary new phenomenom. <hr /></blockquote> Nope completely unaware.

[ QUOTE ]
Seeing that I posted the link to the Washington post article which provided documented evidence that we did sell weapons to Iraq, I think by some extremely small chance I may have been aware of weapon sells to Iraq.
<hr /></blockquote> Just because you post a link does not mean you read it.

As far as watergate, vietnam, etc I guess you are correct. May have been too easy for you. Similar to a 4th grader picking the word "the" in a spelling competition.

Lets try a harder one. How about the Pershing missile stance that Reagan took. Do you remember this, it was not in you link. Russia was adamant we do not do anything with these missiles or they would retaliate with their own nuclear (a word you pronounce more effectively then our very own president) weapons. Well, here is a decision that Reagan faced with consequential implications. He chose to move forward. This could have turned out just as bad as selling arms to Iraq and Iran, however it did not. Russia backed down when they saw we were for real.

eg8r