rimbaud: We have always known that Saddam was a murderous scumbag - even before the Iranians became our #1 enemy. We weakened both regimes, or don't you realize that? Saddam was left with a huge army, but an even larger war debt. The insinuation that we tried to prop up his regime and help him stay in power is flat out a lie; we've been trying to weaken his regime in the hopes someone else replaces him since the day he became president. We thought that screwing with the Iraqi economy by creating a huge war debt would spark a coup or popular revolution (a secular one was expected in Iraq), but Saddam instead turned to Kuwait. We made a mistake. We've been underestimating this guy for decades. Time to fix that problem. And thank the stars, looks like we finally got an administration willing to do the job. Or thank bin Laden, however you want to look at it. I really don't care if either you or glynch doesn't like the probability that we're going to remove Saddam. In fact, that would just reinforce my opinion that it's the right thing to do. And I don't think glynch deserves to die, although there are times I'd like to throttle him myself. Get a sense of humor.
I'll get a sense of humor when you get a clue. Even joking can be tasteless, you know. If you do want to throttle him for having a different viewpoint, maybe you should look into anger management or something. Remember: deep breaths (do I have one yet?). Anyway, I was speaking about Iraq's military power that we boosted - which is now the threat. You obviously agree. Go ahead and group me with your enemy glynch, even though I came into this thread to take issue with his post. Drink up.
Joe Joe takes himself out with an obvious suicide run across the firing range, so he could concentrate on arguing instead of spelling. MoonDog scores the pot shot!
RIMBAUD , first 1) I agree the invasion of Iraq has been in thE works since 1990-- IT HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH 9/11. 2) I agree all could have been avoided or at least mitigated if the rich nations had taken a real interest in that area of the world 3) I agree my post was kind of silly, replying in tone to the those who espouse war with Iraq, Somalia and 50 or was it 60? plus other countries. I wanted to interfere with the love of war fest. Goophers Many countries have weapons of mass destruction. Attacking them tends to make them hate us more. Sadam has never attacked the US despite the fact that we attacked him. He does hate us especially since after what we did to his country. Before he was our ally. Many countries have weapons and hate our country, we can't just invade them all. If he hasn't made any moves to attack us by now, why should we think it is urgently necessary now? It is the timing of this Iraq hoopla which leads me to theorize about Bush's motives, though as Rimbaud says, it could all just be an excuse to do what they planned to do before 9/11. The positive fall out for the Bush family regarding electoral ambitions and future oil business ventures could just be coincidence. Too bad there aren't as many positive fallouts for those of us on this board or our members of the military. Insideout From what I read the guys who made the model that first accurately predicted the year that US oil production peaked, have now said 2004 to 2007 is the year when total world oil production will peak i.e, for every new reserve put into production an old one will stop producing. Those who think strictly in terms of securing resources for the US have advocated that we seize the Middle East oil fields. If we go into Iraq for whatever reason we'll probably want heavy additional involvement for oil reasons. Many on this board seem not to be old enough to remember that for the first month or two prior to the Gulf War, the US was quite forthright in saying that we had to go to War with Iraq because we needed to protect the oil, that Iraq would control too much of it. When this didn't cause a great ground swell for a war, they started playing up the "weapons of mass destruction" idea. Since Bush senior did not seem too worried about Iraq's weapons, I assume Bush junior isn't either. JoeJoe, The US is a pretty just country, especially to citizens within its boder, one of the top 10 to 20, I would say. Its foreign policy is becoming more unjust which leads to increasing number or people around the world hating us. This can lead to security problems for us. Bigman I believe that one of the best ways to make this country safe is to be a good neighbor and not a bully. As the Israelis with the Palestinians and the British with the Irish have shown, if a group hates you enough it is very hard to stop small bombs and suicide bombers. Small scale terrorism will remain the main threat to Americans and our country. The best way to fight this in the long run ,aside from increased security at the borders and airports, is to have a foreign policy that doesn't make us so hated. Regarding Treeman, he is so far to the militaristic extreme that he attacks generals like Powell and Schwartkopf as sell outs if they ever question the advisability of attacking Iraq at any time. He makes frequent statements about invading, nuking, killing, and torturing. For patriotic reasons ,I presume, these statements are not directed as often toward Americans, especailly if they don't disagree with his views.
<i>Isn't it Iraniq? Online community member continues Iraqui Obsession The Ass Satiated Press Texas - An anonomys member of an online sports bulletin board continued his obsession with the country of Iraq and its leader, Sadaam Huessin, adding a stream of links on how the US will kick the fanatical leader's ass any day now. "We have always known that Saddam was a murderous scumbag - even before the Iranians became our #1 enemy." the writer known only as treeman said. While the dialoge between "treeman" and other members of the online community continued, interested parties watched, read and wondered. "Could the guy be just some wacko? Hell, maybe it's a girl!" one frightened poster who wished to remain anonomys said (we'll just call him grynch). The anonomys poster seemed concerned by comments directed at him (or is it her?). In this exclusive report obtained by The Ass Satiated Press, treeman is seen here clearly threatening "grynch". "And I don't think gRynch deserves to die, although there are times I'd like to throttle him myself." treeman said. He continued, "Get a sense of humor."</i> As you wish. <font size=1>he he he he - couldn't resist</font>
rimbaud: I'd like to throttle glynch at times because I find his hatred for the US disgusting, when it has likely gotten him into a position comfortable enough in life to spouse his anti-US bulls*it. I respect everyone's right to believe whatever the hell they want, and would never take that away, but I don't have to like what they think. And I don't have to be touchy feely and supersensitive about it either. Not my style. As for Iraq's military power that we "boosted" - that's largely a myth. We did loan Iraq money, but we loan everyone money, so that's not exactly preferential treatment. We did not, as is commonly accused, equip Iraq militarily, which is what I assume is meant by "boosting them militarily". They got the vast majority of their weapons from the Russians, French, and Chinese. Look it up. BTW, the only real problem I have with you is your arrogance. One more thing I have to live with but don't have to like. glynch: You may not be responding to me, but you're still reading me... Please refresh my memory: when did I say that I wanted to go to war with 50 or 60 countries? Could you please find that post for me? I must have forgotten it... Now, I do remember saying repeatedly that I think all we'll have to do militarily is Iraq and Somalia; I could find a couple of those, if you'd like? Please, find that post where I expressed my "love of war" festively and advocated invading 50 or 60 countries. I'd really appreciate it. See: 1993 WTC bombing, Ramsi Youssef. Iraqi Intelligence Agent. Inaccurate. Before he was our tool. I've never been hurt in a car wreck. Why should I wear a seat belt, turn on my headlights at night, or put down that 5th of Jack? (Imagine I say on Sept. 10th, 2001 - "Osama's never struck US soil before, why should I worry about it now?") There are two men on this planet who have promised to attack the US; one of them already has. The other is building nukes. Could the fact that it wouldn't have been politically acceptable before 9/11 have anything to do with it? Most people didn't see terrorism (or Saddam) as a threat before then, and now they're aware of the problem. Bush has simply realized that there is no possible way to declare victory unless Saddam is removed. He really has no political choice now. And I've listed some of the positives - pretty much all positives, there are no negatives to removing Saddam - elsewhere. I see you continue to choose ignorance and denial... Still haven't studied this, have you? Really? I remember it very clearly, and I remember dips*its like cou constantly spouting on about what a bloodbath a war with Iraq would be (like Afghanistan, curiously enough), and Bush constantly repeating the claim that poor, helpless Kuwait must be freed, etc. The oil issue wasn't talked about much by the administration - the noble, liberate Kuwait angle was played up, and the oil issue was played down. Of course, everyone knew it was really all about oil, but you couldn't deny the mushy, "free Kuwait" side of things... The WMD angle wasn't even really touched too much until the middle of the war, and only became a real public issue after the war was over. Either you have a very selective memory that has a knack for creative reconstruction, or you were too little to remember the Gulf War. (BTW, I don't believe you're as old as you claim, but that's another story) As usual, a nonspecific statement of US evil. How convincing... Militaristic extreme? In case you haven't noticed, Mrs. Fonda, the administration is saying pretty much what I've been saying all along. Are they military fanatics, too? Powell was wrong about Saddam, and he was wrong about the Afghanistan/Pakistan, and I pointed that out. Schwartzkopf was for taking out Saddam after the war, but he is not anymore - that's just an observation. Go look it up, moron. Any old history of the war will do. Frequent... WTF are you talking about? I said I'd nuke anyone back if we were nuked. Most people would. Killing? This is war, you dumba*s. People get killed. Torturing? I mentioned it once, and I stand by what I said - I'd torture an Al Qaeda operative to save Americans from another attack. You continue to amaze me. Every day, a new ridiculous slant... Strangely, it pleases me to know that you will be unhappy seeing Iraq liberated and those WMD neutralized. I guess I just really don't like you. Go back to Berkley, ya commie!
Found in about 10 minutes: Congress More specific about documents, etc. Former Reagan security counsel officer. Nobel Laureates. http://web.mit.edu/ssp/fall98/keller.htm http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1990/n90/n90ackland.html http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol1/arms_body.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010820-hornet.htm http://www.iansa.org/news/2001/oct_01/experts_see.htm
rimbaud: Actually, most of those articles were pretty good... I'll go down the list and mention relevant references to Iraqi sales/transfers: First article: A single obscure reference - “They point to past US arms customers Iraq, Haiti, Liberia and Somalia as examples of countries who have come back to haunt American foreign policy” This could mean a nuclear weapon, or a washing machine. Both are classified as military spending in various congressional outlays. I can figure out what a conspiracy buff might think… Second article: “The equipment ranged from advanced computers to precision machine tools…” “All of the items were "dual-use" products, those that could have either civilian or military applications…” “They suggest speedy reforms before the US inadvertently helps to arm another potentially hostile dictator.” If I sell you a piano and you drop it on someone’s head, am I an arms dealer? We sell everyone advanced computers and precision machine tools. Except the Iraqis, that is. Now, at least. Third article: “On Jan. 15, 1995, Clinton's Justice Department issued a report stating that it found no "evidence that U.S. agencies or officials illegally armed Iraq" in the 1980s. The report, however, contained a curious admission that the CIA had withheld relevant data from the investigators…” Inconclusive, although it looks like we probably sold them a handful of cluster munitions. Still pales in comparison to the Russian, French, and Chinese sales. Pretty insignificant in the scope of things. Fourth article: (only reference) “ The U.S. sold arms to Iraq in order to frustrate Iran's ambitions in the Persian Gulf, but then saw the arms turned against us when we opposed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait” This is the patent lie that bugs me. Not a single tank, APC, truck, machine gun, rifle, pistol, missile, aircraft, or spitball straw aimed against US forces came from the US. Not one. We sold them “dual-use” technology. We sold the USSR “dual-use” technology during the same period. We sold it to everybody then. Not anymore. Unless glynch has his way, of course… Fifth article: Stated nothing specific regarding arms sales or transfers to Iraq, just talked about how we supported both sides. Actually a pretty good article, but no smoking gun, rimbaud. You did read these, didn't you? Sixth article: “…Iraqi missiles aimed at U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia are guided by sophisticated electronics equipment sold to Iraq by U.S. companies with approval of the U.S. government…” Funny, I thought all they had were SCUDs, FROGs, Exocets, Silkworms, SA-2, SA-3, SA-6/8/9/13/19 SAMs? That’s all we’ve ever faced there. Oh yeah, in the same paragraph… “French Mirage fighters and Exocet missiles could target French ships; and the Soviet Union--Iraq's biggest source of weapons--might taste its own lead if it participates in the U.N. force.” Makes more sense. Seventh article: Again only a single nonspecific reference – “In fact, the last 5 times the U.S. has sent significant numbers of troops into areas of conflict--in Panama, Iraq-Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia--U.S. forces faced adversaries that had previously received U.S. weapons, military technology, and/or training.” No surprise here. We have given *support* to all of these nations in the past. None, however, have received any significant arms transfers or sales. Eighth article: Again, a single reference, and still pretty vague – “The last four times the United States has sent troops into conflict in substantial numbers -- in Panama, Iraq, Somalia and Haiti -- they faced forces on the other side that had received U.S. weapons, training or military technology in the period leading up to the outbreak of hostilities” See above... Or below. Ninth article: “During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Washington covertly supplied arms and military assistance to Iraq.” Odd how none of this equipment was seen by our forces in 1991. I know a number of people who were involved in 1991, and none of them ever related coming up against any US arms (plenty of Russian/Soviet arms, though). I have also studied that conflict fairly thoroughly, and have never come across any mention – ever –of any US troops coming up against their own weapons. It is also odd that for such a huge US-Iraq arms scandal/transfer/sale the only record is of a handfull of cluster munitions. Hell, I know we gave them more than that? (we actually probably did, but it's still insignificant) It is known that we gave the Iraqis intelligence and loans, and apparently we gave them a few cluster bombs (the only revelation from your nine articles, rimbaud). Big surprise. Did you even read any of these, rimbaud? They’re good articles, and great ones if you want to argue against US arms sales in general, but there’s no smoking gun. I safely stand by my earlier assertion (and a well known one everywhere but here, apparently) that the Iraqis have obtained the vast majority of their weapons from Russia/USSR, France, and China. We sold the Iraqis some cluster bombs and washing machines, but someone else sold them the rest of their military. Just ask any fighter pilot from 1991 what he shot down. Ask any tanker what he blew up. Ask any infantryman what every Iraqi infantryman he killed was holding/carrying. None of it was American. So cut the bull.
Lol, they were good, weren't they. You left out a few things: The equipment ranged from advanced computers to precision machine tools, and the buyers included entities that US intelligence officials knew were involved in Iraqi efforts to develop nuclear weapons and missiles like the Scuds fired at Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf war. Yet the Commerce Department approved some of the technology sales without consulting the Defense, State or Energy Departments, as required under federal rules, the study contended. Breaking the law. Supporters of the bill, who include Democrats and conservative Republicans such as Rep. Bob Dornan, counter that unrestricted sales of arms overseas feeds international instability. They point to past US arms customers Iraq, Haiti, Liberia and Somalia as examples of countries who have come back to haunt American foreign policy. Yep washing machines cause regional instability. It also specifically says arms, not generic spending. Howard Teicher, a former national security official under Ronald Reagan, came forward with a startling affidavit in the Teledyne case. Teicher asserted that the secret arming of Iraq had been ordered by President Reagan in June 1982 as part of a National Security Decision Directive. Under it, CIA Director William Casey and his then-deputy, Robert Gates, "authorized, approved and assisted" delivery of cluster bombs to Iraq through Cardoen. Reagan "secretly" approves bombs. So, if Defense Secretary William Perry says that Iraq is included as one of the countries we gave arms and/or training to, it is vague? Anyway, you silly boy, the point of all those crappy internet articles (imagine finding something good) was not for some "smoking gun" about how the US gave 12 year-old Iraqis nuclear war heads. I am fully aware that the Soviets, French, British, and Chinese (I believe), etc. provided plenty of "arms" themselves. The point was simply in reply to this by you: "As for Iraq's military power that we "boosted" - that's largely a myth. We did loan Iraq money, but we loan everyone money, so that's not exactly preferential treatment. We did not, as is commonly accused, equip Iraq militarily" The US gave more than money. They gave tech, arms (even if you want to say limited, doesn't matter), and training in different combos during the 80's. They were one of many. They, thus, had a role in strengthening Iraq's military. Why so much fuss?
The "fuss", rimbaud, is over your insinuation that we somehow - with all evil intent - armed Iraq to the teeth. That is the image that some here have consistently tried to propose, and it's just flat a f*king lie. We gave them a *very limited amount of support*. Compare it to support for our NATO allies. Hell, compare it to Saudi, Kuwait, Egypt, and Jordan if you really want to guage it accurately (which I suspect you don't). It is relatively negligible. No way to argue against that when compared to Saudi and Egyptian sales/transfers. You posted nine articles, and only a couple of them actually made tangible reference to US-Iraq arms sales. The rest were secondary in nature. I could've written those... and Mrs McKinney hasn't been doing her job. I'm just curious why you (and a couple of other people) refuse to acknowledge that the US role in Iraqi armament armament schemes was small, and that their regular suppliers are the former USSR and China? Why are you trying to deflect blame here? That's all I'm really curious about. Put aside your personal hatred for me for a sec, and tell me who's selling the Iraqis weapons. Now, tell me who sold them weapons in 1980. Good, same answer... If you take glynch's side in this, you will lose. If you are so fu*king arrogant that you can't admit that you're wrong sometimes, you'll lose. You posted 9 articles - most of which were actually pretty good - but none of which really supported your argument. Admit you're wrong. Or continue to be an arrogant snob-in-training. I don't really care.
tree, Seriously, man, you seem to have some kind of oppositional thing. I hate you? Please. Until the Egypt thread I don't remember even having a dispute of any kind with you...and the Egypt was nowhere near personal, it was about two schools of research. Tell you who has sold them arms? I already did. The articles? I am fully aware that they were not terribly specific, but - as I said - I was just taking what I quickly found to show that there has been some military involvement, which you claimed did not even exist, that we only gave them money. Admit that the US's role was comparably small? I already did that as well. I also know we give a whole lot more to the Saudis, for obvious reasons. They are great leaders, though. Am I deflecting blame for what? I really don't follow that question. Once again, I am on glynches side? I only got into this thread because I found his post laughable. Did I hurt your feelings or something? F****** Arrogant, snob-in-training? Wow. Personal attacks are so...mature.
rimbaud: You admitted most of what I wanted to see (from a normal person). You're not a total lefty-nutcase. We're off on a bad foot/tangent, IMO. I'd as soon as correct it... I really hate personal attacks. Pointless... But tell me if I'm way off track - like you just did. That's all I'd really like to see happen... My only real goal here in these threads is to prepare Americans for what I've been seeing for several years. 9/11 was not a surprise to me, although the methods were shocking. There is a tendency in many Americans towards indifference. That is our real enemy in this war. I want to try and stir the pot, get that indifference moving into thought... And without impurities. Without the "America deserved it BS". I hate lies. I make mistakes all of the time - everyone does - but I hate out and out lies. Glynch is a liar, and that pisses me off. Our enemies are constantly and consistently lying right now, because they believe (rightly, unfortunately) that some Americans are dumb enough to buy their spiel. We disagree on some findings in Egyptology. Fine. That really doesn't bother me half as much as you might think. But when it comes to this war... I don't have alot of patience for half-hearted intellectuals. They don't win wars. I have no patience for anyone who questions America during war. There, I said it. I'm an intolerant SOB when we're at war. I fully admit that. And I feel sorry for the poor sod who raises a white flag to me. If he's Al Qaeda, it ain't gonna work... But you're not Al Qaeda. You're just a somewhat-to-the-left- *American*, so... I just joined the Army as a 13F (Lynus - you there?) Fire Support Specialist. I am NOT going to ask the other guy who he owes his allegience to, or whether he calls himself Taliban or Al Qaeda - or Iraqi Intelligence for that matter. I'm going to point a thingy (GLLD) at him and blow his ass up, because he is trying to kill me. That's how it really works, sorry to say. That's war, 21st century style. I'm going to do it to protect glynch's right to hate his country, too. Well, I've got to tell myself something other than that... I'm doing it so my grandparents didn't fight and die in vain. So my parents can get rich. So I can get rich. So you can get rich... (At least I have no illusions about the purpose - so some of us can get rich) But I have no real *hate* towards you, rimbaud. I'm perhaps a little crazy when it comes to war/terrorism matters, and that's likely because I've actually spent alot of time thinking about it/studying it. I scored in the top 3% of the ASVAB, and would've gone straight to Intel but for my DWIs. I was an idiot in college, and I'm paying for it now. I just have a nose for anti-US propaganda, I guess you could say. You set it off earlier. I am wrong on many things... Maybe I was wrong on that? I am always willing to admit/acknowledge when I have been wrong. But I won't do it until the other guy makes a move. Only sensible. I just want to see the anti-US propaganda stop. At least from the US side. Is that really too much to ask? Why is peace so hard to find once assholes have come to blows?
YOU WANT ME ON THAT WALL...YOU NEED ME ON THAT WALL!!! treeman -- though i don't always agree with you and find you to be quite abrupt at times, I think you present arguments in a fairly well-reasoned manner without trying to appear that you're smarter than everyone else...or that the degree you've earned in school somehow makes you WISE...wisdom and intelligence are vastly different things. I appreciate that.
Now, if only I could stop posting drunk in the middle of the night... I know from personal experience that there are very intelligent PhDs out there who have absolutely no common sense or wisdom, which is why I'm not impressed by educational credentials alone... So I hear ya.
Treeman, One thing I will say is that I respect and admire your loyalty to your country in a time which indifference and inability to lay blame or judgement is prevelant. I think it is wonderful to discuss ideas and I always find your commentary to be direct and though there are issues that I don't agree with you on I appreciate the discussions and feel that I have learned much from your military knowledge. I personally owe your grandparents and family that died for this country a debt which can never be repayed. Everything I say is for the betterment of the United States. I am a muslim, and I believe the United States is the most "muslim" country in the world in that the rights of freedom and democracy are prevalant and no one is discriminated upon based on their religious and/or social beliefs. My cousin is on a ship in the Navy and we don't even know where and my Aunt works in the state department in Washington and if needed I would serve my country like you are to show them that our way is right and destroy those who have attacked our country, our way of life and our peace of mind. Taliban and Al-Queda members have this idea that all Americans and/or Euros are weak-minded and that is why they will win. They think we are scared of death while they embrace it. With individuals showing this much passion, we have proven them DEAD wrong. I do disagree with US Policy in the middle east and feel the actions of Israel miscontrue the true nature and composition of the United states and their people. But on many other points I am probably more in agreement with you than you would think....
Khan: I know that I can be abrasive at times, and downright insulting at others, and I apologise ahead of time for anything I might hurl your way , but it's good to know that we don't disagree on everything. You have typically been more respectful than others here, and considering my abrasive nature, that has made it much easier to debate the issues... I appreciate that. I get the general impression that you're honest as well, which helps immensely. We can argue about US policy in the ME, but we can do it in civil fashion, which makes it much easier. Hope your cousin comes home safe. If it helps, no one we're conceivably going to tangle with has anything that can reliably hit any of our ships. He's probably got the safest job in the US military, regardless of what ship he's on.
He actually works on an AirCraft carrier and works on the planes, so being in that situation on the top of the carrier is a bit dangerous. He graduated and wants to get into Military Intelligence with his background in CIS and Political Science. And one thing I will agree with you wholeheartedly is that HONESTY is vital to making a good argument on this BBS. Ignorance is forgivable, purposeful dishonesty is not.
