[OT]Hanoi Jane rides again

Graham wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

There were enough chemical weapons in Iraq to kill 30 to 60 thousand Kurds; the bodies are still being found in mass graves. How many people whoud need to be murdered by a government before you'd condone doing anything about it?
Mario

Mario Perdue wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Very true...but how are these chemical weapons a terror threat to the US?
Now, if dubyah only would have publicly stated the reason for the war was what you just posted this would've been a whole better argument for the war in the first place. Just eliminate the terror threat to the US BS. Terror captain Bin phucnutz still hasn't been captured yet :(
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

the notorious t-e-d wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
He did....such as the afore-mentioned 23 UN Resolutions that had not been adhered to. And the language of the UN resolutions stated that if Iraq were to be found in default...the *any* member-state, acting alone, or in cooperation with other member-states, had the authority to act; even act with military force. And also, remember, since 1998, "regime change" in Iraq had been the *official* policy of the U.S. government. How many of our so-called "leaders on the Left", before the fall of 2000, were chastising Mr. Clinton for *not* doing *more* to remove Saddam?
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
I swear, if he'd gone on TV and said "We need the oil, and there's a pack of ignorant towelheads sitting on it. I'm taking it!" he would have gotten some respect from me (well, not THAT much...).
But this terrorism smokescreen is an insult. The fact that so many fall for it is even worse.

Scott Schuckert wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Guess I'll quote George Carlin yet again: "....Think how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are stupider than that!...."

  Quoted Text Here  
Not our country, not our people, not our government. Would you like France to come over and take over the LA police department, because they don't like the way LAPD takes prisoners into custody?

Scott Schuckert wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
It wasn't our country, people or government when we went to europe for WWI or WWII.
  Quoted Text Here  
Let me know when you find the first mass graves from the LAPD's ethnic cleansing. Also, I haven't heard the people of LA asking for France's help. Many people in Iraq have been begging for help for a long time.
Mario

Scott Schuckert wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Has the international community repeatedly condemned the LAPD for its actions? Have the citizens of LA been slaughtered by the 100,000's; and have many of those lucky enough to escape such slaughter, pleaded with the "superpowers" to intercede? Has the LA government pocketed most of the money that and aid was intended to go to its citizens? (Okay...knowing Liberal Los Angelos, and California in general.... the answer to that one is probably a definite "YES"...lol)
But remember: In the late 18th century, we *welcomed* "foreign assistance" in helping to overturn our then current government.

Scott, as an American once sworn to defend our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I will defend you right to speak of things I feel you know nothing about. Where have you seen ANY atrocity? I have personally seen them in several countries, Zaire, Rhodesia, Nicaragua, Bosnia, until you do and have smelled the bodies from these please take the supposed facts you obtain from the news media and preach to yourself. I know several very brave men that were doing no more than what their country asked them to do die or be maimed for life. They did not go into it with the enthusiasm of a high school football game, but with the knowledge that they Volunteered and swore to uphold the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign and domestic. We went where we were told did what had to be done and asked for nothing but what we were entitled as American military members. Many I know did not recieve the awards, decorations or citations they deserved because of the people in charge in Washington. But a job had to be done and we did it and some did not come back. For these that I have known an empty place there will always be and a hollow toll on the bell for your rights they defended. sorry folks soap box getting overtime tonight. I apologise for any offended but I needed to speak my piece.
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
You're right, and I'll be the first to admit I'm relativly ignorant politically. However, the overwhelming bulk of the verbiage quoted above seems to be about "supporting the troops", etc. I tell you three times that I fully support all members of the armed forces; for several generations my family has served. The major point I was making is that our government has no business trying to make the world live according to it's rules.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Why not...? The Vatican does it ALL THE TIME! :-)

Len Lekx wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Goddess bless you, my son. ;-)
(ir)reverend Chuck

Thank you for your service!
Randy http://vernarockets.com /

writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
Yes!

AND maybe the better question is, Even if ther was only 25% of what we were led to believe was in this countyr Where Is IT Now and WHo Has IT!
Dennis
  Quoted Text Here  

D&JWatkins wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
That's what infuriates me the most. Nearly *everyone* admits, and believes, that such things *were* there. But those who are crying the old, lame "Bush LIED!" thing....do not seem to care about where those materials are *now*; nor do they seem to want an answer.
  Quoted Text Here  

The thought of the answer scares the hell out of most people. So they take the easy way and play the ostrich.
Dennis
  Quoted Text Here  

Mario Perdue wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Pre '91, there were enough chemical weapons to kill 30 - 60,000 Kurds, that I'm not disputing. And I'm certainly not going to argue with the fact that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed pronto. My beef with the politicians (NOT the armed forces - they're doing their job, and I support them 110%) is that they took my country into this war on the basis that Iraq, at the time they were mobilising for war, possessed WMD that could be used against coalition forces, despite an awful lot of evidence to the contrary. And being pretty much sure that the UK parliament and people would not back military action on such a scale without hard evidence of WMD, allowed the intelligence they had to be doctored and spun by their own 'advisors' - google on 'Alisatair Campbell', 'dodgy dossier', 'sexed up'. In effect, this country's armed forces (and those of the US and other allies) were sent into mortal danger on the back of a pack of fabricated evidence. And because those self-same politicians still refuse to admit that they lied to the people & governments of their respective countries, our (collective) armed forces' bodycount increases day on day. That's as unacceptable to me as the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds.
A surgical takeout of Saddam Hussein would have done what was needed at the time. But the respective political 'big boys' wouldn't want to be seen as sponsoring assassination of a despot. Hundreds of lives have instead been lost to try to justify that unwillingness to act decisively.
G.

Graham wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I agree that it would have been great to just whack Saddam; they tried many times as I recall. How many "surgical strikes" on Saddam Hussein need to fail before you figure out that they won't work against a man who basically lived in a series of hardened bunkers? It's very difficult to do a surgical strike on a sprawling underground complex; the results of the attempts were shown on TV, several times. Then there's the problem of what to do with the rest of his government after you whack him...
Also, don't forget that there were three major reasons for going to war with Iraq:
1) Intelligence reports claimed that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of possessing and using weapons of mass destruction.
2) Intelligence reports claimed that Saddam was supporting terrorists, including Al Qaeda.
3) Ample evidence showed that Saddam's government had abused the human rights of his own citizens and warranted intervention on humanitarian grounds.
While we have not found the WMD's (including many that were known to exist and were never accounted for; where are those weapons now?) we have found much to support the other two claims. As much as I dislike the Bush administration, I have to say that Iraq was a problem that needed to be taken care of; if not now, sometime in the future. I see no reason to give someone extra time to prepare when you know you're going to have to go in eventually anyway.
Mario

  Quoted Text Here  
Most of which were known to be bogus _at the time_ or proven bogus later. Even the US CIA was trying to stop the US administration from using many of these claims, but were overruled. The UK touted several specific claims (about nuclear weapons) later shown to be completely made-up with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
  Quoted Text Here  
Uh, no. This was claimed a few times around the time of 9/11, but never mentioned or substantiated since. The US Administration now admits to having zero evidence for Saddam supporting Al Qaeda.
  Quoted Text Here  
One out of three ain't bad. I guess.
  Quoted Text Here  
Well, actually, the one claim that's demonstrably true was known to be true _long_ before this war with Iraq. In fact, before the first war.
  Quoted Text Here  
Probably true, but it pays to be honest about why you're doing something.