Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6

 

Poll

So, Has It All Been Worth It?

Yes29%29% - 30
No70%70% - 71
Total: 101
2008-04-03 03:01:30
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6716|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

I could really care less if there is or isn't a conspiracy.

You keep asking for people to put forward facts and arguments.
When we do you either dismiss them out of hand 'you weren't there' 'I'm in the Pentagon' 'what do you know' etc or you don't address them at all (as above)  because apparently its all beneath you.
They aren't dismissed out of hand. Someone who has first-hand knowledge of the military planning refuted your opinion on how the military planning went down. Don't see how that's "out of hand".

Dilbert_X wrote:

Your theories have been shown to have been based on faulty or plain dishonest initial assumptions and are therefore flawed.
My "theories"? What would those "theories" be?
That Saddam ran a deception plan that worked? Please point out where that is "faulty or plain dishonest".
You're the one with theories here.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-04-03 03:13:44
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6861
The whole WMD thing is a smokescreen. It is obvious that the economic sanctions had worked by virtue of the fact the standing Iraqi army took only a couple of weeks to defeat. The basis of war that Iraq posed a realistic threat to the west was null and void and I don't believe for one minute that the CIA or MI5 actually regarded Saddam as genuinely threatening. This was a war motivated by strategic interest, the worst kind of unnecessary war. Whatsmore it has further alienated the Arab world who we rely on in part for our energy needs. I can't think of anything much good that came out of this war. It probably would have been better for all concerned if Saddam was still in power, tbh.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-03 03:16:03)

2008-04-03 03:30:46
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6528|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:

The whole WMD thing is a smokescreen. It is obvious that the economic sanctions had worked by virtue of the fact the standing Iraqi army took only a couple of weeks to defeat. The basis of war that Iraq posed a realistic threat to the west was null and void and I don't believe for one minute that the CIA or MI5 actually regarded Saddam as genuinely threatening. This was a war motivated by strategic interest, the worst kind of unnecessary war. Whatsmore it has further alienated the Arab world who we rely on in part for our energy needs. I can't think of anything much good that came out of this war. It probably would have been better for all concerned if Saddam was still in power, tbh.
I wouldn't say it was economic sanctions that led to the army's defeat, more like they were really badly trained and were using equipment from the 50's, that wasn't a result of economic troubles considering Iraq floats on oil.

In the Gulf War the Iraqis had something like the 5th largest armored force on the planet, it was decimated in about a week by superior firepower and tactics.
2008-04-03 04:05:15
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6861

M.O.A.B wrote:

I wouldn't say it was economic sanctions that led to the army's defeat, more like they were really badly trained and were using equipment from the 50's, that wasn't a result of economic troubles considering Iraq floats on oil.

In the Gulf War the Iraqis had something like the 5th largest armored force on the planet, it was decimated in about a week by superior firepower and tactics.
lol. Why do you think they were badly trained and had crap weaponry? Because they didn't have any money to spend on them... because of the sanctions.
2008-04-03 05:08:08
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6528|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

I wouldn't say it was economic sanctions that led to the army's defeat, more like they were really badly trained and were using equipment from the 50's, that wasn't a result of economic troubles considering Iraq floats on oil.

In the Gulf War the Iraqis had something like the 5th largest armored force on the planet, it was decimated in about a week by superior firepower and tactics.
lol. Why do you think they were badly trained and had crap weaponry? Because they didn't have any money to spend on them... because of the sanctions.
Funny that, they had no money, yet they sit on oil and they sold the stuff. For a country that floats on it economic sanctions will do little, the Iraqis could still buy gear from old Soviet bloc countries as well as the Chinese. Wasn't that they couldn't buy, its that they didn't Iraq. Has more than enough expenditure to cash out from under the ground to pay for better weapon systems and training. That was fault of Saddam and his top staff, not the economic sanctions.

There's still no proof as well that there weren't WMD's. Only evidence that's based on is that they didn't find them where they would expect to, that doesn't immediately qualify for them not existing. The remote for my TV could be missing from its usual spot, that doesn't mean it no longer exists, its just somewhere else. The Iraqi's could have easily buried them out in the desert, they've done it before so what stopped them doing it again?

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-04-03 05:10:35)

2008-04-03 05:42:10
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6861

M.O.A.B wrote:

Funny that, they had no money, yet they sit on oil and they sold the stuff. For a country that floats on it economic sanctions will do little, the Iraqis could still buy gear from old Soviet bloc countries as well as the Chinese. Wasn't that they couldn't buy, its that they didn't Iraq. Has more than enough expenditure to cash out from under the ground to pay for better weapon systems and training. That was fault of Saddam and his top staff, not the economic sanctions.

There's still no proof as well that there weren't WMD's. Only evidence that's based on is that they didn't find them where they would expect to, that doesn't immediately qualify for them not existing. The remote for my TV could be missing from its usual spot, that doesn't mean it no longer exists, its just somewhere else. The Iraqi's could have easily buried them out in the desert, they've done it before so what stopped them doing it again?
Newsflash:

Iraq were only allowed to sell oil for food, a system that suffered from some abuses but nonetheless kept Saddam weak and unable to project what little power he had. No fly zones operated over the northern and southern portions of the country. UN Resolution 661 enforced a full embargo on all trade to Iraq other than that of a humanitarian or medical nature. No country could have legally sold Saddam weapons since late 1990. Are you suffering from a selective memory of the past???
2008-04-03 05:44:56
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6411|eXtreme to the maX
Funny that, they had no money, yet they sit on oil and they sold the stuff.
They were only allowed to trade the oli for certain things, like food and medicine.
On August 6, 1990 the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 661 which imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq, providing for a full trade embargo, excluding medical supplies, food and other items of humanitarian necessity, these to be determined by the Security Council sanctions committee. After the end of the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi sanctions were linked to removal of Weapons of mass destruction by Resolution 687.
The United Nations economic sanctions were imposed at the urging of the U.S. to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The New York Times stated: "By making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people, (sanctions) would eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power." In as much as the economic sanctions were designed to topple Saddam they were a failure. However, most research stated that the sanctions caused the deaths of many, Iraqi children and others for health-related reasons owing to disease from lack of clean water from banning of chlorine, lack of medicine, impoverishment, and other factors.
Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
So it was a US objective from 1991 onwards to remove Saddam from power? Why did the US hang the Kurds and Shia out to dry then?

That Saddam ran a deception plan that worked? Please point out where that is "faulty or plain dishonest".
The initial assumption that Saddam had WMD was faulty and/or dishonest.
Someone who has first-hand knowledge of the military planning refuted your opinion on how the military planning went down.
I've never been interested in the military planning, more the Bush admin agenda and bogus objectives - handed to the military who then made their plans.

Deception plan, no deception plan, WMD no WMD, AQ link, no AQ link if Saddam had hinted he had a secret army of Smurfs it would have been used as a pretext for invasion.
After 9/11 someone was going to get a beating and unfortunately Afghan mountains just don't explode well enough to make good TV, plus it had been in the pipeline since 1991.
Fuck Israel
2008-04-03 05:48:43
PureFodder
Member
+225|6591

M.O.A.B wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

I wouldn't say it was economic sanctions that led to the army's defeat, more like they were really badly trained and were using equipment from the 50's, that wasn't a result of economic troubles considering Iraq floats on oil.

In the Gulf War the Iraqis had something like the 5th largest armored force on the planet, it was decimated in about a week by superior firepower and tactics.
lol. Why do you think they were badly trained and had crap weaponry? Because they didn't have any money to spend on them... because of the sanctions.
Funny that, they had no money, yet they sit on oil and they sold the stuff. For a country that floats on it economic sanctions will do little, the Iraqis could still buy gear from old Soviet bloc countries as well as the Chinese. Wasn't that they couldn't buy, its that they didn't Iraq. Has more than enough expenditure to cash out from under the ground to pay for better weapon systems and training. That was fault of Saddam and his top staff, not the economic sanctions.

There's still no proof as well that there weren't WMD's. Only evidence that's based on is that they didn't find them where they would expect to, that doesn't immediately qualify for them not existing. The remote for my TV could be missing from its usual spot, that doesn't mean it no longer exists, its just somewhere else. The Iraqi's could have easily buried them out in the desert, they've done it before so what stopped them doing it again?
Ok, I allege that Fiji bought some black market WMDs and buried them somewhere, prove that Fiji has no WMDs.

Clearly nobody can prove that there aren't WMDs in Iraq short of digging up the entire country to a depth of several hundred metres and poring the whole country literally through a sieve. Trying to prove a negative is an unbelievable waste of time. Remember the whole innocent until proven guilty idea?
2008-04-03 07:01:29
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7147|Cologne, Germany

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yes it does make sense. The US wouldn't have borrowed $500bn to spend if it hadn't had to fund Iraq. Period.
The tragedy lies in the fact that $500bn of American debt comes at the hands of this debacle. If your government had been prepared to borrow for better reasons it may not necessarily be a tragedy.
Would you think it justified for YOUR country to borrow that amount...for anything?

Yes, the expenditure of resources is a tragedy, but there are far larger tragedies at play here.
such as what ? America being invaded by Al'Quaeda ? America's national security ? The integrity of its borders ?

Come on. After years of sanctions, Iraq was as much of a threat as Luxemburg.

I'd say borrowing that kind of money is only justified under extreme circumstances ( comparable to WWII, for example ), when the fate of the nation is on the line. You know, borrow the money or you'll perish. And quite frankly, I don't think this was the case with Iraq, let alone old OBL and Al'Quaeda.

I am with this guy:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Deception plan, no deception plan, WMD no WMD, AQ link, no AQ link if Saddam had hinted he had a secret army of Smurfs it would have been used as a pretext for invasion.
After 9/11 someone was going to get a beating and unfortunately Afghan mountains just don't explode well enough to make good TV, plus it had been in the pipeline since 1991.
2008-04-03 07:21:55
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6528|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Funny that, they had no money, yet they sit on oil and they sold the stuff. For a country that floats on it economic sanctions will do little, the Iraqis could still buy gear from old Soviet bloc countries as well as the Chinese. Wasn't that they couldn't buy, its that they didn't Iraq. Has more than enough expenditure to cash out from under the ground to pay for better weapon systems and training. That was fault of Saddam and his top staff, not the economic sanctions.

There's still no proof as well that there weren't WMD's. Only evidence that's based on is that they didn't find them where they would expect to, that doesn't immediately qualify for them not existing. The remote for my TV could be missing from its usual spot, that doesn't mean it no longer exists, its just somewhere else. The Iraqi's could have easily buried them out in the desert, they've done it before so what stopped them doing it again?
Newsflash:

Iraq were only allowed to sell oil for food, a system that suffered from some abuses but nonetheless kept Saddam weak and unable to project what little power he had. No fly zones operated over the northern and southern portions of the country. UN Resolution 661 enforced a full embargo on all trade to Iraq other than that of a humanitarian or medical nature. No country could have legally sold Saddam weapons since late 1990. Are you suffering from a selective memory of the past???
I see a lot of selective memory of past events from other people on here as well. Tell me then, how Saddam lost his entire armored force in 1991, yet had a new one in 2003? What's to say he got them legally as well?

PureFodder wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


lol. Why do you think they were badly trained and had crap weaponry? Because they didn't have any money to spend on them... because of the sanctions.
Funny that, they had no money, yet they sit on oil and they sold the stuff. For a country that floats on it economic sanctions will do little, the Iraqis could still buy gear from old Soviet bloc countries as well as the Chinese. Wasn't that they couldn't buy, its that they didn't Iraq. Has more than enough expenditure to cash out from under the ground to pay for better weapon systems and training. That was fault of Saddam and his top staff, not the economic sanctions.

There's still no proof as well that there weren't WMD's. Only evidence that's based on is that they didn't find them where they would expect to, that doesn't immediately qualify for them not existing. The remote for my TV could be missing from its usual spot, that doesn't mean it no longer exists, its just somewhere else. The Iraqi's could have easily buried them out in the desert, they've done it before so what stopped them doing it again?
Ok, I allege that Fiji bought some black market WMDs and buried them somewhere, prove that Fiji has no WMDs.

Clearly nobody can prove that there aren't WMDs in Iraq short of digging up the entire country to a depth of several hundred metres and poring the whole country literally through a sieve. Trying to prove a negative is an unbelievable waste of time. Remember the whole innocent until proven guilty idea?
I find that many on here seem to fully believe there never were any and that it was nothing more than a ruse.
2008-04-03 07:53:30
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6861

M.O.A.B wrote:

I see a lot of selective memory of past events from other people on here as well. Tell me then, how Saddam lost his entire armored force in 1991, yet had a new one in 2003? What's to say he got them legally as well?
It's funny. I searched and searched and can't find any mention of coalition forces engaging significant numbers of tanks in the 2003 invasion.... hmmmm. Any airforce worth mentioning seems to be mysteriously absent from accounts of events also...

If you honestly believe they posed a threat to you in your cosy home in the UK then I think you are a little bit delusional, no offence. Check out Robin Cook's resignation speech on YouTube from when he resigned from the cabinet, having been privvy to all of the military intelligence used to build the case for war.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-03 07:57:41)

2008-04-03 08:11:31
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6528|Escea

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

I see a lot of selective memory of past events from other people on here as well. Tell me then, how Saddam lost his entire armored force in 1991, yet had a new one in 2003? What's to say he got them legally as well?
It's funny. I searched and searched and can't find any mention of coalition forces engaging significant numbers of tanks in the 2003 invasion.... hmmmm. Any airforce worth mentioning seems to be mysteriously absent from accounts of events also...

If you honestly believe they posed a threat to you in your cosy home in the UK then I think you are a little bit delusional, no offence. Check out Robin Cook's resignation speech on YouTube from when he resigned from the cabinet, having been privvy to all of the military intelligence used to build the case for war.
I never said he was a threat to me, what I'm getting at is how so many people believe he had no weapons what so ever, thinking along those lines is delusional.
2008-04-03 08:47:23
FallenMorgan
Member
+53|6219|Glendale, CA
3 Trillion dollars have gone to Iraq.  It is an outrage that we must pay taxes for some bullshit like this!  It's why I support an independent California, so we don't need to deal with this bullshit.
2008-04-03 09:09:52
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6796|Northern California
4000 dead soldiers in Afghanistan in an effort to kill those who planned 9/11 would have been a much more worthy effort than to...do whatever the real goal of invading Iraq was.  Those 4000 would have been actual heros who died 'defending' this country instead of just 4000 heros who did their jobs defending Bush's ambitions. 

But nothing answers this poll more than this...Osama bin Laden is still alive and functioning...even mocking us..."winning" daily with every lost American life.  His 3k dead on 9/11 has been gradually added to by 4k and countless other ruined american lives and families, a plagued financial outlook for our country, our political divide, the fear many of us still live under, the martyrs he's made count as a glorious bolstering of his cause...I could go on.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-04-03 09:11:01)

2008-04-03 09:09:54
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6861

M.O.A.B wrote:

I never said he was a threat to me, what I'm getting at is how so many people believe he had no weapons what so ever, thinking along those lines is delusional.
Nobody contended that he had no weapons whatsoever. People denounce the invasion based on how unnecessary and uncalled for it was, the invasion in large part being supposedly driven by an overstated threat level.
2008-04-03 09:49:50
FallenMorgan
Member
+53|6219|Glendale, CA
If the Republicans win again our nation is fucked.
2008-04-03 10:41:34
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

FallenMorgan wrote:

If the Republicans win again our nation is fucked.
Yes because when the Dems took over Congress, everything got much much better as they had promised.........oh wait, no it didn't.   Use your head for something other than video games kid.
2008-04-03 11:00:32
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6887|SE London

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

There was no other choice, barring invading a different ME country after Afghanistan.
Utter nonsense.

A real show of strength would've been getting the job done properly in Afghanistan.
2008-04-03 11:03:20
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6796|Northern California

usmarine wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

If the Republicans win again our nation is fucked.
Yes because when the Dems took over Congress, everything got much much better as they had promised.........oh wait, no it didn't.   Use your head for something other than video games kid.
Actually, they've already beat the last two congresses at being on the job.  They've done a considerable amount of legislation compared to previous houses.  They only thing they've not done is what they were elected to do..end war, yank Bush.  And of course they're passing things that get veto'd by Bush which also gives them the lame duck appearance...which will hopefully change when there's a DEM president.

And typical of a DEM government, we should hopefully be seeing a better financial return..though this hole is much worse than it was the last time there was as R president.

So how bout STFU and talk reality for once noob!! 
2008-04-03 11:03:28
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6949

usmarine wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

If the Republicans win again our nation is fucked.
Yes because when the Dems took over Congress, everything got much much better as they had promised.........oh wait, no it didn't.   Use your head for something other than video games kid.
remember that kid that had an unhealthy obsession with paris hilton on the forum.  fallenmorgan is that kid.   before he starts acting dumb again, ask him why he's sharing the same photobucket account with that same loser.
2008-04-03 11:04:51
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

IRONCHEF wrote:

So how bout STFU and talk reality for once noob!! 
They had the lowest rating.................ever I believe.  Explain that.

Last edited by usmarine (2008-04-03 11:05:06)

2008-04-03 11:05:58
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6949

M.O.A.B wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The whole WMD thing is a smokescreen. It is obvious that the economic sanctions had worked by virtue of the fact the standing Iraqi army took only a couple of weeks to defeat. The basis of war that Iraq posed a realistic threat to the west was null and void and I don't believe for one minute that the CIA or MI5 actually regarded Saddam as genuinely threatening. This was a war motivated by strategic interest, the worst kind of unnecessary war. Whatsmore it has further alienated the Arab world who we rely on in part for our energy needs. I can't think of anything much good that came out of this war. It probably would have been better for all concerned if Saddam was still in power, tbh.
I wouldn't say it was economic sanctions that led to the army's defeat, more like they were really badly trained and were using equipment from the 50's, that wasn't a result of economic troubles considering Iraq floats on oil.

In the Gulf War the Iraqis had something like the 5th largest armored force on the planet, it was decimated in about a week by superior firepower and tactics.
it was the 4th largest.


but nothing defeats the fact that saddam himself, through various actions up until the invasions, proved that he thought he had WMD or the ability to manufacture them on short notice.   His people would just tell him what he wanted to hear.
2008-04-03 11:06:04
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

usmarine wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

If the Republicans win again our nation is fucked.
Yes because when the Dems took over Congress, everything got much much better as they had promised.........oh wait, no it didn't.   Use your head for something other than video games kid.
remember that kid that had an unhealthy obsession with paris hilton on the forum.  fallenmorgan is that kid.   before he starts acting dumb again, ask him why he's sharing the same photobucket account with that same loser.
He prolly watches TMZ all day just to catch glimpses of that skank.
2008-04-03 11:17:14
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6796|Northern California

usmarine wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

So how bout STFU and talk reality for once noob!! 
They had the lowest rating.................ever I believe.  Explain that.
Yes, because they had been voted in to end the war and prosecute Bush (or rather to "begin" the required oversight the previous congress had a duty to do because of the nature of the war powers they foolishly granted Bush).  That alone is why they're getting their dismal approval rating..11% or something.

Otherwise, did you know the previous REP congress worked an average of 2.5 days a week?  That's why they bitched and complained when the new DEM congress promised 5 days a week.  The first 100 days of this congress they accomplished all their promised goals and did more work than the entire term of the previous congress.  Yet they failed to end war and conyers and/or waxman are still trying to perform oversight but they are being blocked at nearly every turn.

Did the Dem minority leader ever walk out on congress because the Rep's were discussing a bill they didn't like?  Little crybaby Boner and his Rep party poopers did..twice..once over the FISA bill...a HUGELY important topic that should have had full discussion...not some stupid shit like Terry Schiavo's "culture of life" arguing that went on in the 110th congress.
2008-04-03 11:24:42
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

You say ending the war was like the one small thing they missed.  It is how they got elected.......and failed.  Plain and simple.

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard