Cheney name... Dick by nature.Dilbert_X wrote:
Dick Cheney
'If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. '
'We haven't really had the time yet to pore through all those records in Baghdad. We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions.' 2004
'The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror. '
'Go fuck yourself.'
Said to Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor June 25, 2004 when talking about Halliburton
You people do know that there were quite a few terrorist acts by the Iraq regime.
Did Saddam have WMD...yes, he used them on his own people but then again, the West provided him with the tech and supplies to create them(NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES)
Did we go by the intel and tell the world what we thought was happening....Yes, but the same intel was in the hands of many people and the same conclusion was accepted by many (NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES)
Was it a good decision: At first glance, it isn't because the intel was faulty but after years and years of resolutions to verify what Iraq was doing many thought it had no other choice (NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES)
Lets make this clear. Whether we like it or not, the war happened and still is. Honestly, the money we spend on it sure could help back home but that isn't going to happen. So we have to move forward. What else is there to do? You can argue about this endlessly but it wont change what happened. Will we learn, lets hope so but I do believe that many people in the countries of Iraq, Kuwait, Israel and even Iran are glad that Saddam and his regime are gone. There will be growing pains as there were in Japan and Germany, especially Germany and 30 years from now we will have a better idea of what this all meant and if it was worth it or not. It is way too early to cry victory on any side.
Did Saddam have WMD...yes, he used them on his own people but then again, the West provided him with the tech and supplies to create them(NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES)
Did we go by the intel and tell the world what we thought was happening....Yes, but the same intel was in the hands of many people and the same conclusion was accepted by many (NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES)
Was it a good decision: At first glance, it isn't because the intel was faulty but after years and years of resolutions to verify what Iraq was doing many thought it had no other choice (NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES)
Lets make this clear. Whether we like it or not, the war happened and still is. Honestly, the money we spend on it sure could help back home but that isn't going to happen. So we have to move forward. What else is there to do? You can argue about this endlessly but it wont change what happened. Will we learn, lets hope so but I do believe that many people in the countries of Iraq, Kuwait, Israel and even Iran are glad that Saddam and his regime are gone. There will be growing pains as there were in Japan and Germany, especially Germany and 30 years from now we will have a better idea of what this all meant and if it was worth it or not. It is way too early to cry victory on any side.
Last edited by DeathBecomesYu (2008-04-04 08:01:06)
Saddam definitely had dirty weapons and used them on his own people but weapons of mass destruction? We could get into an argument here over what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction but the fact is we were led to believe that Saddam had the ability to launch an attack on the West within 45 minutes... that turned out to be completely without foundation.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
You people do know that there were quite a few terrorist acts by the Iraq regime.
Did Saddam have WMD...yes, he used them on his own people but then again, the West provided him with the tech and supplies to create them(NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES)
Did we go by the intel and tell the world what we thought was happening....Yes, but the same intel was in the hands of many people and the same conclusion was accepted by many (NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES)
Was it a good decision: At first glance, it isn't because the intel was faulty but after years and years of resolutions to verify what Iraq was doing many thought it had no other choice (NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES)
Lets make this clear. Whether we like it or not, the war happened and still is. Honestly, the money we spend on it sure could help back home but that isn't going to happen. So we have to move forward. What else is there to do? You can argue about this endlessly but it wont change what happened. Will we learn, lets hope so but I do believe that many people in the countries of Iraq, Kuwait, Israel and even Iran are glad that Saddam and his regime are gone. There will be growing pains as there were in Japan and Germany, especially Germany and 30 years from now we will have a better idea of what this all meant and if it was worth it or not. It is way too early to cry victory on any side.
You went in on crap intel, heads should be rolling for that crappy intel to be quite honest. I mean look at the mess you're embroiled in now.
Your last paragraph is your own opinion and that's fair enough, an optimist will see Iraq one way and a pessimist another. I guess we'll find out in the years to come.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-04-04 08:09:29)
For me:Dilbert_X wrote:
According to Bush, a central reason for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam was a 'key ally' of AQ.So according to you, supporting terrorists is not a valid reason for the Iraq war because they aren't AQ?
This is not the case. Go argue with your President
Yes he had links to terrorists, as does every middle eastern leader
1) Did the government lie? Yes
2) Is there a valid reason for being in Iraq? No
3) Was it a good decision? NoNo, the VP instructs the President, the President does what hes told.ps. dick cheney? the vp sends troops abroad?
1) Of course, but in the form of not "full disclosure", and "Maybe" on what you are accusing them of.
2) Yes. For many reasons. The biggest I believe is using mustard gas (a WMD) on his own people, and the 100s of thousands of mass graves found because of Sadaam
3) No.
I'm not going to continue - you guys are too focused on the wrong issues - #1) and #2) don't matter. #3) is the issue.
It boils down to this.
The invasion was wrong. It was advocated and implemented on the basis that Saddam was a threat to us which was a lie that some of the more intelligent forms of animal life on this planet may even have been aware of beforehand and politicians like Robin Cook had been privvy to prompting him to resign rather than be part of it. Western nations have no business interfering in the political lives of developing countries other than to perhaps supply them with humanitarian aid when in dire need. Self determination is the basic right of all. The Iraqi government is malfunctioning. The fairest thing for the west to do would be to allow the very natural political progression in this situation - a civil war - to unfold and develop relations with the resultant government(s) on a parity of esteem basis when the dust settles. The only thing preventing us from doing that in reality, and you can pretty it up all you want, is that Iraq sits on top of 115 bn barrels of oil.
I also noticed that the Iraqi Oil Law 2007, written by consulting firm BearingPoint as hired by GW Bush, signed 63 of the 80 Iraqi oil fields out of Iraqi hands. Interesting....
The invasion was wrong. It was advocated and implemented on the basis that Saddam was a threat to us which was a lie that some of the more intelligent forms of animal life on this planet may even have been aware of beforehand and politicians like Robin Cook had been privvy to prompting him to resign rather than be part of it. Western nations have no business interfering in the political lives of developing countries other than to perhaps supply them with humanitarian aid when in dire need. Self determination is the basic right of all. The Iraqi government is malfunctioning. The fairest thing for the west to do would be to allow the very natural political progression in this situation - a civil war - to unfold and develop relations with the resultant government(s) on a parity of esteem basis when the dust settles. The only thing preventing us from doing that in reality, and you can pretty it up all you want, is that Iraq sits on top of 115 bn barrels of oil.
I also noticed that the Iraqi Oil Law 2007, written by consulting firm BearingPoint as hired by GW Bush, signed 63 of the 80 Iraqi oil fields out of Iraqi hands. Interesting....
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-04 08:20:34)
You do understand that Saddam did have missiles that could strike further than Saddam was allowed to have and our worry is what he was going to tip those missiles with. Many others were worried about that as well. That is why inspectors were trying to verify what he had and what he could be making. But lets remember that this is all based on intel but remember that the intel was not just intel from the US government. Intel, bad intel, came from numerous sources within and outside of Iraq. You can not lay all the blame of bad intel on the US and like I said before, our government was not the only government fooled on this and yes, I hope heads did role for that.Braddock wrote:
Saddam definitely had dirty weapons and used them on his own people but weapons of mass destruction? We could get into an argument here over what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction but the fact is we were led to believe that Saddam had the ability to launch an attack on the West within 45 minutes... that turned out to be completely without foundation.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
You people do know that there were quite a few terrorist acts by the Iraq regime.
Did Saddam have WMD...yes, he used them on his own people but then again, the West provided him with the tech and supplies to create them(NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES)
Did we go by the intel and tell the world what we thought was happening....Yes, but the same intel was in the hands of many people and the same conclusion was accepted by many (NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES)
Was it a good decision: At first glance, it isn't because the intel was faulty but after years and years of resolutions to verify what Iraq was doing many thought it had no other choice (NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES)
Lets make this clear. Whether we like it or not, the war happened and still is. Honestly, the money we spend on it sure could help back home but that isn't going to happen. So we have to move forward. What else is there to do? You can argue about this endlessly but it wont change what happened. Will we learn, lets hope so but I do believe that many people in the countries of Iraq, Kuwait, Israel and even Iran are glad that Saddam and his regime are gone. There will be growing pains as there were in Japan and Germany, especially Germany and 30 years from now we will have a better idea of what this all meant and if it was worth it or not. It is way too early to cry victory on any side.
You went in on crap intel, heads should be rolling for that crappy intel to be quite honest. I mean look at the mess you're embroiled in now.
Your last paragraph is your own opinion and that's fair enough, an optimist will see Iraq one way and a pessimist another. I guess we'll find out in the years to come.
My last paragraph is just an opinion? Those things I stated are quite factual.
1) War happened as is happening and its not going to change anytime soon
2) Arguing isn't going to change what already has happened
3) Many people in those countries I mentioned are happy Saddam is gone
4) There will be growing pains in Iraq, these situations always result in that
5) Time will tell if the overall war was worth it or not....no one really knows, we will see 30 years from now.
These aren't opinions, this is simply what is happening.
I wonder why he didn't he use these missiles during the war, what was he saving them for? You'd think being at the war with the world's last remaining super power would have been a good excuse to break out the fine China!DeathBecomesYu wrote:
You do understand that Saddam did have missiles that could strike further than Saddam was allowed to have and our worry is what he was going to tip those missiles with. Many others were worried about that as well. That is why inspectors were trying to verify what he had and what he could be making. But lets remember that this is all based on intel but remember that the intel was not just intel from the US government. Intel, bad intel, came from numerous sources within and outside of Iraq. You can not lay all the blame of bad intel on the US and like I said before, our government was not the only government fooled on this and yes, I hope heads did role for that.
They are facts but on point 3 you're highlighting an optimist's viewpoint, likewise many people are unhappy with what is left in his wake.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
My last paragraph is just an opinion? Those things I stated are quite factual.
1) War happened as is happening and its not going to change anytime soon
2) Arguing isn't going to change what already has happened
3) Many people in those countries I mentioned are happy Saddam is gone
4) There will be growing pains in Iraq, these situations always result in that
5) Time will tell if the overall war was worth it or not....no one really knows, we will see 30 years from now.
These aren't opinions, this is simply what is happening.
I would say "stupid".CameronPoe wrote:
It boils down to this.
The invasion was wrong.
The cost in Iraqi lives at the hands of the US, Al Qaeda, the Iraqis themselves and ridiculously poorly thought through CPA decisions already makes the overall war not worth it, irrespective of developments. The anti-western hatred generated by our meddling is also a significant cost we will continue paying for perhaps hundreds of years.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
5) Time will tell if the overall war was worth it or not....no one really knows, we will see 30 years from now.
Resource-wise it may become 'worth it' but not morally or in terms of the cost in human lives.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-04 08:40:50)
I agree with you for the most part here. He did have missiles that could reach his neighbors...SCUD..etc..and actually for some reason he didnt use them the second time around....possibly because his men gave up pretty quick. Not many soldiers in the Iraq army chose to fight. Very few in fact. Like I said before, it doesnt change what is happening now and yes, you are correct, many people dont like what is going on as far as the war but I dont think there are MANY people who would want to see Saddam and his regime still in power or wish for the good ole days when Saddam and his sons were in power.Braddock wrote:
I wonder why he didn't he use these missiles during the war, what was he saving them for? You'd think being at the war with the world's last remaining super power would have been a good excuse to break out the fine China!DeathBecomesYu wrote:
You do understand that Saddam did have missiles that could strike further than Saddam was allowed to have and our worry is what he was going to tip those missiles with. Many others were worried about that as well. That is why inspectors were trying to verify what he had and what he could be making. But lets remember that this is all based on intel but remember that the intel was not just intel from the US government. Intel, bad intel, came from numerous sources within and outside of Iraq. You can not lay all the blame of bad intel on the US and like I said before, our government was not the only government fooled on this and yes, I hope heads did role for that.They are facts but on point 3 you're highlighting an optimist's viewpoint, likewise many people are unhappy with what is left in his wake.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
My last paragraph is just an opinion? Those things I stated are quite factual.
1) War happened as is happening and its not going to change anytime soon
2) Arguing isn't going to change what already has happened
3) Many people in those countries I mentioned are happy Saddam is gone
4) There will be growing pains in Iraq, these situations always result in that
5) Time will tell if the overall war was worth it or not....no one really knows, we will see 30 years from now.
These aren't opinions, this is simply what is happening.
I know I probably shouldn't go here but your reasoning would suggest that WW2 wasn't worth it. I'm not trying to start a WW2 debate, but simply your suggestion doesn't hold weight. Many, many, many MILLIONS died in WW2 to stop a regime bent on world domination along with it allies. Honestly, if you think like you do, then all wars are not worth it....so you would have to say your country's fight wasn't worth it?CameronPoe wrote:
The cost in Iraqi lives at the hands of the US, Al Qaeda, the Iraqis themselves and ridiculously poorly thought through CPA decisions already makes the overall war not worth it, irrespective of developments. The anti-western hatred generated by our meddling is also a significant cost we will continue paying for perhaps hundreds of years.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
5) Time will tell if the overall war was worth it or not....no one really knows, we will see 30 years from now.
Resource-wise it may become 'worth it' but not morally or in terms of the cost in human lives.
Each war, conflict or revolt has to be judged as time goes on. There are some wars that turned out to be ridiculous, some turned out to be the right thing to do and some we still don't know. I don't live in a fantasy world where that thinks that all war is useless. If there is good and evil, sometimes the good has to fight back.
Ill be honest with you Cam, your country and your history is mine. My ancestory is from where you live. Your fight was worth it....was it not? World War 2 was worth it....was it not? Vietnam was NOT worth it...was it not? Each has to be judged on its own and again, time will tell how the middle east situation will turn out. Its just too early to tell.
Proof tbh,Braddock wrote:
2) Not really given that the WMD never existed
this photo could give a clue as to why they weren't found,
if you can bury a plane you can bury a missile.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that Saddam Hussein, whose military might in terms of hardware could have been scrutinised to the nth degree by satellite, posed a similar threat to the world that Adolf Hitler and Emperor Hirohito did?DeathBecomesYu wrote:
I know I probably shouldn't go here but your reasoning would suggest that WW2 wasn't worth it. I'm not trying to start a WW2 debate, but simply your suggestion doesn't hold weight. Many, many, many MILLIONS died in WW2 to stop a regime bent on world domination along with it allies. Honestly, if you think like you do, then all wars are not worth it....so you would have to say your country's fight wasn't worth it?CameronPoe wrote:
The cost in Iraqi lives at the hands of the US, Al Qaeda, the Iraqis themselves and ridiculously poorly thought through CPA decisions already makes the overall war not worth it, irrespective of developments. The anti-western hatred generated by our meddling is also a significant cost we will continue paying for perhaps hundreds of years.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
5) Time will tell if the overall war was worth it or not....no one really knows, we will see 30 years from now.
Resource-wise it may become 'worth it' but not morally or in terms of the cost in human lives.
Each war, conflict or revolt has to be judged as time goes on. There are some wars that turned out to be ridiculous, some turned out to be the right thing to do and some we still don't know. I don't live in a fantasy world where that thinks that all war is useless. If there is good and evil, sometimes the good has to fight back.
Ill be honest with you Cam, your country and your history is mine. My ancestory is from where you live. Your fight was worth it....was it not? World War 2 was worth it....was it not? Vietnam was NOT worth it...was it not? Each has to be judged on its own and again, time will tell how the middle east situation will turn out. Its just too early to tell.
The only wars that are worth it are wars of self determination and wars where your sovereign territory has come under threat/been compromised. Morally justifiable defence of an ally can sometimes make the shedding of your countrymens lives worth it but decisions in that regard must never be taken lightly. Armies are for defence not offence in my book. In my mind, hardly any war of choice will ever be worth it, especially those where you attempt to bend a certain people to your will.
Iraq did no fit any of the criteria I mention.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-04 09:06:43)
Fat lot of good they did him there.M.O.A.B wrote:
Proof tbh,Braddock wrote:
2) Not really given that the WMD never existed
this photo could give a clue as to why they weren't found,
Let me know when you find them.M.O.A.B wrote:
if you can bury a plane you can bury a missile.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-04-04 09:09:48)
Armies are for offense and defense. They aren't for policing areas afterwards.CameronPoe wrote:
Armies are for defence not offence in my book.
Look beyond what's shown in the photo, yes the plane is useless after being buried in the ground, but a missile is still usable, point being he could easily have hidden them there. It's also easy to say 'oh we didn't find them they never existed', people always complain about not doing thorough searches, you want to find them look beyond the obvious locations.Braddock wrote:
Fat lot of good they did him there.M.O.A.B wrote:
Proof tbh,Braddock wrote:
2) Not really given that the WMD never existed
this photo could give a clue as to why they weren't found,
http://www.militarypictures.info/d/467-3/mig-25.jpgLet me know when you find them.M.O.A.B wrote:
if you can bury a plane you can bury a missile.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-04-04 09:12:42)
Hitler's army was for offence that's for sure. The role of a 'good' army is to retaliate (respond offensively) to a threat to your homeland.M.O.A.B wrote:
Armies are for offense and defense. They aren't for policing areas afterwards.CameronPoe wrote:
Armies are for defence not offence in my book.
No, that is not what I was trying to say.....CameronPoe wrote:
Are you seriously trying to tell us that Saddam Hussein, whose military might in terms of hardware could have been scrutinised to the nth degree by satellite, posed a similar threat to the world that Adolf Hitler and Emperor Hirohito did?DeathBecomesYu wrote:
I know I probably shouldn't go here but your reasoning would suggest that WW2 wasn't worth it. I'm not trying to start a WW2 debate, but simply your suggestion doesn't hold weight. Many, many, many MILLIONS died in WW2 to stop a regime bent on world domination along with it allies. Honestly, if you think like you do, then all wars are not worth it....so you would have to say your country's fight wasn't worth it?CameronPoe wrote:
The cost in Iraqi lives at the hands of the US, Al Qaeda, the Iraqis themselves and ridiculously poorly thought through CPA decisions already makes the overall war not worth it, irrespective of developments. The anti-western hatred generated by our meddling is also a significant cost we will continue paying for perhaps hundreds of years.
Resource-wise it may become 'worth it' but not morally or in terms of the cost in human lives.
Each war, conflict or revolt has to be judged as time goes on. There are some wars that turned out to be ridiculous, some turned out to be the right thing to do and some we still don't know. I don't live in a fantasy world where that thinks that all war is useless. If there is good and evil, sometimes the good has to fight back.
Ill be honest with you Cam, your country and your history is mine. My ancestory is from where you live. Your fight was worth it....was it not? World War 2 was worth it....was it not? Vietnam was NOT worth it...was it not? Each has to be judged on its own and again, time will tell how the middle east situation will turn out. Its just too early to tell.
The only wars that are worth it are wars of self determination and wars where your sovereign territory has come under threat/been compromised. Morally justifiable defence of an ally can sometimes make the shedding of your countrymens lives worth it but decisions in that regard must never be taken lightly. Armies are for defence not offence in my book. In my mind, hardly any war of choice will ever be worth it, especially those where you attempt to bend a certain people to your will.
Iraq did no fit any of the criteria I mention.
You missed my point. In your first post, you basically say that if people die, then war isnt worth it "irrespective of developments". That is how I read your post to mean. So that is why I compared the rest, any war, to what you said. I agree with you on the rest of what you said in your last post but that is not was I was trying to say to you.
I was actually asking you if that is what you meant...because I found it odd that you would suggest that knowing what your country has been through.
Last edited by DeathBecomesYu (2008-04-04 09:15:07)
So coalition action in Gulf War 1 meant they were a 'bad' army because the coalition homelands weren't threatened?CameronPoe wrote:
Hitler's army was for offence that's for sure. The role of a 'good' army is to retaliate (respond offensively) to a threat to your homeland.M.O.A.B wrote:
Armies are for offense and defense. They aren't for policing areas afterwards.CameronPoe wrote:
Armies are for defence not offence in my book.
Are the US going to invade every country that possesses the ability to bury things underground now?M.O.A.B wrote:
Armies are for offense and defense. They aren't for policing areas afterwards.CameronPoe wrote:
Armies are for defence not offence in my book.Look beyond what's shown in the photo, yes the plane is useless after being buried in the ground, but a missile is still usable, point being he could easily have hidden them there. It's also easy to say 'oh we didn't find them they never existed', people always complain about not doing thorough searches, you want to find them look beyond the obvious locations.Braddock wrote:
Fat lot of good they did him there.M.O.A.B wrote:
Proof tbh,
this photo could give a clue as to why they weren't found,
http://www.militarypictures.info/d/467-3/mig-25.jpgLet me know when you find them.M.O.A.B wrote:
if you can bury a plane you can bury a missile.
Well, perhaps it was the fact that I didn't flesh my point out a bit, you got the wrong impression from my sentence. Many wars are worth thousands of lives. Wars against colonial overlords, wars against expansionist empire builders threatening you, wars against your own corrupt government. The basis upon which this particular war was fought warranted no lost lives, as per my described view of legitimate cases for war.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
No, that is not what I was trying to say.....
You missed my point. In your first post, you basically say that if people die, then war isnt worth it "irrespective of developments". That is how I read your post to mean. So that is why I compared the rest, any war, to what you said. I agree with you on the rest of what you said in your last post but that is not was I was trying to say to you.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-04 09:17:37)
Saddam attacked Kuwait and coalition troops RESPONDED, and as regards threat to the homeland Cam already stated earlier that defending ones allies sometimes justifies action.M.O.A.B wrote:
So coalition action in Gulf War 1 meant they were a 'bad' army because the coalition homelands weren't threatened?CameronPoe wrote:
Hitler's army was for offence that's for sure. The role of a 'good' army is to retaliate (respond offensively) to a threat to your homeland.M.O.A.B wrote:
Armies are for offense and defense. They aren't for policing areas afterwards.
Well it certainly wasn't taking action on moral grounds. You can talk about 'the poor Kuwaitis' all you like but if there was no oil in Kuwait they would be a long time waiting for the cavalry to arrive and that is just a simple fact of life. The only truly 100% wholesome army in that situation would have been the Kuwaiti one.M.O.A.B wrote:
So coalition action in Gulf War 1 meant they were a 'bad' army because the coalition homelands weren't threatened?CameronPoe wrote:
Hitler's army was for offence that's for sure. The role of a 'good' army is to retaliate (respond offensively) to a threat to your homeland.M.O.A.B wrote:
Armies are for offense and defense. They aren't for policing areas afterwards.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-04 09:20:41)
Well, in that case, I totally agree with you. As for Iraq, I still believe time will tell if was right or wrong. Its not just what is happening in Iraq, but the whole ME and we will see how future generations judge the actions taking place now. Honestly though, I hope people remember that if it was Al Gore that had won the elections, we would still have gone to war. There are many clips showing Al Gore frustrated at Bush Senior for not taking more action against Saddam, touting the evidence of WMD, terrorists ties and pushing for war. Even during his campaign he pushed for more action and was one of the people to push for war when Bush decided to go into it as well. It would have happened either way and we would be in the mess we are now no matter who was in charge...Democrat or Republican.CameronPoe wrote:
Well, perhaps it was the fact that I didn't flesh my point out a bit, you got the wrong impression from my sentence. Many wars are worth thousands of lives. Wars against colonial overlords, wars against expansionist empire builders threatening you, wars against your own corrupt government. The basis upon which this particular war was fought warranted no lost lives, as per my described view of legitimate cases for war.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
No, that is not what I was trying to say.....
You missed my point. In your first post, you basically say that if people die, then war isnt worth it "irrespective of developments". That is how I read your post to mean. So that is why I compared the rest, any war, to what you said. I agree with you on the rest of what you said in your last post but that is not was I was trying to say to you.
Last edited by DeathBecomesYu (2008-04-04 09:28:54)
Come on Cam...give credit where credit is due. The right thing happened regardless of the "oil" situation. No matter what, Kuwait got its land back and still control their own oil. As far as I know, we dont own Kuwaiti oil or control it....I could be wrong though.CameronPoe wrote:
Well it certainly wasn't taking action on moral grounds. You can talk about 'the poor Kuwaitis' all you like but if there was no oil in Kuwait they would be a long time waiting for the cavalry to arrive and that is just a simple fact of life. The only truly 100% wholesome army in that situation would have been the Kuwaiti one.M.O.A.B wrote:
So coalition action in Gulf War 1 meant they were a 'bad' army because the coalition homelands weren't threatened?CameronPoe wrote:
Hitler's army was for offence that's for sure. The role of a 'good' army is to retaliate (respond offensively) to a threat to your homeland.
Regardless, the right thing was done and give credit to the regular US men and women who went there and did the job.
Is a large population of the world going to whine everytime something wasn't found where it was supposed to be?Braddock wrote:
Are the US going to invade every country that possesses the ability to bury things underground now?M.O.A.B wrote:
Armies are for offense and defense. They aren't for policing areas afterwards.CameronPoe wrote:
Armies are for defence not offence in my book.Look beyond what's shown in the photo, yes the plane is useless after being buried in the ground, but a missile is still usable, point being he could easily have hidden them there. It's also easy to say 'oh we didn't find them they never existed', people always complain about not doing thorough searches, you want to find them look beyond the obvious locations.Braddock wrote:
Fat lot of good they did him there.M.O.A.B wrote:
Proof tbh,
this photo could give a clue as to why they weren't found,
http://www.militarypictures.info/d/467-3/mig-25.jpg
Let me know when you find them.
If you read other posts you can see that it was a deception plan on the part of the Iraqis, yes they believed there were weapons there, specialists from a good number of countries agreed on that, funnily enough the specialists from many European countries seemed to be ignored as to their role of agreement. The invasion was to remove what weapons he had, they didn't invade because he had the ability to bury things underground. The idea of the weapons being buried in the desert where the heat can reduce the effectiveness of satellite systems to identify possible burial sites, occured afterwards when they weren't found in their thought-to-be locations.