warhawk
-
Content Count
1,317 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Calendar
Posts posted by warhawk
-
-
@budgie
The whole argument behind the inspectors is a very closed circle. If the inspectors find something countries like France will say "see they work all we need is more time." If they don't find anything then they will say "see he has nothing". And we know that last statement is not true. As far as for the first statement well the inspectors will only be allowed to stay there for as long as there is a military threat against Saddam. But I have posted at lenght about this on another thread. Check out the thread about "French Government shows it's true colours", the complete name of it escapes me right now, for more on this.
The UN stands at an abyss with France right behind it. Will France push it over or will it pull it back.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
I heard something else on CNN that just astounded me. I can not remember the name of the actress/comedian that said it but here is her quote.
"That man (referring to Saddam) is an upstanding gentleman."
I nearly lost it when she said that. Guess that shows the true mentality of Hollyweird
Stout hearts
Warhawk
-
The one major point that I think keeps getting lost in the shuffle, the one point those that oppose military action in Iraq conviently seem to forget, is that Saddam has been in Material Breach since 1991. UN resolution 687, which was passed in April of 1991, gave Saddam ninety (90) days to disarm. This was one of the conditions of ending the first Gulf War. If the French don't want to accept their responsibilties to not only the United Nations and the rest of the world then they are going to help a great deal in the downfall of the UN. Inaction by the UN is going to make it a toothless, worthless collection of diplomats, that can't decide on anything other than causing the unnecessary deaths of trees to write out worthless resolutions. It is time for France to stop wasting everyone's time.
France has left major allies holding the bag before and it looks like it is set to do it again. Put your arguments about inspections aside, and reread my first paragraph again. Inspections have done nothing in the last 12 years. You say they have? You say Iraq is weaker because of them? Sure Iraq may be weaker because of sanctions and inspections. But how long do you intend to keep the sanctions on Iraq? How long do you honestly think Saddam will allow inspectors to stay there? That I can answer for you. Until the threat of military action is gone then he will just kick them out again. The sanctions against Iraq are only hurting the Iraqi people at this point. And this is what the peace activist want? Hurt the Iraqi people more with sanctions?
Once the inspectors are gone and once the sanctions are lifted Saddam will go about rebuilding his military. Then what? Will the world wait until he is either back to his pre 1991 strentgh or stronger? Is that when it will be ok to go to war with Iraq? If you have facts let us hear them.
Stout hearts
Warhawk
-
@budgie
And if the UN 'hikes its pant legs up and runs', well the world rests easy knowing that big bad Sherriff W. will be around to save our skins again. I'll sleep better at night knowing that.
I'm glad you finally see the light
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@budgie
As current and voting members they should be allowed to take part in the process.
That's the point budgie. When France pulled it's military from NATO they lost their right to vote on what other countries did with the military aspect of NATO. If France doesn't like it TOO BAD! The French are real good about leaving something for someone else to deal with when the situation suits them. When it comes time for someone else to help them out they expect, no demand it be there. So I am glad that they got left out of the loop on this one. It serves them right.
@jester
Also, IIRC, one stray bomb either hit, or struck close to, the French embassy in Tripoli.
I was in the Navy at the time of this event and to confirm what you have said here the "stray bomb" not only hit the French Embassy it did a lot of damage. I still to this day say that, that was an "accident" based upon pilot fatigue for having to fly around france.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
The only thing that really concerns me Zappa is that some of these protestors of today may very well become the politicans of tomorrow. Then what?
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
I have been intentionally staying out of this for a bit to see just how many of the same points can be brought again under a different mask. 300mag is right, France (by Chirac's statements) just became the one thing everyone ALWAYS accuses the US of being. A bully! Now that the shoe is on the other foot you want to say it's ok? You are in a round about saying "if Bush can do it so can others". Well if it is wrong for Bush to be a so called bully then it is wrong for Chirac to be one too! What I am getting sick and tired of is people wanting to paint with different brushes when it suits their needs or positions.
You say Saddam is no threat? I will ask this question yet again, and I bet that yet again those who oppose a war with Iraq will ignore it, how hard do you think it would be to launch a chemicial attack from one freighter sitting in international waters off of the coast of the US? Saddam has the missle technology to carry out such an attack. How hard do you think it would be to errect a missle launcher on a freighter launch that said missle then take the launching platform down and go back to looking like a freighter? This is just one scenerio. I can think of a few other ways of doing this too. All without the aid of any terrorist group.
Is Americia likely to see Iraqi soliders pouring off of ships and invading the US? Not likely. Not even a possibilty. The number of ships required to move an invasion force would mean in this day and age early detection. It's not like the 1940's when you could move men and material around fairly easily. Now an invasion force like that would be picked up by numerious satellites and decimated before it reached US shores.
The chemical/biological or nuclear attack that Saddam could launch is more probable. Especially if he is left either unchecked, or worse still left to play games with the UN. I agree 110% with 300mag when he says that without the military threat Saddam would be mooning the UN. If people can only contradict this statement with sarcasm then that just shows the weakness of their stance.
new policy? let them be. Saddam is not a threat to peace.
Many people have thought that about some of the worst people in history. What floors me the most about what the peace activist are saying in this day an age are, in principle, the very samethings that the world was saying in the 1930's (america included). Am I saying that Saddam will become the next Hitler if we don't stop him now. No, he (and this may sound like I am agreeing with budgie but it's only on this point) will never have a military that will equal the German military of the late 1930's and early 1940's. But he can pose an even greater risk in other area's. Don't forget too that I am sure that China and North Korea are watching very closely the events surronding Iraq and are probably going to plan accordingly.
Iraq may not be the threat to world peace that everyone is talking about but in it's own ways it is.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
As far as the argument for more time goes, I think having 12 years is enough. If you are not going to do what you say you are going to do in 12 years then it is time that you are made to do it. If we do as you suggest budgie and wait until our back is against the wall it may be to late to do anything. Remember the world waited once before and all that got us was a World War. I personally hope that people like Bush and Blair don't wait for some chemicial/biologicial or nuke attack by Irag on some country before they do something. Talk about shutting the barn door after the horses are out! This really isn't about WMD's or ties to Al Qeada for me. It's about Saddam not doing what he agreed to do. And no amount of threats and pleas are going to make him do what is necessary. He has proven that time and again.
As far as for any potential coup. If it happens before the shooting starts then it will only be an excelerated version of what I think is going to happen anyways. If it doesn't happen now wait until the Iraqi Army has to face the full brunt and might of the US led attack. When that Army starts to buckle that's when I fully expect someone in the Iraqi Army to put a bullet in Saddam's head. And most likely his son's too.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
You know you are playing too much Ghost Recon when you get that "thousand yard stare"
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
The next person I come face to face with that says "we have to do something about this global warming" I'm gonna knock their front teeth out. Someone once said to me, "I going to pack up everything I have when I retire and start driving south, the first person who points at my snowblower and asks what's that, is where I will retire." Sound advice I think.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
I think what we are seeing and hearing from North Korea is nothing more than political postering. The North Korean Government is going to say one thing publicy and sing a completely different tune in private. They need the backing of China in order to be able to withstand any fight with the "free world". They are going to have to deal with this very carefully as China has worked to long and hard to get consessions from the west on trade for some little puppet state do something to jepordize it. I think, unless the rest of the world did something to threaten China, that China might very well hang North Korea out to dry if it provokes a conflict. Look for a political settlement on this one. That's what my uneducated guess anyways. I don't think the US or anyone else is going to have to get into a fight with them. They will find some "face saving" way of getting out of this crisis.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@budgie
As for it taking a great leader to step out and achieve something, there is serious debate in the world as to whether Dubya is a great leader. Other presidents have been less popular or more, but few have stepped on as many toes in such a short space of time.
If he has to step on a few toes to get the job done properly then so be it. Peoples toes wouldn't feel stepped on if they didn't have a guilty conscience. I believe that deep down these countries realise what they have to do but because of other reasons, whatever they maybe, they are not going to do what is right.
The US is a key player and for it to step out of the fold and go it alone may have more serious consquences in the long term than letting Iraq fester away.
Your right when you say there are going to be serious consequences. But these will be cosequences as a result of inaction by the UN itself. The UN has set itself up by it's inaction up to this point. If it continues along this road it will fall. Not because of the US and what it's doing but because of itself and what it's not doing.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
I just did a dance. That just made my whole day. My comment to the French.
Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
P.S. Yes I am gloating. It's about time they got left out of the loop on something instead of it being them doing it to someone else!
-
Bravo 300 mag! Well said on both posts.
@budgie
One other thing I would add. Where was the UN during the Vietnam conflict? Or how about Grenada? Or Panama? If war is not the answer if armned conflict is not the way to go why didn't this "great" world organization step up and stop the US then? Why is it Iraq that they feel necessary to stop the US on? And don't give me the answer "its because they don't see him as a threat". Vietnam wasn't a threat to the world peace, and yet when the French asked for US assistance there (then subsequently left the US holding the bag), you didn't see the UN trying to stop that one did you. With Iraq it all boils down to non compliance. The UN is going to make itself a thing of the past by it's own actions or in this case inactions. I come back to what I said before. This is why North Korea isn't talking to the UN. The UN is not a threat to North Korea. The US on the other hand is and that is why North Korea has said that they will only talk to the US (IMHO).
I still believe that without UN backing, however, the need is not pressing enough for a few countries to go it alone
Sometimes it takes great leaders to do extrodinary things to help others out while still more choose to sit on the sidelines. It is up to those that do hear the call to answer. Those that choose to ignore it, well at least you know what they are made of.
The conspiracy theory about France and Russia being in bed with Saddam endures I see. Anyone who refutes it must be blind, stupid or too 'politically correct'. Spell it out for me guys because I'm all three. Its another example of anyone disagreeing being anti-American. "Either you're with us or against us
I never said that you were, (1) blind, stupid or too politically correct to see, (2) disagreeing is not being anti-Americian I never said that. All I said was to look at this, honestly from the other side for a one minute. Even if you don't agree with it totally I think, that's my personal opinion, that you would have to admit that I and others could be at least partially right.
However it is also my belief that by attempting to override the wishes of the Security Council, Dubya (and his little brown-toothed buddy Tony) is in serious danger of undermining the UN's Authority and leaving the other nations of the world without a relevant, binding forum.
First off when you have to resort to name calling, the Tony Blair remark, you are showing that your basis for you stand is faulty. Do yourself some credit and don't resort to school yard tatics like that. The UN's authority is in danger of being undermined by it's own members like France and Russia, just to name two, that have chosen a path that makes the UN's resolutions meaningless.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
What can I say but "that's what I'm talking about!"
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@firefly
It's not what the US does in Iraq but rather what the UN does or doesn't do in Iraq that will influence North Korea. If they see that the UN does not have the backbone to stand up against Iraq, then they may well take that as a sign that the UN won't stand up to them. Remember one very important detail. The Korean War was sanctioned by the UN and basically run under UN mandates. I would suggest reviewing the Korean War to get a better prospective on this.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
Ok budgie you knew with a long post like that it was bound to get me out of my nest.
So here you go.TRC is right about Bush's schedule - he's trying to rush everyone into it and the UN doesn't feel that inspections have run their course yet. He really needs more time to make a case.
I looked over TRC's post, I hope that TRC doesn't think I am steppin on his toes here, (If I am misunderstanding what you are saying TRC please correct me), and I don't see anywhere in there where he said Bush is trying to rush everyone into it. What I see is TRC saying that becaue Bush's tight time schedule is what is forcing Saddam to comply, in the small ways that he actually is, not the UN itself. I agree. As I am sure I have said before it is this threat of action that is working and if it is removed Saddam will go right back to doing things like, kicking the weapons inspectors out.
Let's look at Saddam's recent history
Yes lets do look at Saddam's history. He has time and again agreed to do things then when the time suits him no longer accept them. That time when he changes his mind is in direct correlation to there no longer being a military threat at his front door. The man understands one thing. What comes out of the end of a gun. You point a gun at his head and he understands. You pull the gun away and he does what he bloody well pleases. Even when those pleasures go against the very things he agreed not to do in the first place.
While his tyrannical machinations have continued to keep him in power and his people suffering, his armies have shrunk to a third the size they were in 1991
When you have weapons of mass destruction you don't need as big an army as you have had in the past. That is why they are call weapons of mass destruction.
His economy has all but collapsed and money for new technology and weapons is scarce. Yes, he has pursued WMDs and he has not destroyed some of his old stocks. But he has failed to develop nuclear weapons because of sanctions on material and a lack of money. If the sanctions keep going, that money will never be available to him. He has been too weak since 1991 to attack any of his neighbors and he gets weaker and poorer by the day
With the sanctions that were put in place against him the only ones who have suffered from them are the people themselves. Since he has no desire to comply with the very agreements his government signed he is dooming his own people to squaller. So to say keep the sanctions going I think is a mistake. If they haven't worked up to now they are not ever going to work. Sanctions don't work against someone who doesn't care about his own people. As far as him pursing WMD's and not destroying the ones he has, well this is just one more example of him being in material breach.
France germany and Russia have everything to gain from a post Saddam Iraq: Oil contracts, weapons sales
I don't think you are fairly looking at the flipside of this. They have put their foot down from the start on this. So who is to say that when a new government comes to power that they will want to have anything to do with countries like France Russia and China? They have a sure thing right now. With a change they will have to compete once again on the open market for everything. Try honestly looking at this part of the issue from the other side for a moment.
For twelve years he has been hobbled and contained and he's now 66 or 67 years old. Will this cash-strapped and impotent tyrant rise from the ashes and once again threaten the world's oil supplies in a couple of years? Most nations don't think so. Could he do it in ten years? The way he drinks, smokes and whores, I doubt that too
So what you are saying here is you don't care about the people of Iraq. Let them suffer a couple of more years? All the while the rest of the world has to wonder if maybe just maybe he will either help terrorist develop chemical or biologicial weapons. Just for the sake of not having a war.
You know the last time a countries felt that way Hitler retook the Rhineland. Am I saying that Saddam has his own Rhineland to take? No. But back a crazed animal in a corner and your in for a fight the likes of which you have never seen. Nothing will seem to far fetched.
Rather, the UN stands to be made irrelevant by one of its charter members ignoring its pleas for peace and marching off to war without it. The UN's authority is taking a bigger hit from American obstinacy than it ever did from Saddam's scheming. If the US pulls out and goes it alone, it will not be with the world's blessing or even most of America's. It will weaken the UN immeasurably and give real strength to other rogue states - North Korea scares people far more than Iraq, and already the UN is having a hard time leaning on them, because its main player is distracted.
It's not just one of it's members. This isn't an issue where the US stands by itself. Yes there are a lot of countries that disagree with the US. But not all of them. So don't lay the blame at the US's doorstep. That is called blame shifting. More of the political correctness we had to endure. "It can't be the bad guys fault it's societies fault." Plain and simple the UN is making itself weak by not standing behind what it says. North Korea is watching this and is planning it's next moves accordingly. Is it any wonder that they won't talk to anyone other than the US about the current crisis with it? They won't talk to the UN because they don't see the UN as a threat. North Korea has watched what has happened with Saddam and knows the UN isn't the problem. They know they call brow beat the UN into anything. The US is another story and they know this.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@300Mag
Look at the example set for our current crop of military enlistees. Bill Clinton blows off the draft, makes bending the truth an art form and get's caught with a girl (ugly one, at that) the same age as his daughter. He was a poster child for doing it all for yourself
DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED! The one person who should have never led the US Military, the one I served in for a time, for any reason. How he even thought he had the right to step one foot in Arlington National Cemetary on of all days Veteran's Day is beyone me, not to mention the fact my blood boiled everytime I saw it on T.V. But you are right this is exactly what we get for having to endure political correctness for 8 years.
Those comments are beyond comprehension. Talk about wanting a free ride. To think that she honestly believe's that her son's education came without a cost is beyond imgaination. If that is what she wanted maybe she would have been better off sending her son to one of the MANY liberal colleges in the US. At least there he could then take part in that lunacy without any consequences at all.
Jack Nickleson had a line in the movie "A Few Good Men" that I think sums it up the best. Problem is I can not remember it verbatium. It was something to the effect of not asking for anything other than a thank you for the job that the military does. That is what this all boils down to. No matter one persons feeling on war the fact that you have the right to even voice that opinion and protest wars is because of the many sacrifices made by men and women in uniform. Reguardless of which country they have served for. As my signature says....
"Never before in the annuals of history has so much been owed by so many to so few" Sir Winston Churchill
He may have been talking about the brave pilots that fought the Battle of Britian but I think it goes without saying that it most definately applies to all who have served in defending freedom.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
Which leads me to something someone once told me. "Find something your good at in life and stick to it" "You will be rewarding for a job well done".
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@TRC
I noted the wink at the end of your post, and in the back of my mind figured you were being sarcastic. What floored me was when budgie jumped all over it. The only thing that I would disagree with you on is withdrawing from the UN. But you are right about one thing the UN is quickly becoming impotent like the League of Nations before it. And I also agree that Saddam does not now or ever intend to comply with UN resolutions. If he was going to he would have done so long before now. He is not now going to say "oh you really mean it this time, ok I give".
Like you TRC I have yet to see anyone put up good solid facts yet to refute what I am saying. I just wish more people would take the time to read and listen to others and stop "hoping for the best" from some of the world's worst people.
Another thing, since we are on the subject of Iraq and it's WMD. The Syrain (sp) ambassador was complaining that no one was saying anything about Israel having WMD. Well my response to that is Israel hasn't used them on it's enemies and own citizens alike. If they were ever to do such a thing then come back and talk to me.
On the subject of the French, you go tyovan4 ( to use some of my stepdaughters slang).
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
Clouding the issue with facts. What an interesting choice of words. So what you are saying then, if I am reading this correctly, is when it comes to the UN Security Council that they (according to France, Russia, Germany and China) shouldn't be concerned with facts only whether or not someone poses a risk? If that is the case then why say things like "full compliance with UN resolutions", "Completely disarm or else"? If the issue is not compliance with UN resolutions then why have resolutions demanding compliance? The logic in the statement "he doesn't represent that big of a threat" completely escapes me.
What would then I wonder? If we use this principle then we should go to war with North Korea. After all they do have nuclear weapons and they are restarting their nuclear weapons program. They have also said any sanctions by the UN Security Council would be tantamount to a declaration of war. Again using the "who poses a threat" principle we should be building up a coalition of military forces, to force the North Koreans to abide by their obligations to the UN and the NPT (Non Poliforation Treaty) and numerous other International agreements that they are now in violation of. That would be like saying war with North Korea is more preferable than a war with Iraq.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
In watching the weapons inspectors report to the UN today I heard something of interest. I had completely forgotten about this myself and I think it bears bringing up. In his speech to the security council, The Honourble Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary, reminded those of the security council of a portion of a previous UN Resolution. UN resolution 687, which was passed in April of 1991, gave Iraq ninety (90) days to completely and fully disarm or face serious consequences. That means that deadline ran out in July 1991.
Not only does the wording sound familiar but hey "Times up". It has been up for some 11 years and 3 months and some odd number of days. And countries like France, Russia, Germany and China expect Saddam to take the security council seriously?
For those on this forum who are old enough to have children, and yes I am over simplifying things, you should understand the lunicy of this idea. If you tell your kid(s) to stop using drugs or face serious consequences for that long, do you think that they will take you seriously? And we expect the dictator of a country to take the security councils similiar threats?
The only reason he is even allowing what he has so far can only be attributed to the build up of forces around his country. As Mr. Colin Powell so aptly pointed out that it wasn't until President Bush spoke at the UN on September 12 that Iraq even began to considering to allow inspectors back into Iraq. Before this date Saddam had boldly stated that they would never be allowed back in.
It is time for people to stop kidding themselves and understand just what they are dealing with here. If France and Russia don't want military action then you have to ask why. Could it be because with Saddam they know they will always have a buyer for their military weapons? Are they now afraid if he goes they will loose another piece of that world market?
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
I have always been hawkish in my political views for one. The other is I prefer military style games over all others. I especially enjoy strategy based games.
It helps to keep the marines, that I run into from time to time in their place too.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@Dark Ranger
After reading your initial post several times, I couldn't find in there where you attacking me personally. But I appreciate the fact that you took the time to offer an apology in the first place. Your response was the kind of response I was looking for from my intial post. A discussion on the issue.
I find myself in daily conversations with others, taking up the side of "no you can't do that". That is not to say that quietly I find some of the arguments for internment seemingly sound. Please note that I said seemingly. This is not to say that I do agree with it. In the most basic sense it violates every idea of freedom I speak for. But part of me can't let go of the fact that it is terrorist groups like, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Queda that carry out their acts of terrorism in the name of Allah.
@tyovan4
however, i think a small amount of racial profiling is ok. we're not being attacked by al gore, the catholic nuns, or retired businessman. all of them have been randomly searched at airports. were under attack by young, mostly arab men mostly between 15 and 50. im not saying give them a total search, interrogate them, make them wear a crescant on their right arm, etc.. but that giving them a little bit more attention would not hurt
I do agree with this statment. I don't think it hurts to give extra attention to a certain group. But on the other side of the argument is the notion that once the government gets it's foot this far "in the door" what's to stop them from going another step and repeating the past mistakes made with the Japanese? What would be your response to that?
@pyro
If you are still in this debate I have a response to one of your posts for you.
You don't have to be Muslim to be a terrorist, mate.
No you don't. Just ask the British about that. But I wasn't talking about the IRA. I was trying to direct this subject in the direction of one, what were other peoples opinion on the subject of internment camps. Two, when and if you ever found yourself debating this what arguments would you use either for or against it. I am not asking for people to get bashed on this subject whether they are for it or against it.
The thought behind this dicussion was to see what opinions and facts were out there. And all the while hopefully try to hold the sarcaism to a minimum on this very sensative subject.
In closing I hope that people will continue to post their positions on this subject. Whether you are for or against it. Like I said this is one issue I am actually still on the fence about. I think the inital furor was brought about by my unfortunate choice of words and some people not reading carefully enough.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
Oh Canada
in Real World Military
Posted
I have to concur with 300mag. Most of any decent coming from the US about Canada is almost always directed at the Government of Canada not at the people.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk