Situation In Iraq Has Worsened

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: palehorse74

give it up Acanthus,

Better idea, YOU give it up. Go back to freeperville and while you are at it, go enlist. No one is buying your BS.

someone hasnt been paying attention... Go enlist? ya... read much?

And yes, the UN is totally useless and defunct.

Yes, I have been reading and think you are full of crap. I don't think you have ever served a day in your life other than in a Clan Match. Nothing more sickening than some freeper coming here posing as a soldier. You make a fine window. I'll just ignore you from now on as attention seems to be your motivation anyhow.

lol... believe what you wish. i didnt come in here to prove anything to anyone regarding my RL careers. im mostly posting here for entertainment purposes. you guys crack me up, and i really enjoy laughing, so i think i'll stick around for a bit.

 

[Todd33]

I can see Palehorse sing this song:

What would you do
If you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom
What would you do
If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice

Would you think about all them people
Who gave up everything they had.
Would you think about all them War Vets
And would you start to feel bad

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty ******' fee.
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

What would you do
If someone told you to fight for freedom.
Would you answer the call
Or run away like a little pussy
'Cause the only reason that you're here.
Is 'cause folks died for you in the past
So maybe now it's your turn
To die kicking some ass

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
Now there's a have to hook'in fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

You don't throw in your buck 'o five. Who will?
Oooh buck 'o five
Freedom costs a buck 'o five

 

[BBond]

The invasion of Iraq or any other nation can only have been justified if done in self-defense. Neither the United States of America or any other nation has the right to determine which government or which nation should be "improved". Nations that go around the world determining on their own which other nations need "improving" then use their military superiority to conduct unprovoked invasions as their mode of "improvement" are aggressors, not liberators. Bush said we had to attack Iraq to rid the world of a grave and gathering threat -- WMD -- which didn't exist. Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out, the inspectors were present in Iraq with unfettered access to any and all sites they wanted to inspect when George W. Bush announced his impending invasion and told them to get out for their own safety.

Let's not re-write history here. We all lived through it. That's the way it happened. Saddam was no threat to the United States of America and unfettered inspections were ongoing yet George W. Bush attacked Iraq anyway. Once no WMD was found and Bush's lie was exposed he then came up with this nonsense about "improving" Iraq by removing Saddam.

If there was a nation on Earth with a military machine superior to America's and they invaded to "improve" our lives and rid us of the tyrannical lawbreaking Bush what would your reaction be? Would you consider an invading force that attacked America unprovoked, removed Bush from office, rounded up all Repubicans and tossed them out of government and the military a liberator???

Don't be ridiculous. No one has the right. And Bush's claims that Iraq's "improvement" was his goal is just a pathetic excuse to cover up Bush's lies about non-existent WMD.

Saddam handed over ~12,000 pages, IIRC, of documentation on WMD yet Bush chose to invade anyway. Stop making fools of yourselves by using what everyone knows didn't exist as an excuse for Bush's invasion. There was no WMD. It had all been destroyed just as Iraq told the world yet Bush invaded anyway. I posted a story here recently about the U.S. military loosing equipment and weapons to the tune of $68 million, IIRC. If the U.S. had to provide an accounting of its military inventory or face invasion by a superior force we would be invaded too. The fact is that the UN and IAEA inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and there was NO reason whatsoever for George W. Bush to attack Iraq on March 19, 2003. If there was please someone tell me what made the invasion of Iraq on that date mandatory? What threat did America face that forced us to invade Iraq on that date? What forced George W. Bush to invade Iraq on March 19, 2003?

Nothing but lies and the dreams of world conquest from people like the war-profiteering bunch at PNAC.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BBond

Let's not re-write history here. We all lived through it. That's the way it happened. Saddam was no threat to the United States of America and unfettered inspections were ongoing yet George W. Bush attacked Iraq anyway.

Once no WMD was found and Bush's lie was exposed he then came up with this nonsense about "improving" Iraq by removing Saddam.

If there was a nation on Earth with a military machine superior to America's and they invaded to "improve" our lives and rid us of the tyrannical lawbreaking Bush what would your reaction be?

Would you consider an invading force that attacked America unprovoked, removed Bush from office, rounded up all Repubicans and tossed them out of government and the military a liberator???

Bush's claims that Iraq's "improvement" was his goal is just a pathetic excuse to cover up Bush's lies about non-existent WMD.

That's what America needs and will eventually get. All our money is going overseas.

America will het it's ass kicked soon enough.

 

[BBond]

These right wing creeps who think they have carte blanche to rule the world whichever way they choose, these fascists who think god was created in their image, haven't stopped to realize that we're just another in a long line of nations that thought they would rule the world. Bush can make any excuse he likes and his worshipers can repeat them all they like but it doesn't change the fact one bit that a nation that attacks another when the other poses no threat is nothing more than an aggressor in the mold of nations like Nazi Germany who believed it was their turn to rule the world.

They're all the same.

One other thing about these right wingers who claim the UN is dead. The USA only wishes it were so because America no longer wants to be impeded in its aggression by "quaint" and "obsolete" treaties we signed. What a bunch of fvcking hypocrites. And to think they're using this blather about bringing the world "freedom and democracy" to excuse their aggression is just sickening. How do they delude themselves into believing that ANYONE is falling for that bullsh!t.

These people are just pathetic.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: palehorse74

give it up Acanthus,

Better idea, YOU give it up. Go back to freeperville and while you are at it, go enlist. No one is buying your BS.

someone hasnt been paying attention... Go enlist? ya... read much?

And yes, the UN is totally useless and defunct.

Heh, at least their assessment of Iraq's WMD program is more accurate than you and the Bush Government. I guess if UN is so useless and defunct, the Bush Government gotta be even worse for coming up with the conclusion that Iraq had WMD and invaded Iraq for that.

 

[Uhtrinity]

[/quote]someone hasnt been paying attention... Go enlist? ya... read much?[/quote]

You never answered my question from the other thread, how much of your time was Active duty and how much was reserves / national guard?

 

[Uhtrinity]

[/quote]lol... believe what you wish. i didnt come in here to prove anything to anyone regarding my RL careers. im mostly posting here for entertainment purposes. you guys crack me up, and i really enjoy laughing, so i think i'll stick around for a bit.[/quote]

At least you admit it, explains alot.

However I come here to hear other opinions, catch a little news I wouldn't get otherwise, and maybe even be enlightened or enlighten some one.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

lol... believe what you wish. i didnt come in here to prove anything to anyone regarding my RL careers. im mostly posting here for entertainment purposes. you guys crack me up, and i really enjoy laughing, so i think i'll stick around for a bit.[/quote]

At least you admit it, explains alot.

However I come here to hear other opinions, catch a little news I wouldn't get otherwise, and maybe even be enlightened or enlighten some one.

[/quote]


We seem to have many active and former military personnel just stopping by for a laugh. :roll:

I wonder how many of them are affiliated with Rendon or Lincoln or any of the other internal or external U.S. military propoganda offices.

 

[Uhtrinity]

[/quote]We seem to have many active and former military personnel just stopping by for a laugh. :roll:

I wonder how many of them are affiliated with Rendon or Lincoln or any of the other internal or external U.S. military propoganda offices.



[/quote]

Well, my first thought when Palehorse hinted at a intelligence civilian career was one of the contractors doing security / intelligence in Iraq (Like Black Water?). Maybe he would be kind enough to enlighten us as well as put the record straight on his military experience. I for one have never vague on mine.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

lol... believe what you wish. i didnt come in here to prove anything to anyone regarding my RL careers. im mostly posting here for entertainment purposes. you guys crack me up, and i really enjoy laughing, so i think i'll stick around for a bit.[/quote]

At least you admit it, explains alot.

However I come here to hear other opinions, catch a little news I wouldn't get otherwise, and maybe even be enlightened or enlighten some one.

[/quote]

why dont you just go straight to the source and log into moveon.org? anyone who would use this place for "news" is pretty much admitting that they live in a cozy liberal shell with a total disregard for the truth.

the news? here!? lol.. you must be high!

ps: no offense trinity, but I'm tired of my personal life being an issue here. please stick to the topics.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

lol... believe what you wish. i didnt come in here to prove anything to anyone regarding my RL careers. im mostly posting here for entertainment purposes. you guys crack me up, and i really enjoy laughing, so i think i'll stick around for a bit.

At least you admit it, explains alot.

However I come here to hear other opinions, catch a little news I wouldn't get otherwise, and maybe even be enlightened or enlighten some one.

[/quote]

why dont you just go straight to the source and log into moveon.org? anyone who would use this place for "news" is pretty much admitting that they live in a cozy liberal shell with a total disregard for the truth.

the news? here!? lol.. you must be high!

ps: no offense trinity, but I'm tired of my personal life being an issue here. please stick to the topics.[/quote]

Yeah, those moveon people are such liars. They should try to be more like the Siftboat vets. :disgust:

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

lol... believe what you wish. i didnt come in here to prove anything to anyone regarding my RL careers. im mostly posting here for entertainment purposes. you guys crack me up, and i really enjoy laughing, so i think i'll stick around for a bit.

At least you admit it, explains alot.

However I come here to hear other opinions, catch a little news I wouldn't get otherwise, and maybe even be enlightened or enlighten some one.

[/quote]

why dont you just go straight to the source and log into moveon.org? anyone who would use this place for "news" is pretty much admitting that they live in a cozy liberal shell with a total disregard for the truth.

the news? here!? lol.. you must be high!

ps: no offense trinity, but I'm tired of my personal life being an issue here. please stick to the topics.[/quote]

IIRC, you're the one who brought up your military history. If you don't want the issue to be your personal life then don't bring it up.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Yeah, those moveon people are such liars. They should try to be more like the Siftboat vets. :disgust:

I would not rely on either for the whole truth. The point was that I would certainly not rely on this obviously liberal P&N forum either, and anyone who does may as well go straight to the all-powerful liberal source: moveon.org.

(I picture moveon.org as an animated brain in a jar that controls the minds of everyone on that side of the political spectrum. I can picture long thin tentacles trailing off into the ether, each one attached to one of your liberal little brains...

And conjur? well he is the Wormtongue sent forth to shape the P&N boards! 55,000 posts seem to have done the job that the master brain intended!

that image makes me smile, so all is well!)

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

lol... believe what you wish. i didnt come in here to prove anything to anyone regarding my RL careers. im mostly posting here for entertainment purposes. you guys crack me up, and i really enjoy laughing, so i think i'll stick around for a bit.

At least you admit it, explains alot.

However I come here to hear other opinions, catch a little news I wouldn't get otherwise, and maybe even be enlightened or enlighten some one.

why dont you just go straight to the source and log into moveon.org? anyone who would use this place for "news" is pretty much admitting that they live in a cozy liberal shell with a total disregard for the truth.

the news? here!? lol.. you must be high!

ps: no offense trinity, but I'm tired of my personal life being an issue here. please stick to the topics.[/quote]

IIRC, you're the one who brought up your military history. If you don't want the issue to be your personal life then don't bring it up.

[/quote]

ok, so i opened that door when I was challenged on my service, and now I'm shutting that door. The first PM that I received with overly personal data dug up by one of the members here was enough for me to realize that some of you are borderline psycho when it comes to this political forum... so i'll continue to debate and rib you guys on these topics, but I'm done with the personal resume...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Yeah, those moveon people are such liars. They should try to be more like the Siftboat vets. :disgust:

I would not rely on either for the whole truth. The point was that I would certainly not rely on this obviously liberal P&N forum either, and anyone who does may as well go straight to the all-powerful liberal source: moveon.org.

(I picture moveon.org as an animated brain in a jar that controls the minds of everyone on that side of the political spectrum. I can picture long thin tentacles trailing off into the ether, each one attached to one of your liberal little brains...

that image makes me smile, so all is well!)

And I picture you as Dr. Strangelove. LMAO!!

 

[BBond]

Speaking of not relying on the whole truth, the Liar in Chief is now preaching about how his debacle in Iraq should be debated in an election year!

Does this guy have any shame at all??? Does Bush actually think anyone will fall for this bullsh!t? He wants Iraq to control the debate on Iraq even though after almost three years he can't control the outcome of his unnecessary invasion of same.

:laugh:

What a completely immoral, ignorant, pompous windbag. After repeating the same lies for over three years now, Bush has NO place preaching about the difference "between responsible and irresponsible debate" -- Bush is irresponsibility defined.

Bush warns his critics about debate on Iraq

By David E. Sanger The New York Times

TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2006

WASHINGTON President George W. Bush on Tuesday issued an unusually stark warning to Democrats about how to conduct the debate on Iraq as mid-term elections approach, declaring that Americans know the difference "between honest critics" and those "who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people."

In a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars here, Bush appeared to be issuing a pre-emptive assault on his critics, at a time when Democrats are divided between those who say the United States should begin a withdrawal immediately, and those who have criticized Bush but say that the United States should remain in Iraq as long as necessary.

In some of his most combative language yet directed as his critics, Bush said Americans should insist on a debate "that brings credit to our democracy, not comfort to our adversaries."

The president was speaking in the same room at a hotel where last month he described the effort to reconstruct Iraq to a skeptical audience: the Council on Foreign Relations, whose members greeted him with only tepid applause.

But on Tuesday, 425 members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which on Monday adopted a resolution supporting the Iraq action, interrupted Bush repeatedly as he predicted that progress would be made both in fighting the insurgency and in stabilizing the newly elected government.

He acknowledged that major human rights abuses had been committed by the Iraqi police, and said, "That's unacceptable."

He said the United States was adjusting how it trains the police, including the establishment of a new "Police Ethics and Leadership Institute" in Baghdad that will establish a curriculum for the nine police academies. He made no references to the revelations that Americans had abused prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

He agreed that progress in restoring basic services to Iraqis had been slow, but argued that the problems paled in comparison with the progress he claimed Iraq was making. "The vast majority of Iraqis prefer freedom with intermittent power to life in the permanent darkness of tyranny and terror," he said, an amplification of the theme he hit repeatedly in December, in an effort to rebuild domestic support for the war.

He also pressed countries that have promised aid to Iraq to make good on their pledges. He praised Slovakia and Malta for forgiving all of Iraq's previous debts to those countries - though their concessions amounted to a couple of hundred million dollars. Among large countries, only the United States has forgiven all past Iraqi debt.

But it was Bush's warning to Democrats that represented new territory in the Iraq debate. "There is a difference," he said, "between responsible and irresponsible debate and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas." He did not name his critics.

In discussing Iraqi politics, Bush directly addressed Sunni Arabs, the minority in the new government, saying that "compromise and consensus and power-sharing are the only path to national unity and lasting democracy." He added that "a country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances cannot move forward and risks sliding back into tyranny."



More sacrifices and fighting

Bush also predicted that more tough fighting and more sacrifice lay ahead in Iraq in 2006, but said he believed progress would be made against the insurgency and on the political process and reconstruction this year, Reuters reported.

Bush is trying to convince Americans that his strategy will work in Iraq even as the U.S. death toll increases nearly three years after the invasion to oust Saddam Hussein.

He has faced a barrage of criticism over his handling of Iraq. This week, L. Paul Bremer, who administered Iraq for a year after Saddam was toppled, said that his call in 2004 for a big expansion of troop strength was rejected.

Bush on Tuesday made no specific reference to Bremer's charges, simply repeating as he has in recent speeches that "setbacks" have occurred.

Bush also said reforming Iraqi gasoline subsidies was a necessary step for economic reform in Baghdad because the price of fuel has been artificially low and the subsidies are a drag on Iraq's budget.

 

[1EZduzit]

I think Bush should be careful about telling other to be careful.

 

[Uhtrinity]

[/quote]why dont you just go straight to the source and log into moveon.org? anyone who would use this place for "news" is pretty much admitting that they live in a cozy liberal shell with a total disregard for the truth.

the news? here!? lol.. you must be high!

ps: no offense trinity, but I'm tired of my personal life being an issue here. please stick to the topics.[/quote]

I never said this is the only place I go for news. But it is the only forum I participate in, and fyi I avoid moveon just as much as I would Rushs site. And as far as Military history you brought it up.

edit: read your response on closing the door, that is of course your option.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: conjur
It had a stable government and a well-trained police before. Yes, it was on the abusive/murderous side but that's absolutely zero reason to invade, occupy, and install puppets as a new government until a new one could be formed.

Where's the UN Security Council Resolution or the US Federal Law or the Congressional Resolution that authorizes the US to invade and occupy Iraq because of some thugs killing people in Iraq?

The UN as a whole is a useless squabbling crapshoot of diplomacy that failed long long ago.

Ah, now the UN is useless.

While the WMDs were not there. It was also part of the UN resolution following the 1991 gulf war that the government of Iraq was supposed to PROPERLY DOCUMENT AND SUBMIT PROOF of desctruction of all WMDs.

No, you just said the UN was useless. Now you're falling back on UN resolutions? Which one is it? Is the UN useless or not? Can't have it both ways.

How soon you forget about saddam repeatedly kicking the inspectors off of sites and playing games with the UN resolutions.

Saddam never kicked inspectors out. Clinton removed them before he launched his strikes and the Propagandist removed them to invade.

Just because the UN is a waste of time doesnt mean it isnt the acting world political power.

There have been multiple times where a crisis has arisen with Iraq not allowing the UNSCOM inspectors on sites or kicking them out or sites they were visiting. Saddam backed down each time world powers came close to using military force.

A little info

"Seven years after it was set up, UNSCOM is still unable to certify that it knows the full extent of Iraq's CBW programmes and is unable to determine that all agents, munitions and facilities have been declared and therefore destroyed. Moreover, inspectors have collected hard evidence as well as circumstantial information suggesting that the programmes were either much more advanced or far wider in scope than previously thought.

It is now known that Iraq was developing elements of the entire range of non-conventional weapons and their means of delivery, including ballistic missiles, prior to the Iraq-Iran War, beginning with CW."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
another exerpt

Under UNSCOM supervision 38 537 filled and unfilled munitions, 690 tonnes of agents, 3000 tonnes of precursor chemicals to manufacture CW agents, and thousands of pieces of production equipment and analytical instruments were destroyed.
Despite these achievements, no complete accounting of the CW programme has been possible, for three reasons:
1. Iraq removed CW, equipment and materials from the main site of the al-Muthanna State Establishment before the first UNSCOM inspection team arrived, and no full accounting of these materials has been forthcoming.
2. Iraq claims that it has destroyed 15 620 chemical munitions unilaterally, a fact and total that are so far unverified. Similarly, it provided no supporting documentation for 16 038 chemical munitions it claims to have discarded.
3. UNSCOM inspectors were reportedly closing in on a programme for the production of VX, when the stand-off between Iraq and the UN Security Council began in the autumn of 1997. In November 1997, UNSCOM found new evidence that Iraq had developed a production capability for VX: Iraq had obtained at least 750 tonnes of VX precursor chemicals. (Evidence of VX production was first revealed in 1995.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

The discovery that Iraq was researching aflatoxin, not a traditional BW candidate, was a cause for some surprise. It is a carcinogen, the effects of which manifest themselves only after many years, and several Western experts have rationalized this Iraqi programme only in terms of genocidal goals. If aflatoxin were used against the Kurds, for instance, it would be impossible definitively to prove the use of BW once the symptoms emerged. Another possible explanation is its potential use as an immune suppressant, making victims more susceptible to other agents. However, the aflatoxin declaration may also hide other aspects of Iraq's BW programme: according to Iraq's depositions, the production programme never encountered any mishap (as other parts of the BW programme had) and, to judge from the declared time-frame for the total amount produced, produc tion could never have stopped, even for cleaning of the equipment. This raises the suspicion that Iraq declared an excessive amount of aflatoxin in order to disguise the fact that other, more destructive agents had been produced in greater quantities.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Under Resolution 687, Iraq is required to provide UNSCOM with a full, final and complete disclosure (FFCD) of all aspects of its programmes to develop non-conventional weapons, to include such factors as locations, facilities, components and any other information necessary to account for these programmes. UNSCOM was to be allowed 'unconditional and unrestricted access to all areas, facilities, equipment and records', that is, not only to the facilities and locations declared by the Iraqi Government, but also to facilities and locations designated by UNSCOM itself. Economic sanctions were also intended to force Iraq to comply with the terms of the cease-fire, of which the UNSCOM mandate is a part.

With some obstruction and difficulties at particular sites, UNSCOM succeeded in gaining access to the sites it wished to inspect. In the autumn of 1997, however, in contravention of the UN resolutions and as a challenge to UNSCOM's mandate, Iraqi officials began to insist that some areas of Iraq should be off-limits to the UNSCOM inspectors. In October, after denying the inspectors access to suspected sites for several months and generally refusing to cooperate with the UNSCOM operations, Baghdad expelled all seven US members of an UNSCOM inspection team and branded them as spies working under false pretexts.

After Russian assurances and diplomatic intervention and a reconfiguration of the UNSCOM inspection team, Iraq agreed to the continuation of UNSCOM's work. This was not to last. In December 1997 a new crisis developed when inspectors were denied access to eight of Saddam's presidential sites on the basis that these were 'sovereign territory' and thus beyond the prerogative of the UN. The presidential sites were suspected of hiding evidence of the non-conventional weapon programmes.

----------------------------------------------

There were glaring inconsistencies in iraqs reporting, inspectors were denied access to sites, and they were kicked out of the country at one point.

 

[conjur]

Inspectors were NOT kicked out of Iraq:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123


And all of that in your link is from 1990s. In 2002/2003, inspectors were BACK in Iraq and had access to any site requested until the Propagandist yanked them out and invaded.

But, your argument boils down to what others up here have boiled down to, as well: Saddam was invaded because he didn't file the proper paperwork. :roll:

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: conjur
Inspectors were NOT kicked out of Iraq:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123


And all of that in your link is from 1990s. In 2002/2003, inspectors were BACK in Iraq and had access to any site requested until the Propagandist yanked them out and invaded.

But, your argument boils down to what others up here have boiled down to, as well: Saddam was invaded because he didn't file the proper paperwork. :roll:

The paperwork is kind of important when it involves concessions after losing a war.

 

[conjur]

Then the US should have waited for the paperwork while inspecitions continued. Inspections which, btw, were revealing NOTHING at the sites directed by the US. That's why the Propagandist yanked them out and invaded. He knew that the inspectors weren't finding the "stockpiles" and once the truth was known to the world, the justification for invading Iraq would have been gone.

Now we're seeing similar rhetoric about phantom WMDs in Iran.

 

[Acanthus]

We waited over 10 years...

Edit: and.... iran has a nuclear program capable of enriching weapons grade uranium, which they claim to be using for power, and wont even let the russians inspect what they are doing. (Iran and russia have good relations).

Completely different issue.

 

[conjur]

And in that 10 years did anything happen? No.



Iran hasn't made any threatening moves, though, have they?

Well, they did support Hezbollah in its attacks in the 90s and apparently have allowed Al Qaeda to move freely in/out of the country but this administration didn't seem to worried about that in 2002/2003. Why would they be worried now?