Iraq discussion again

[bamthedoc]

Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Who are you sitting down with? Didn't you kill everyone? or didn't everyone kill themselves jumping at you with bombs strapped to them. You show that you can interfere with things. If you won the vietnam war I bet you're goverment would've of said the same thing.

Um? You do realize I was talking about other countries right? I'll name a few the UN would never have gotten to sit down. North Korea and Syria, just to get started.

The UN were trying to get a peaceful solution, why would they on purpose ignore this? Don't make silly assumptions. How can you compare saddam to hitler? No one is critising WW2 because the war was an act of retaliation. Since when did America care about the affairs of the middle east, a lot of countrys need sorting out. Why Iraq? Whats worse food for oil or war for oil? Saddam was no where near as powerful as hitler was, he wouldn't enage in a conventional war

The UN failed, period. The UN was ignoring Iraq. They ignored their own Weapons Inspectors, for goodness sake! By the way, there are people who critizise WWII. Want to know who? The pacifists from back then. They said that the US shouldn't get involved because it was a European matter. There were still critics after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, saying we shouldn't have helped in Europe.

What would have happened had Japan done what Hitler wanted? The pacifists would have won, and the US would have never entered the war. What then? Nazi Germany develops nuclear arms and more advanced jets. They would have used those to trounce the rest of Europe, and likely have fun rather than headache invading the USSR.

Saddam would never have engaged in conventianal warfare. Did he in Persian Gulf I or Persian Gulf II? No. He used human shields. He used illegal arms. He used mass troop surrenders, though unwanted and unplanned for, to disguise his most loyal fighters for a more frontal attack.

Why Iraq? It's because any dictator can easily be compared to another dictator. I compare Saddam Hussein to Adalf Hitler because they had the same, ultimate, goals in mind. Saddam Hussien, however, had history to look back on and saw that the biggest threat was a united front against him. He has divided allies through deciet created by his diplomates, including Uday while he was one. He may not have been bright or genious, but he had more military sense than Adalf Hitler.

Dont' dillude yourself, Saddam Hussien had the same illussions of Grandeur as Adalf Hitler, himself. I'd even compare him to other tyrants throughout history, but you seem to want to compare absolutely rather than astutely.

Wow, this is a nice story. Saddam couldn't take russia or even march through it without being anhilated, are you saying that saddam didn't know this? He may of wanted it but dreams like this wouldn't come true whatever happened. The fact is that there were no justification for the war.

I never said he'd take Russia, did I? I said he'd march through it. He doesn't have to attack a country to invade it, and he doesn't have to make a country an enemy in order to attack it. Besides that, if we just ignore him and allow the research to fully develop, Russia wouldn't want to risk a nuclear confrontation with Saddam and the Ba`athists. Why? Read history much? Look up the Cold War. Neither side wanted to risk a nuclear confrontation, but both knew they had to be ready to defend themselves.

Imagine what would happen if Saddam Hussien achieved his goals? Let me first say that pacifism doesn't work. No matter what you want to think, there are idiots out there (Hitler, Musilini, Linin, Stalin and Hussien just to name a few) who want nothing more than to take advantage of that and conquer the world.

Getting back to my question, Hussien would have used a nuclear device launched from Russian soil, and no attack or invasion or war ever declared, to set up Russia and the US in arms. That could launch a third world war, and a nuclear one at that.

Yes, this is all "what if", and it is a story until anything actually happens. However, tell me one thing. Which scenario are you safer? Are you safer finding out if any scenario I could dream up is real? Or...are you safer knowing one more tyrant is about to sleep with flames and pitchforks?

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

What would have happened had Japan done what Hitler wanted? The pacifists would have won, and the US would have never entered the war. What then? Nazi Germany develops nuclear arms and more advanced jets. They would have used those to trounce the rest of Europe, and likely have fun rather than headache invading the USSR[/QUOTE] Stop it with all these ifs and buts US would've of helped with supplies ect no matter what. I would barely call the slaughter at USSR an headache.

Saddam would never have engaged in conventianal warfare. Did he in Persian Gulf I or Persian Gulf II? No. He used human shields. He used illegal arms. He used mass troop surrenders, though unwanted and unplanned for, to disguise his most loyal fighters for a more frontal attack.

Further proving my point that Saddam was and never was powerful enough to have a conventional war.

Why Iraq? It's because any dictator can easily be compared to another dictator. I compare Saddam Hussein to Adalf Hitler because they had the same, ultimate, goals in mind. Saddam Hussien, however, had history to look back on and saw that the biggest threat was a united front against him. He has divided allies through deciet created by his diplomates, including Uday while he was one. He may not have been bright or genious, but he had more military sense than Adalf Hitler.

Do you really think that? So Saddam wanted to get rid of anyone who wasn't blonde and 6 ft.

Dont' dillude yourself, Saddam Hussien had the same illussions of Grandeur as Adalf Hitler, himself. I'd even compare him to other tyrants throughout history, but you seem to want to compare absolutely rather than astutely.

Brainwashed by media.

I never said he'd take Russia, did I? I said he'd march through it. He doesn't have to attack a country to invade it, and he doesn't have to make a country an enemy in order to attack it. Besides that, if we just ignore him and allow the research to fully develop, Russia wouldn't want to risk a nuclear confrontation with Saddam and the Ba`athists. Why? Read history much? Look up the Cold War. Neither side wanted to risk a nuclear confrontation, but both knew they had to be ready to defend themselves.

I never said that you said he was going to invade russia. Did I? His research wasn't going anywhere. Russia wouldn't really get in that situation with Iraq, they know russia would blow them off the face of the earth, the cold war was between to superpower rivels.

Yes, this is all "what if", and it is a story until anything actually happens. However, tell me one thing. Which scenario are you safer? Are you safer finding out if any scenario I could dream up is real? Or...are you safer knowing one more tyrant is about to sleep with flames and pitchforks?

When Bush is dead then I will truly feel safe. You're imagination is vivid, but its just not going to happen.

 

[bamthedoc]

Stop it with all these ifs and buts US would've of helped with supplies ect no matter what. I would barely call the slaughter at USSR an headache.

"Ifs and Buts" are the primary point of strategic planning. It is alsp a primary point of diplomacy. As I said, the first rule of diplomacy is to go on a case by case basis and to determine communicatablity, first.

Further proving my point that Saddam was and never was powerful enough to have a conventional war.

I didn't say that he could have engaged in conventional war. He would have other countries do that for him.

Do you really think that? So Saddam wanted to get rid of anyone who wasn't blonde and 6 ft.

No, he wanted to get rid of anyone who did not worship him as a god. If you know Muslim tradition, that's what he was doing in Iraq as it is "illegal" to build monuments to oneself. It's a lot like what the Edyptian pharoh's did to set themselves up as gods.

Brainwashed by media.

Not quite. I'm expressing the near exact opposite as the overall media. That and I dynamically apply history and current events to fully understand a situation.

I never said that you said he was going to invade russia. Did I? His research wasn't going anywhere. Russia wouldn't really get in that situation with Iraq, they know russia would blow them off the face of the earth, the cold war was between to superpower rivels.

In conventional warfare, that's very true. However, who said anything about conventional?

When Bush is dead then I will truly feel safe. You're imagination is vivid, but its just not going to happen.

It's harder to sleep at night with idiots comperable to Hillery Clinton, Bill Clinton, Satlin, Linin, Musilini, Saddam, Hitler, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I've felt safer since Bush increased funding of home defense and military. The FBI, CIA, and other federal organizations created to protect the welfare of its citizens are still recovering from the Clintonic era.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

"Ifs and Buts" are the primary point of strategic planning. It is alsp a primary point of diplomacy. As I said, the first rule of diplomacy is to go on a case by case basis and to determine communicatablity, first.

Yeah but they talk about the future i.e If this certain thing happened it would cause an affect but its not likely to happen because of some reason.

In conventional warfare, that's very true. However, who said anything about conventional?

Hitler could've afforded an coventional war with russia while saddam couldn't.

It's harder to sleep at night with idiots comperable to Hillery Clinton, Bill Clinton, Satlin, Linin, Musilini, Saddam, Hitler, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I've felt safer since Bush increased funding of home defense and military. The FBI, CIA, and other federal organizations created to protect the welfare of its citizens are still recovering from the Clintonic era

Hillery up there with hitler I really never gave a shit about her. I found out in RE that muhammeds grandson had a last name,hussein. How can the CIA and FBI recover? They had a break from paranoia, bush got the terroists on you're back, how does that war work again? I will start a war with an enemy whom I don't know who they are where they are, and I'm making out country terroist target no.1

 

[bamthedoc]

1) America has always been terrorist target #1. Why? We have the largets per capita in the world. We are the most technologically advanced. We are the primary force behind democratic freedoms. We are also the heaviest defended country in the world.

2) I wanted to make this a seperate point, to illustrate the "ifs and buts" thing. There was no way any terrorist could attack our nation like Pearl Harbor was before Clinton. Our guard was down, and we got what was coming to us. It's sad to say, and I do hate that it happened.


It's called foreseeable. The CIA and FBI can recover thanks to further funding and latitude being returned. If they had been as strong as they were before Clinton came to office, it is unlikely that anything like 9/11 would have occured. And 9/11 was meant as more than a mad attack at the US -- it was an attack on the entire free world. How so? If the US is vulnerable to attack on such a scale, anyone and everyone else is, too.

 

[CelestialBadger]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
I'm guessing "DNW" is nuclear weapons... The proof is in military reports that still have a lot of red tape and black highlighter on it. It's still being kept under lock and key so that it cannot be destroyed by Ba`ath loyalists. It was found in Uday's reports, Saddam's mansion (can't remember which or how many), and a several documents. If I can find a link to info, you'll be the first to know.

I never said there were nuclear weapons facilities, only a paper trail of funding and research.

It's fortunate that you're privy to such highly classified information.

 

[bamthedoc]

Who says it was secret? They've revealed it to the press; you just have to really dig for it. It's not "front page news" because it makes Bush look good. It's like that one story I found about a child's death at a factory in Malan (sp?). I hate searching like that, though >_<

((Although, it is easy to deduce that much of the info is still under lock and key.))

FYI: Even Tempest Storm has agreed on that part

 

[Naga]

Also Israel has a number of about 100 nukes.

 

[Nuts]

Or 400 according to some sources.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

CB I like you're sig

Its not front page because it makes bush look good...... yeah, right. So every single news paper just decided its a watse of ink becaue it makes bush look good.

 

[Lights]

Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC


Its not front page because it makes bush look good...... yeah, right. So every single news paper just decided its a watse of ink becaue it makes bush look good.

Err...basically. Thats pretty much what the liberal based newspapers do. They wont print a story if it makes him look good, only if the stories are negative. :\

 

[Mark4]

YOU FOOLS

All of you fail to recognize the true impetus behind this war.

It was O I L


Iraq gave vested rights on oil exclusively to the Europeans. Iraq made stern decisions to solely handle Euros. America got pissed decided to turn the situation over. They violated international norms(the global community with the exception of the U.S and Britain impugned the war), disregarded the U.N, made uncalculated rash moves towards war, and are now suffering from loads of problems. ex) more American soldiers have died out after the war than during it, American forces have practically 0 control over the situation in that country, recent poll shows that 78%of Iraqs oppose the U.S stationing in their country. and one more, I don't see any sign of "reconstruction" Bush has promised. And Blair is on the verge of dethronement -his political career is totally over.haven't you heard?

The U.N left the situation untouched in Iraq because it was their stance to remain neutral, give Saddam some time, scrutinize the situation and the stance of Iraq and the alleged claim that Iraq had hold of WMDs. They have no claim in the chaotic situation in current Iraq brought on exclusively by U.S and Britain who simply violated U.N's incessant insistance upon peace until substantial facts were revealed that Iraq did indeed possess WMDs.


you keep insisting that Iraq has WMDs.. where did you get that information??



here's something from the TIME magazine


Feb. 9, 2004
So Much For the WMD
America's top weapons sleuth says the intelligence on Iraq's arms was all wrong. TIME reports on how the CIA blew it
By MICHAEL DUFFY | WASHINGTON


CIA chief George Tenet was certain David Kay was the best bloodhound to set loose in Iraq last summer to sniff for weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Tenet reasoned that if anyone could find the stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological arms on which the Bush Administration had predicated its unprecedented, pre-emptive attack on Saddam Hussein's regime, it was Kay. The Texan had spent 20 years as an international weapons inspector, with several tours in Iraq. ....


I feel like it's a ****ing waste of time copy-writing this 5page article on my magazine so I'll cut it there. If you still hold suspicions on the fact that there are not A TRACE OF WMDs, why don't you visit TIME or NEWSWEEK or one of those global press sites, or BBC or ABC or AFP or whatever, and type WMD on the search blank.


THERE IS NO, NOTTA, SINGLE WMD FOUND IN IRAQ. AND THERE PROBABLY NEVER WILL BE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT CIA CHIEF TENET STATED OVERTLY AND OFFICIALY..


The U.N does not stink itself.. it stinks cause it's bossed around by America(more specifically Bush) who smells like BS


I have a whole lot to write on this matter but I gotta go to bed and travel tomorrow so maybe next week I'll come back with additional evidence and speak of truth to keep these people who read this post from being brainwashed by factitious assumptions if you still refuse to give up your maledictions.

 

[Kuzmich]

Mark4 thank you for removing that disturbing avatar you had.

 

[Kuzmich]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
Prioritizing threats and finding which threats are communicatable is one of the first rules of diplomacy. Iraq was not a communicatable threat. We are sitting down at more diplomacy tables now, likely, thanks to the Iraqi war. We have shown the world, especially the threats, that we are willing to take action on our word.

It may be likely that I got my info from the media, but I never stick to one news source. I also rely most heavily on live reports from the people involved rather than "after-the-fact" by news outlets.

FYI: Researching nuclear weapons construction is against UN weapon pacts. Saddam Hussien and the Ba`athists have broken most, if not all, UN pacts, including the food for oil pact. He allowed his people to starve -- if they weren't from Tikrit -- just to build mansions, weapons, and an army. It's the UN that allowed this situation to get so bad in Iraq, among other places, due to purposely ignoring them. The same goes for the Clinton administration, however. Ignorance isn't bliss, it's a bombshell waiting to be dropped. Hitler was ignored as a threat, and then he invaded France.

Don't forget, in order for Saddam Hussien to do what he wanted to do, he's have to, at least, march through part of Russia. He'd also have to decimate several countries along the way -- likely teaming up with terrorist organizations or other anti-non-Muslim country along the way.

Sadam invading Russia? LOL, he has less people, outdated equipment we gave him and our army is much more powerful then his. If he tried to invade us, we would just send an alfa team to round him up and dispose of his army, we wouldnt even bother mobilizing any of our armies. Dont forget that military tech wise we are far from being the least advanced nation in the world, in fact we are among the first, many of our machines are better then those of US. And we wouldnt be afraid of nukelear confrontation, he doesnt have any radars that can detect nukes, we would just nuke his ass without questiong if he posed a nukelear threat, its like a little boy coming with a toothpick against a grown man with a gun, look how easily US kicked his ass, russia's

 

[bamthedoc]

Iraq gave vested rights on oil exclusively to the Europeans. Iraq made stern decisions to solely handle Euros. America got pissed decided to turn the situation over. They violated international norms(the global community with the exception of the U.S and Britain impugned the war), disregarded the U.N, made uncalculated rash moves towards war, and are now suffering from loads of problems. ex) more American soldiers have died out after the war than during it, American forces have practically 0 control over the situation in that country, recent poll shows that 78%of Iraqs oppose the U.S stationing in their country. and one more, I don't see any sign of "reconstruction" Bush has promised. And Blair is on the verge of dethronement -his political career is totally over.haven't you heard?

In terrorism, more people will die after major military opperations than after. Ignoring that fact is blatant ignorance. US forces have absolute control over their areas, even in Tirkrit and Bagdad where most terrorist strikes are occuring. 78% might be true in northern Iraq around Tikrit and Bagdad, only, but Basra and other places are where huge support lies. The sign of reconstruction are these facts:

300,000 Iraqi peace keepers now, 400,000 by June/July when the interim government will take over
Monday will be the day Shi`ites, Suni, and Kurds will sign their constitution
Iraqi Interim Government will take over by June/July
Basra has returned to full functionality, and Iraqi Peace Keepers are dealing with more and more problems in Tikrit and Bagdad.

The U.N left the situation untouched in Iraq because it was their stance to remain neutral, give Saddam some time, scrutinize the situation and the stance of Iraq and the alleged claim that Iraq had hold of WMDs. They have no claim in the chaotic situation in current Iraq brought on exclusively by U.S and Britain who simply violated U.N's incessant insistance upon peace until substantial facts were revealed that Iraq did indeed possess WMDs.

The UN is not taken seriously. The US is now being taken seriously. We have more diplomatic relations, now, then the UN will ever hope to have again.

I'll state this again, WMD, small stockpile mostly without launch devices -- only warheads -- has been found.

Sadam invading Russia? LOL, he has less people, outdated equipment we gave him and our army is much more powerful then his. If he tried to invade us, we would just send an alfa team to round him up and dispose of his army, we wouldnt even bother mobilizing any of our armies. Dont forget that military tech wise we are far from being the least advanced nation in the world, in fact we are among the first, many of our machines are better then those of US. And we wouldnt be afraid of nukelear confrontation, he doesnt have any radars that can detect nukes, we would just nuke his ass without questiong if he posed a nukelear threat, its like a little boy coming with a toothpick against a grown man with a gun, look how easily US kicked his ass, russia's

I never said invade. Saddam Hussien is stupid enough to try to march his way through uncivilized areas with a nuclear device just to launch it from Russia to the US. It would be a good way to start a World War, though.

 

[Kuzmich]

It would be kind of hard for him, cause we dont have any launching sites at chucotca, and thats the region closest to US, he will not be able to make US think that RF launched its missiles.

 

[bamthedoc]

There are portable launching towers. All you need is bolistic capablity, a small enough nuclear device, and location to cause a panic. It might have looked like a Russian launched device, and, trust me, neither side wants that. Russia certainly doesn't like the fact that many unscrupulous scientists from their nation have sold nuclear secrets and/or devices. Russia has declared many who have sold such as traitors, and I agree with Russia in that.

 

[Kuzmich]

All of Russia was robed in few months following collapse of USSR, everyone who could get their hands on something stole it and sold it. For example in 1987 USSR made its first, i dont remember how you call it, but its a ship that carries airplanes. Everyone in Russia was very proud of that accomplishment, but then in 1991 Gorbachiev sold it to Greece, not one dollar from the money he got for it went to Russia's treasury, all was used to feed Garbachiev's fat ass. Its better now, corruption wise. But to stay on topic, hmm, he could do the same from almost any other nation, besides i think that it wouldnt be to hard to detect a nuclear device being transfered through our land. He would also have to cross other nations to reach Russia.

 

[bamthedoc]

Aircraft Carrier, or Carrier for short in American, might be what you're looking for.

That's true enough. But who would want to risk attacking such a convoy when the device could go off? That, in and of itself, could start a war. Why? The country it went off in would be mad at the country who attacked the convoy. It's a sticky situation, really.

 

[Kuzmich]

But lets also take in consideration that Saddam wasnt that smart.
He like many Islamic tirants hated US, he probably didnt know that Russia even existed, although that is unlikely cause it takes up most of asia, and a lot of Europe.