And destroying their country around them isn't ?Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Leaving Saddam in power is punishment for the people of Iraq.
You don't use cruise missiles and stealth bombers to topple a government.
Printable View
And destroying their country around them isn't ?Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Leaving Saddam in power is punishment for the people of Iraq.
You don't use cruise missiles and stealth bombers to topple a government.
plenderj, man seriously, open your mind and your eyes. I don't know what spell you have over you but my god you really have a lopsided point of view.
Do you really think the American government is going to give up all it's intelligence secrets and sources just to prove to you that what it says is true? I think they gave up plenty secrets as it was suplying what they did. I mean if you knew someone was tapping your phone would you still spill your guts about secrets over that phone? Ofcourse not. So try to understand why America can't release all of it's intelligence.
I don't think your understanding that there is more then one reason for going to this war. He does hurt and kill his people, he is a clear and present danger to the national security of America, he has weapons of mass destuction (not nuclear, tho he has tried to make them), he does support terrorism.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Then why are families arming themselves for the US invasion ?
And why is the US actually doing this.
You've provided lots of reasons, and the US changes its tack argument to argument.
1) To get rid of Saddam because he hurts some of his people
2) To get rid of Saddam because he's a threat to the US
3) To get rid of Saddam because he produces weapons of mass destruction
4) To get rid of Saddam because he funds international terrorism
I only agree that number 1 is correct.
The rest, in my, and half the world's opinion, is a lie.
So lets say he hurts his own people.
How is a B52 bomber going to help remove one man from power ?
A US or UK backed coup would be required.
Not bombing bridges and power stations and the likes.
I don't think any of the UN members dissagree that saddam isn't disarming. They all know that he isn't, some think he can be delt with through peaceful means and other think the only way to deal with it is with war.
Lets say someone is on trial, and the prosecutors are pushing for the death penalty.Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
Do you really think the American government is going to give up all it's intelligence secrets and sources just to prove to you that what it says is true? I think they gave up plenty secrets as it was suplying what they did. I mean if you knew someone was tapping your phone would you still spill your guts about secrets over that phone? Ofcourse not. So try to understand why America can't release all of it's intelligence.
Unless the prosecutors can actually prove the man did the crime - ie. actually provide the proof - then the man would not be found guilty.
If you want to prove to the international community that there are weapons there then you should show the international community the proof.
Saying that you don't want to reveal your sources is a total cop-out, and is equal to having no proof at all.
You say you already have the proof, then why not let the public know the proof.
You don't need anyone to tell all, because supposedly the proof is already there!
Yea it’s called logistics. You don’t show what you know because what you know would change.Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
plenderj, man seriously, open your mind and your eyes. I don't know what spell you have over you but my god you really have a lopsided point of view.
Do you really think the American government is going to give up all it's intelligence secrets and sources just to prove to you that what it says is true? I think they gave up plenty secrets as it was suplying what they did. I mean if you knew someone was tapping your phone would you still spill your guts about secrets over that phone? Ofcourse not. So try to understand why America can't release all of it's intelligence.
The UN weapons inspectors are saying he's disarming.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
I don't think your understanding that there is more then one reason for going to this war. He does hurt and kill his people, he is a clear and present danger to the national security of America, he has weapons of mass destuction (not nuclear, tho he has tried to make them), he does support terrorism.
I don't think any of the UN members dissagree that saddam isn't disarming. They all know that he isn't, some think he can be delt with through peaceful means and other think the only way to deal with it is with war.
But lets come back to your second and third points.
2) He's a threat to the US. Why ? How ? What could he do ?
And if he is such a threat, why is the US and the UK saying the battle will be over very shortly because the Iraqi military is so ill-equipped.
How on earth is he a threat to the security of the US ?
And if he is, then why wasn't he 6 months ago, a year ago, two years ago, ten years ago ?
3) You still haven't proven that he does indeed have illegal weapons.
But the proof was there.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Yea it’s called logistics. You don’t show what you know because what you know would change.
If there is hard proof, then there's hard proof.
Even if the weapons were moved, if the US had proper proof, then that's good enough.
It would be good enough in a court-room.
Military doesn't do that my man, they never have in history. You don't annoucnce on public TV where you are going to strike before you do. Why? Because even a dumbass would know to move it.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Lets say someone is on trial, and the prosecutors are pushing for the death penalty.
Unless the prosecutors can actually prove the man did the crime - ie. actually provide the proof - then the man would not be found guilty.
If you want to prove to the international community that there are weapons there then you should show the international community the proof.
Saying that you don't want to reveal your sources is a total cop-out, and is equal to having no proof at all.
You say you already have the proof, then why not let the public know the proof.
You don't need anyone to tell all, because supposedly the proof is already there!
I didn't say strike at the weapons themselves.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Military doesn't do that my man, they never have in history. You don't annoucnce on public TV where you are going to strike before you do. Why? Because even a dumbass would know to move it.
If you have the proof you have the proof.
So what if the weapons are moved, you'd have the country in a matter of days anyway.
Or lets say you are soooo utterly paranoid that you don't want to release all your evidence.
Why not show the evidence to the heads of state of countries around the world. Especially to the doubters?
The proof will occur once the war gets underway not before. We are dealing with some very dangerous weapons and we'd like to take them out. Not let a whole lot of people die just so you can get it through your head that the war isn't about oil or whatever.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
But the proof was there.
If there is hard proof, then there's hard proof.
Even if the weapons were moved, if the US had proper proof, then that's good enough.
It would be good enough in a court-room.
So you want to strike a country without proving why you want to do it ?Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
The proof will occur once the war gets underway not before. We are dealing with some very dangerous weapons and we'd like to take them out. Not let a whole lot of people die just so you can get it through your head that the war isn't about oil or whatever.
The police cannot force their way into someone's home without a search warrant - ie. they have proven that they should be allowed enter that home.
Why dont you show the evidence to heads of state around the world.
Have them in turn tell their citizens they have seen the evidence.
Or why not send in special forces teams to secure the weapons ?
There are so many options besides bombing the entire country to pieces that you are ignoring.
oh I'm sure we have. Its never really been in question if Saddam does or does not have these weapons. I'm pretty sure Iraq is alone on that issue. It has been a question about what to do about it.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
I didn't say strike at the weapons themselves.
If you have the proof you have the proof.
So what if the weapons are moved, you'd have the country in a matter of days anyway.
Or lets say you are soooo utterly paranoid that you don't want to release all your evidence.
Why not show the evidence to the heads of state of countries around the world. Especially to the doubters?
Because these weapons are too powerful to toy with like that. Its better that proof comes after the war then to give proof before and get a lot of people killed.
You realize of course you could come up with any number of justifications for not giving out the proof.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
oh I'm sure we have. Its never really been in question if Saddam does or does not have these weapons. I'm pretty sure Iraq is alone on that issue. It has been a question about what to do about it.
Because these weapons are too powerful to toy with like that. Its better that proof comes after the war then to give proof before and get a lot of people killed.
Show the Irish prime minister the proof, show the french president the prood, show the german chancellor the proof.
Then surely they would support a war if they knew that Saddam had these weapons.
Half the world doesn't think that he's a threat.
Why are you ignoring our opinions ?
Surely they're just as valid as the pro-war opinions.
Oh but wait I forgot, Bush & Blair and the media are pro-war.
My mistake.
We spent more money then the economy of your country on our military. We will do the safest way that we know how to get rid of saddam. I have no clue what their stratigy will be, but you can bet its been thought through by many people.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
So you want to strike a country without proving why you want to do it ?
The police cannot force their way into someone's home without a search warrant - ie. they have proven that they should be allowed enter that home.
Why dont you show the evidence to heads of state around the world.
Have them in turn tell their citizens they have seen the evidence.
Or why not send in special forces teams to secure the weapons ?
There are so many options besides bombing the entire country to pieces that you are ignoring.
People would like for the citizens to know but the problem is that what you tell citizens you are also telling the enemy. We are not going to put our troops at more risk just so citizens will know sooner. I say sooner because when this is over then you will know.
So you're saying, that if the US perceives a threat at any point in time, from whatever source, that it can strike, without provocation, and without providing proof until after the engagement ?
They have, every government stats that Saddam isn't disarming. What more do you want from us?Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
You realize of course you could come up with any number of justifications for not giving out the proof.
Show the Irish prime minister the proof, show the french president the prood, show the german chancellor the proof.
Then surely they would support a war if they knew that Saddam had these weapons.
Half the world doesn't think that he's a threat.
Why are you ignoring our opinions ?
Surely they're just as valid as the pro-war opinions.
Oh but wait I forgot, Bush & Blair and the media are pro-war.
My mistake.
Also a lot of leaders are ****ty ones. The world has a lot of leaders who do whatever public opinion says. That isn't a good thing. Public doesn't have the same information that the leaders do.
That gave me a whole new respect for Tony Blair as the british are lucky to have him.
Any country that is threaten has the right to defend itself.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
So you're saying, that if the US perceives a threat at any point in time, from whatever source, that it can strike, without provocation, and without providing proof until after the engagement ?
Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
They have, every government stats that Saddam isn't disarming. What more do you want from us?
Also a lot of leaders are ****ty ones. The world has a lot of leaders who do whatever public opinion says. That isn't a good thing. Public doesn't have the same information that the leaders do.
That gave me a whole new respect for Tony Blair as the british are lucky to have him.
Not every leader agrees he isn't disarming. Show me proof of that.
And that's a dictatorship - not democracy.
"Leaders" are elected by the public to serve their country.
Not for the country to serve them.
If they want their country to do something, they should ask the country - not tell the country.
Without first proving that it is indeed threatened ?Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Any country that is threaten has the right to defend itself.
Sure they are, name one country that is saying that Iraq has completely been disarmed. Iraq doesn't count =P They are saying that they think they can achive disarming Iraq through peaceful means. I say that they have had 12 years and time has ran out.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Not every leader agrees he isn't disarming. Show me proof of that.
And that's a dictatorship - not democracy.
"Leaders" are elected by the public to serve their country.
Not for the country to serve them.
If they want their country to do something, they should ask the country - not tell the country.
It doesnt work that way. You are assuming you know everything that the leader knows, you don't. In most countries the majority does not rule and thats a good thing.
1) No country says they're completely disarmed. But no-one has said that they're not disarming.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Sure they are, name one country that is saying that Iraq has completely been disarmed. Iraq doesn't count =P They are saying that they think they can achive disarming Iraq through peaceful means. I say that they have had 12 years and time has ran out.
It doesnt work that way. You are assuming you know everything that the leader knows, you don't. In most countries the majority does not rule and thats a good thing.
2) I don't assume I know everything the leaders knows.
That's the problem though. If they want the support of the international community they'll have to give a little.
One cannot expect support for such actions without first proving there is a need to do so.
Perhaps your just chosing to ignore what our intelligence officals are saying. I personally think that you have some kind of anti-americanism going on that blinds you from the truth. They have found several clear ties that links Saddam to Al-Q'eada.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Without first proving that it is indeed threatened ?
In 1993 Iraq supported assassins to attempt to kill President George Bush Sr. on his visit to the gulf. Farouk Hijazi, Iraq’s ambassador to Turkey, met with bin laden in Afghanistan in 1998. Our Intelligence believes that the ambassador was offering asylum to bin laden in Iraq. Contacts between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraqi diplomats have been reported from Malaysia, the UAE, and the Czech Republic. Ramzi Yousef who led the 1993 NY bombs coolly boarded a plane to Baghdad after the attack and still remains there. Considerable evidence shows that he was an Iraqi intelligence officer. Iraq has supported terrorist organizations including Al-Qeada in the past with training, funding, and explosives. Saddam gave funds to the families of the Sept 11th hijackers. We also have intelligence that Iraq was training Iraqi and non-Iraqi people how to hijack airplanes with knives. This was pre-9/11. We have photos from satellites showing this training, we have been told that was the type of training taking place by Iraqi defectors, and the weapon inspectors in Iraq has confirmed the location of the plane used in the training.
I peronsally think that you require Saddam to step out on national TV and announce to the world that he is supporting terrorism before you will believe.
So why did the director of the CIA say that there was absolutely no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda ?Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Perhaps your just chosing to ignore what our intelligence officals are saying. I personally think that you have some kind of anti-americanism going on that blinds you from the truth. They have found several clear ties that links Saddam to Al-Q'eada.
Osama Bin Laden hates Saddam. Saddam kills muslims.
Osama Bin Laden fights for Muslims. They are not in cahoots.
1. Name one country besdes Iraq that says he has did what resolution 1441 called for. He has destoried a few missles (Our intel showed he was even rebuilding them at antoher location) and all question about the biological and chemical weapons are blank. Its already been displayed that Iraq isn't fully cooperating as just a week ago they found some stuff that wasn't declared in the report.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
1) No country says they're completely disarmed. But no-one has said that they're not disarming.
2) I don't assume I know everything the leaders knows.
That's the problem though. If they want the support of the international community they'll have to give a little.
One cannot expect support for such actions without first proving there is a need to do so.
2. They can't tho, thier information is classified. It puts lives in danger when they give out information that they aren't suppose to.
That information might I add came from the former director of the CIA who was around at the time this stuff was taking place. His name is John Woosley.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
So why did the director of the CIA say that there was absolutely no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda ?
Osama Bin Laden hates Saddam. Saddam kills muslims.
Osama Bin Laden fights for Muslims. They are not in cahoots.
Russia and America hated each other in WW2 but we still fought side by side against the germans. It's called putting away your differences in the name of a commen enemy. Do you honestly think Bin Laden is going to reject support? LOL get real.
I think this statement sums up peoples fears of the policy of pre-emptive strike.Quote:
Originally posted by duc
Heh, if even if it is illegal what will they do, declare war on us?
Might is right we'll do what we want when we want because you can't stop us.
You wouldn't have to put it on the CNN, like your government seems to be doing about every other thing :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Military doesn't do that my man, they never have in history. You don't annoucnce on public TV where you are going to strike before you do. Why? Because even a dumbass would know to move it.
You could have presented the evidence "in camera" to only the UNSC or only to the veto-holding bigwigs. Or to the UN inspectors. The fact that you don't have anything in the name of solid evidence is what makes you talk about the so called secrecy of your intelligence sources.
Also I have not seen any other government than the US claiming they have evidence about Iraq's WMDs. Any nation backing the US on the matter has said they accept the US argument. This defeats the argument that many governments have the proof/evidence.
.
Yes I do.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Do you honestly think Bin Laden is going to reject support? LOL get real.
You would not have fought alongside the germans - especially after you found the concentration camps.
What information is shared is done in private and not at the UN. Those countries are under an obligation to not share any of the information with anyone including their own citizens.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
You wouldn't have to put it on the CNN, like your government seems to be doing about every other thing :rolleyes:
You could have presented the evidence "in camera" to only the UNSC or only to the veto-holding bigwigs. Or to the UN inspectors. The fact that you don't have anything in the name of solid evidence is what makes you talk about the so called secrecy of your intelligence sources.
Also I have not seen any other government than the US claiming they have evidence about Iraq's WMDs. Any nation backing the US on the matter has said they accept the US argument. This defeats the argument that many governments have the proof/evidence.
.
To accept the argument means that you agree with it. Most of our intelligence is suggestive evidence and most of the intelligence that your country gathers is to. I like the idea that "We'll support it after he kills 100,000 in a nerve gas attack".
Ok if Saddam was to offer Bin Laden a nuclear bomb, your telling me that he woudln't take it? As I said before get real, Bin Laden will take support from anyone who offers it.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Yes I do.
You would not have fought alongside the germans - especially after you found the concentration camps.
By the way did you fall asleep when Bin Laden was threating to attack americans if we attacked Iraq?
ummm where did I say america was fighting alongside germans?
Sensible and reasonable people would like to take action only after seeing substantial evidence :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
What information is shared is done in private and not at the UN. Those countries are under an obligation to not share any of the information with anyone including their own citizens.
To accept the argument means that you agree with it. Most of our intelligence is suggestive evidence and most of the intelligence that your country gathers is to. I like the idea that "We'll support it after he kills 100,000 in a nerve gas attack".
That bull's hits about obligation of not sharing intelligence is a flimsy excuse to cover up the fact that the US probably doesn't have an iota of credible evidence. I know for a fact that the intelligence agencies of various countries and governments work hand in hand, passing bits and pieces of information across to each other. Therefore saying the countries are obliged not to share any of such information with others is quite ignorant.
.
Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Ok if Saddam was to offer Bin Laden a nuclear bomb, your telling me that he woudln't take it? As I said before get real, Bin Laden will take support from anyone who offers it.
By the way did you fall asleep when Bin Laden was threating to attack americans if we attacked Iraq?
ummm where did I say america was fighting alongside germans?
1) Maybe he would. But I doubt Saddam has nuclear weapons.
2) I don't blame him.
3) "Russia and America hated each other in WW2 but we still fought side by side against the germans"
You also hated the Germans - I was drawing a comparison.
Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
By the way did you fall asleep when Bin Laden was threating to attack americans if we attacked Iraq?
I hope the US government is keeping this in mind.
While focusing on Iraq it will become easier to attack the US
Quite right .Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Sensible and reasonable people would like to take action only after seeing substantial evidence :rolleyes:
That bull's hits about obligation of not sharing intelligence is a flimsy excuse to cover up the fact that the US probably doesn't have an iota of credible evidence. I know for a fact that the intelligence agencies of various countries and governments work hand in hand, passing bits and pieces of information across to each other. Therefore saying the countries are obliged not to share any of such information with others is quite ignorant.
.
The US can do like some policemen do searching a man on drugs and putting it on him during the search.
If there was evidence the security agencies of UN country's should know about it.
Sensible and reasonable people understand that if certian information was made public, it would put troops in danger.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Sensible and reasonable people would like to take action only after seeing substantial evidence :rolleyes:
That bull's hits about obligation of not sharing intelligence is a flimsy excuse to cover up the fact that the US probably doesn't have an iota of credible evidence. I know for a fact that the intelligence agencies of various countries and governments work hand in hand, passing bits and pieces of information across to each other. Therefore saying the countries are obliged not to share any of such information with others is quite ignorant.
.
That means they cannot go public with the information presented.
1. Sure he would, he would take any kind of support.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
1) Maybe he would. But I doubt Saddam has nuclear weapons.
2) I don't blame him.
3) "Russia and America hated each other in WW2 but we still fought side by side against the germans"
You also hated the Germans - I was drawing a comparison.
2. I thought they hated each other so much, why would bin laden care?
3. Your comparision was dumb.
How was it dumb ?Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
3. Your comparision was dumb.
You were fighting them both in World War 2.
Then you became an ally of one of them to fight the other.
How is it a dumb comparison ?
You're guestimating. The evidence presented to the world would be thrown out of any court for being spurious. Saying that vital information is being witheld for the security of the troops is a handy scapegoat. I bet you $100 if they found any convincing evidence whatsoever, it woudl be splattered all over the news. They've been chomping at the bit to get into Iraq since February.Quote:
Originally posted by Maven
Sensible and reasonable people understand that if certian information was made public, it would put troops in danger.
That means they cannot go public with the information presented.
Putting troops in danger is also an unqualified statement. The troops in Kuwait have been covering globaly on the major TV channels, and have been there for quite a while. So their positions can be no secret.
Almost every major international incident in recent history has seen sneaky tactics and bending of truths. We only see all the official secret documents (quite rightly so) when they are released to the public until years after the event.
Speaking of information being available, I was listening to the radio last week.
Kate Adie
Radio Show's transcriptQuote:
The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq,
...with their black helicoptersQuote:
Originally posted by DeadEyes
Speaking of information being available, I was listening to the radio last week.
Kate Adie
Radio Show's transcript