0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 10:54 am
Quote:
I think un-fuzzy thinking knows that the goal should be victory, decisive, total, and unconditional, so that women and children will no longer be subjected to being shields for terrorist activities.


Sure, because they'll be dead. That's what you are talking about. Killing them. That's what an unconditional attack upon a settlement or town will do.

You guys crack me up, really

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 11:06 am
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
WhoodaThunk wrote:
If you have no WMD, why not be forthright and prove you no longer have them?
Typical bit of whoodathunking. How do you prove a negative?


Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs to protect him from Iran and Israel attack. He was so good at pretending to have them, he convinced those who wanted to be convinced and held off those who were not sure.

BBB


Bad move, huh?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 11:10 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I think un-fuzzy thinking knows that the goal should be victory, decisive, total, and unconditional, so that women and children will no longer be subjected to being shields for terrorist activities.


Sure, because they'll be dead. That's what you are talking about. Killing them. That's what an unconditional attack upon a settlement or town will do.

You guys crack me up, really

Cycloptichorn


In war there are two options. Allow the enemy to do whatever he pleases or shoot back. Now if you see a third option, I'm sure the Pentagon would be delighted to hear your opinions on the subject. Meanwhile I suggest you not attempt interpretation of other members' intent or meaning because you are so bad at it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 11:14 am
Quote:
In war there are two options. Allow the enemy to do whatever he pleases or shoot back. Now if you see a third option, I'm sure the Pentagon would be delighted to hear your opinions on the subject. Meanwhile I suggest you not attempt interpretation of other members' intent or meaning because you are so bad at it.


I suggest you not attempt insulting other posters, because you are so bad at it. I mean, really, pathetic.

If you advocate total war, you advocate killing women and children. This is not acceptable to me, and to other civilized people. You'd better come up with a third option.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 11:25 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
WhoodaThunk wrote:
If you have no WMD, why not be forthright and prove you no longer have them?
Typical bit of whoodathunking. How do you prove a negative?


For starters you don't stonewall, delay, or divert the UN inspectors. When they ask to inspect a site, you throw open the doors on the spot and let them in. Otherwise, there is a great deal of cause to suspect there is something inside you want to get out of the way before the inspectors come in.

Personally, I think we did all of that all wrong for those 12 years that Saddam stonewalled the inspectors. I think the UN inspectors should arrive at a building to inspect it. If denied, the perimeter should be put under guard and whoever is in charge should be told they have one hour to get everybody out of the building. And then a well placed missile takes it out and we move on to the next one.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 11:40 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Isn't it typical for some to think we should be considerate and ask the women and children to leave before any military action? The very women and children the terrorists control and are using as shields so they can fire on coalition troops with impunity?


Perhaps you were unaware of this, Foxy, there was a request to clear the town before the attack. But most townspeople/ families had nowhere to go. Many remained behind
Then they attacked anyway.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 11:46 am
And that's exactly what Fox and others advocate; anything less than that is letting the enemy win.

The fact that people have nowhere to go is immaterial; the objective is far more important than their lives, after all...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 11:47 am
McTag wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Isn't it typical for some to think we should be considerate and ask the women and children to leave before any military action? The very women and children the terrorists control and are using as shields so they can fire on coalition troops with impunity?


Perhaps you were unaware of this, Foxy, there was a request to clear the town before the attack. But most townspeople/ families had nowhere to go. Many remained behind
Then they attacked anyway.


So as long as the terrorists kept the women and children there as hostages, which was more likely the case, no action should be taken? That just isn't realistic McTag. War isn't pretty or civilized which is why all normal people abhor it. But if you're going to wage war, you have to wage war. Our troops did everything they could to minimize injury to civilian persons or property, but they could not allow the terrorists to prevail by simply hiding among the women and hcildren.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 11:52 am
And finally, some media outlets are developing a backbone and allowing the public to see the lies currently being circulated by the Left re events leading up to the war. Kudos to CNN for this flashback run today:

Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance
President Clinton addressed the nation from the Oval Office
Clinton spells out Iraq's non-compliance

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.

Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors.

US Forces:

There are 15 U.S. warships and 97 U.S. aircraft in the Persian Gulf region, including about 70 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. More than 12,000 sailors and Marines are in the region.

U.S. sources said eight of the warships, equipped with cruise missiles, have been moved into the northern part of the Gulf, within easy striking distance of Baghdad. More troops and jets have been ordered to the region.

More than 300 cruise missiles are available for use against Iraq, and there are air-launched cruise missiles aboard 14 B-52 bombers on the British island of Diego Garcia, sources said.

Britain has 22 strike aircraft in the region.

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Related stories and sites


December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.


Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 11:53 am
Foxfyre wrote:
McTag wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Isn't it typical for some to think we should be considerate and ask the women and children to leave before any military action? The very women and children the terrorists control and are using as shields so they can fire on coalition troops with impunity?


Perhaps you were unaware of this, Foxy, there was a request to clear the town before the attack. But most townspeople/ families had nowhere to go. Many remained behind
Then they attacked anyway.


So as long as the terrorists kept the women and children there as hostages, which was more likely the case, no action should be taken? That just isn't realistic McTag. War isn't pretty or civilized which is why all normal people abhor it. But if you're going to wage war, you have to wage war. Our troops did everything they could to minimize injury to civilian persons or property, but they could not allow the terrorists to prevail by simply hiding among the women and hcildren.


All normal people abhor it, all righty. So why wage it unnecessarily. Bushco was not concerned with Iraqi deaths and collateral damage, but I submit this is indefensible.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 11:55 am
Read my immediately preceding post, McTag.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 12:16 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Read my immediately preceding post, McTag.


The Clinton-ordered strikes actually were the third option requested by some here. Remember the live footage of bread trucks scooting around Baghdad going about their daily visit as our cruise missiles flew into the carefully handpicked, sanitized targets? Nobody over there cared ... certainly not Saddam ... and the game just went on.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 12:23 pm
What wonders me is that only now the use of this 'illegal weapon' is acknowleged.

When media first reported about it - like in this SF report of Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - the US, however, denied the allegations and said that white phosphorus shells "were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

Only now

Quote:
We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]
USINFO report

According to the Pentagon, white phosphorus is not banned by any international weapons convention the US has signed.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 01:10 pm
This is a shameful era in American history, in my honest opinion. This war was not justified in the first place and all this killing is only making it worse.

I don't see how anything is better, there is even talk about under ground torture chambers that the Shiite militia has.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/16/iraq.main/index.html

Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A prominent Sunni party has called for an international investigation into the discovery of an Iraqi Interior Ministry compound allegedly holding more than 160 detainees -- some with clear signs of torture.

The Iraqi Islamic Party, which helped broker the deal that brought a constitution to a national referendum in October, said Wednesday the detainees were mostly Sunnis and the human rights violations at the compound were part of a campaign to marginalize Sunnis ahead of next month's election.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 01:31 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
According to the Pentagon, white phosphorus is not banned by any international weapons convention the US has signed.


Thus negating the "war crimes" allegation.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 02:00 pm
The use of incendiary weapons against civilians has been banned by the Geneva Convention since 1980 - a treaty not signed by the USA. (But interestingly, they worked on the conferences for this treaty and zthe follow-up Review Conferences.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 02:35 pm
What incendiary weapons have the US used against civilians? Credible documentation please.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 02:41 pm
The use of white phosporus is an incendiary weapon in terms of that convention.

You should bother at all, Foxfyre, as said a couple of times: the USA didn't sign it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 02:43 pm
The Independent (UK) wrote:
Yet there are other, independent reports of civilians from Fallujah suffering burn injuries. For instance, Dahr Jamail, an unembedded reporter who collected the testimony of refugees from the city spoke to a doctor who had remained in the city to help people, encountered numerous reports of civilians suffering unusual burns.

One resident told him the US used "weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud" and that he watched "pieces of these bombs explode into large fires that continued to burn on the skin even after people dumped water on the burns." The doctor said he "treated people who had their skin melted."


Source

It took all of thirty seconds to find that--there are many, many more such sources . . .
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 02:54 pm
Quote:
For the purpose of this Protocol:

Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons - Protocol III - Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/18/2025 at 04:42:35