How many WMD's need be discovered

by **Keekanoo** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:50 pm

Here is an interesting article published by the Pentagon

I've appended it to make it easier reading.

___________
.... the 1990 Pentagon report, published just prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Its authors are Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II, and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East

Excerpt, Chapter 5

U.S. SECURITY AND IRAQI POWER

..... As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of this operation -- according to the U.S. State Department -- gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights.

Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department’s claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

We would have expected, in a matter as serious as this, that the Congress would have exercised some care. However, passage of the sanctions measure through the Congress was unusually swift -- at least in the Senate where a unanimous vote was secured within 24 hours.

_______

Keek.

by **Major SONAR** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:40 am

Keek,

To be totally honest I have no idea whether Kuwait used slant drilling or not. I get my information from TV, newspaper, internet, whatever. You have provided information supporting your statements (and I commend you for that), however does anyone really know if the information is true?

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I'm only saying my information (and/or yours) might be a twisting of the truth. I haven't looked yet, but I might be able to find a number of stories refuting your information. In this day and age it's difficult to determine the REAL truth.

I guess the bottom line is... You have to put your faith somewhere and at this point I stand behind our president and the decisions of his advisors. I can only hope that their information/intelligence is much better than mine. I would like to think they have the best interests of my country at heart. Call me naive if you will.

by **Keekanoo** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:53 pm

Sonar, regarding information sources and manipulation of the truth I couldn't agree with you more. I've said as much myself in another thread, just prior to the U.S. going into Iraq the 2nd time.

And there is no doubt that our 'leaders' are far better informed than we are.

'The first victim of war is truth' goes an old saying.

Would you be willing to die if it meant saving many of your fellow countrymen? Would you be willing to die to ensure muti billion dollar contracts amongst companies that will never pay a penny of taxes or even treat their employees above a base minimum for incentive? Would you rest well at night knowing that you're paying cheaper gas prices at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and the destruction of 'third' world economies?

Keek.

by **Dakana** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 6:12 pm

These threads keep going and going and going...

Anyone else tired of them?

It's like "does .99999~ = 1?"
Opinions, flames, facts, fiction.

I frankly don't care.

by **Keekanoo** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 6:17 pm

Some people do care, Dakana. Personally I prefer to leave political threads alone as they get mired in dire fantasy. Still, I wouldn't feel good about myself if I just let one side of the opposition blast away

by **Major SONAR** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 11:32 pm

Would you be willing to die if it meant saving many of your fellow countrymen? Would you be willing to die to ensure muti billion dollar contracts amongst companies that will never pay a penny of taxes or even treat their employees above a base minimum for incentive? Would you rest well at night knowing that you're paying cheaper gas prices at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and the destruction of 'third' world economies?

ABSOLUTLY! That is the price of freedom in this country.

Your points one by one:

1) Yes. I would die that many might live. Perhaps for even a handful.

2) Personally I think Multi-Billion dollar companies pay taxes, but even if they didn't.. that's called a tax loop hole. I would use a loop hole if I could. In fact I use every tax break I can find.

If you or I don't like it.. fight to get the loop hole changed. That's what's great about this country... If you don't like something, fight to have it changed. (Works both ways of course) Good things sometimes go away as well.

3)Probably I would (be able to sleep at night. not that it is right) but out of sight out of mind. Unless of course you are refering to Iraq, where we are FREEING millions.. and REBUILDING their country (at tax payers expense, not theirs) Then that would be a totally different story.

Are we doing it for the Iraqies? I doubt it. We use WMD, UN Resolutions, Kurds, and Democracy as reasons for attacking. I don't have a problem with the attack because I'm sure we could use a democratic state in the region. (and as an added bonus freeing the Kurds and Iraqies in general from a brutal dictator) Not to mention the fact we helped put him in power.

I look at it like a win-win situation. We get what we want, the Iraqies get democracy and rid of Saddam. Sounds like a fair deal for everyone.

Will innocent civilians be killed? Yes, that is very unfortunate, but... Freedom is not free. In America we seek to keep the civilian causualities to a minimum (unlike some countries that TARGET civilians... can you say WTC?). How many countries can say the same? Many American soldiers will die as well... Freedom is not free. Never has been... and one more thing. Man has been killing man since the begining of time. Nothing will change. War is never humane.

Sorry... started rambling a bit there.

by **SavageParrot** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 4:36 am

Originally posted by Major SONAR
2) Personally I think Multi-Billion dollar companies pay taxes, but even if they didn't.. that's called a tax loop hole.

Or tax breaks, tax relief or the old fashioned we are gonna take our factory out of your town unless you make it so we don't have to pay tax, and build us some nice new public services.

Originally posted by Major SONAR
UN Resolutions

fit these words together in a sentence of your choice: US, Illegal, immoral, embargo, of, Cuba, seven, UN, resolutions, you, have, ignored, people, in, glass, houses, shouldn't, throw, stones.

by **JimmyTango** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:09 am

Originally posted by Keekanoo
Still, I wouldn't feel good about myself if I just let one side of the opposition blast away

Let them, it makes me laugh. One thing I have noticed since Clinton was first elected president is that Republicans have become vicious, constantly ranting on and on about nonsense.

Oh, I guess the 'liberal media' is so powerfull, they now have kept the fact that the worldnetdaily.com has information on WMD from Blair.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/06/iraq.main/index.html

Here is a clue: when Blair has no information on these supposed WMD, then the stupid little report from some shitty third rate website is most likely bullshit.

by **RCglider** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 9:59 am

Originally posted by JimmyTango
Let them, it makes me laugh. One thing I have noticed since Clinton was first elected president is that Republicans have become vicious, constantly ranting on and on about nonsense.

Oh, I guess the 'liberal media' is so powerfull, they now have kept the fact that the worldnetdaily.com has information on WMD from Blair.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/06/iraq.main/index.html

Here is a clue: when Blair has no information on these supposed WMD, then the stupid little report from some shitty third rate website is most likely bullshit.

The current Democrat Party is the most hate filled, demagogic entity in U.S. history. When Liberals are asked a question, they rarely answer in a civil manner, and usually end up resorting to name calling and absurd vitriol. You really don't want to start a posting war of Democrat rhetoric do you? Be careful.

It's not even arguable whether or not the mainstream news media is Liberal..

As for WND, it is one of the most widely read news sites in the world.

This all boils down to Liberals believe the ends justify the means.

I doubt you are barely old enough to vote yet alone have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about.

by **JimmyTango** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:39 am

As for your last post: :lol:

It was funny, keep it up!

by **Colonel Ingus** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:55 am

Don't go claiming any 'moral political' high ground there Jimmy.

While he may be off about your age he is dead on about your side of the political aisle. Same can be said of the conservatives. Both sides use misdirection and vitriol to cast asperasions on the other side.

Evidently no one is concerned with doing what is right instead of what supports their political philosophy regardless of its neccesity.

Most of the major media organizations are slanted to the left. Fox news and most of talk radio lean right. I've noticed people post here before when I put a link up to Fox news and cast aspersions on it as if the news can't be trusted because Fox leans right. I don't seem to get that when i link to CNN or MSNBC or Yahoo news.

Most of you assume from my posts that I am conservative. I'm not, but because I believe in some of the things that we as a nation are doing is necessary I defend them and you lump me into the opposition. I got the same BS from the conservatives during the last presidency when i defended the good things Clinton did and now I get crap from the liberals when I defend the good things George is doing.

I put as much faith in anything I hear from Michael Moore as I do from Rush Limbaugh. Two succesful graduates of the Joesef Goebbels School of Broadcasting, Magna Cum Laude I am sure! Yet as long as that person puts forwards crap that supports your side (talking to everyone here) then he is credible. The other guy must be wrong, he is the opposition!

From here in the middle both viewpoints are wrong.

by **RCglider** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:26 am

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Don't go claiming any 'moral political' high ground there Jimmy.

While he may be off about your age he is dead on about your side of the political aisle. Same can be said of the conservatives. Both sides use misdirection and vitriol to cast asperasions on the other side.

Evidently no one is concerned with doing what is right instead of what supports their political philosophy regardless of its neccesity.

Most of the major media organizations are slanted to the left. Fox news and most of talk radio lean right. I've noticed people post here before when I put a link up to Fox news and cast aspersions on it as if the news can't be trusted because Fox leans right. I don't seem to get that when i link to CNN or MSNBC or Yahoo news.

Most of you assume from my posts that I am conservative. I'm not, but because I believe in some of the things that we as a nation are doing is necessary I defend them and you lump me into the opposition. I got the same BS from the conservatives during the last presidency when i defended the good things Clinton did and now I get crap from the liberals when I defend the good things George is doing.

I put as much faith in anything I hear from Michael Moore as I do from Rush Limbaugh. Two succesful graduates of the Joesef Goebbels School of Broadcasting, Magna Cum Laude I am sure! Yet as long as that person puts forwards crap that supports your side (talking to everyone here) then he is credible. The other guy must be wrong, he is the opposition!

From here in the middle both viewpoints are wrong.

Cite lies by Rush Limbaugh if you would. I'd be interested in knowing, honestly. Yes he uses much political satire, but to compare him to Michael Moore is a stretch. I don't agree with him 100%, and and you may not like him at all, but Goebbels?? Rush simply filled a void badly needed to counter the Lefty controlled media.

If we were to believe Clinton defenders, his only downfall was Monica? He dessimated our Intel, loathed the military, and definitely was a liar. What he did do right, in most cases was forced to by political expediency.

Bush caves, I don't care for his domestic policy (spending, tarriffs etc.) other than taxes, and he doesn't attack his opponents even when they are quite nasty and lie about him (maybe that's a plus, I don't know). I'm sick of the Bush bashers and will respond in kind when they produce such indefensible garbage.

If you walk down the middle of the road, you get run over.

JT writes with juvenile tendencies, that's why I doubt he's old enough to vote. His admiration of Michael Moore pretty much says it all.

by **Face** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:22 pm

Originally posted by TriX
you think 15 warheads justifies a war?

"Your Honor! The court should realize that I only [raped one victim][murdered one victim][robbed one store][blew up one shopping mall][hijacked one airplane]! After all, is 1 offense worth ruining the rest of MY life?"

That should about kill your arguement.

by **Face** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:25 pm

Originally posted by RCglider
It should be noted that Germany, unlike Japan, never attacked us prior to WW2. So why did we go to war with Germany?

Actually, for historical correctness

, German Wolfpacks (of submarines) attacked our civilian merchant vessels in the Atlantic before we declared war on Japan. And Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:30 pm

Actually, for historical correctness , German Wolfpacks (of submarines) attacked our civilian merchant vessels in the Atlantic before we declared war on Japan. And Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan.

You are correct Face. Due to the Axis treaty once a state of war existed between the US and their fellow Axis member Japan, Germany formally declared war on the United States.

How many WMD's need be discovered

Who is online