Bush Promises to Nuke Iran

[Gunny]

Our military do not know if someone is friend or foe. They do not understand the culture. Women are not supposed to be touched by men other than their immediate families in Muslim culture, our soldiers do not understand that.

These differences have led to many killings and maimings. Plus when an IED goes off, many soldiers just start shooting. And many innocent civilians get cauight in that. Our bombs are not so accurate that civilians are not killed.

Casualties of war? Not quite, we invaded and now occupy a country that we terrorize daily.

You are assuming. We ALL receive training on basic Arab culture prior to deploying to the Middle East.

It is not our military fault the enemy hides among the civilian population, nor does their doing so negate the threat they pose.

The fact is, YOU are playing THEIR game by THEIR rules wanting to throw in the towel because of their tactics, and by your unwarranted attacks against US military personnel you are actually carrying out part of their plan for them.

When you let the enemy dictate the game, you lose.

 

[Taomon]

You are assuming. We ALL receive training on basic Arab culture prior to deploying to the Middle East.

It is not our military fault the enemy hides among the civilian population, nor does their doing so negate the threat they pose.

The fact is, YOU are playing THEIR game by THEIR rules wanting to throw in the towel because of their tactics, and by your unwarranted attacks against US military personnel you are actually carrying out part of their plan for them.

When you let the enemy dictate the game, you lose.

No, I am playing the ethical game. We invaded a smaller and weaker country and now occupy it, brutally. We did so to make that region more compliant to US policies.

Diplomacy would have been nice, but we decided to take over. You cannot justify our actions before or since. The military personnel hate being there and take it out on the civilians who they are told are insurgeants or al Qaeda.

You cannot poo-poo this gunny. You know what is wrong and why.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Need I go through this again? It's been proven conclusively that Saddam, produced, posessed, and used WMDs. Without an accounting for the WMDs/percursors he was KNOWN to have, it is your contention they just vanished in a puff of smoke.

Tell that to the military personnel suffering from Gulf War Syndrome for blowing an unmarked chemical weapons depot during the First Gulf War.

Might want to run it by the Kurds in Halabja as well.

It was proven they existed. They are to this day unaccounted for. Therefore, the onus is on YOU to account for them, or as far as I'm concernedm they're still there somewhere and I see NO logical reason to believe otherwise.

Biochem weapons that were produced in the 1980s and "unaccounted for", is an interesting accounting question, but not a reason for invading.

They wouldn't represent a threat to us. BioChem weapons have a limited shelf life of a few months, to a few years at best, before they degrade into inert goo. So, whatever was left over from 1991, would have been useless and not a threat to us by 2003.

So, if you think it was justified to invade over some possible inert goo left over from 1990, then you must have failed high school chemistry.

The reason Bush lied to invade, is because he said they were currently building bio-chem weapons.

 

[Taomon]

Biochem weapons that were produced in the 1980s and "unaccounted for", is an interesting accounting question, but not a reason for invading.

They wouldn't represent a threat to us. BioChem weapons have a limited shelf life of a few months, to a few years at best, before they degrade into inert goo. So, whatever was left over from 1991, would have been useless and not a threat to us by 2003.

So, if you think it was justified to invade over some possible inert goo left over from 1990, then you must have failed high school chemistry.

The reason Bush lied to invade, is because he said they were currently building bio-chem weapons.

Exactly, and we know this to not be the case. The only true reasons are oil and US control of the region.

 

[Gunny]

No, I am playing the ethical game. We invaded a smaller and weaker country and now occupy it, brutally. We did so to make that region more compliant to US policies.

Diplomacy would have been nice, but we decided to take over. You cannot justify our actions before or since. The military personnel hate being there and take it out on the civilians who they are told are insurgeants or al Qaeda.

You cannot poo-poo this gunny. You know what is wrong and why.

Diplomacy was tried and failed for 12 years.

We do not occupy Iran brutally. The brutality comes from Islamic extremists waging a war of terror against their own people and us.

I have justified our actions ethically plenty of times, and have not once heard a good argument that refutes it.

What military personnel feel about being there is 1, irrelevant; and 2, a presumption on your part.

That military personnel take this presumed "hatred" out on civilians is pure, unsupported assumption based on an extremist POV.

Don't presume to tell me what I know because it appears you obviously have no idea.

 

[Gunny]

Biochem weapons that were produced in the 1980s and "unaccounted for", is an interesting accounting question, but not a reason for invading.

They wouldn't represent a threat to us. BioChem weapons have a limited shelf life of a few months, to a few years at best, before they degrade into inert goo. So, whatever was left over from 1991, would have been useless and not a threat to us by 2003.

So, if you think it was justified to invade over some possible inert goo left over from 1990, then you must have failed high school chemistry.

The reason Bush lied to invade, is because he said they were currently building bio-chem weapons.

Had you ever sat behind a rifle on the Iraq-Kuwait border, or been dressed in MOP level 3 at 110 degrees in the desert, you might gain a different appreciation of what bio/chem weapons can hurt.

Had Saddam complied with weapons inspectors and allowed them free and unfettered access to any and all places they wished to go, you might have an argument. As it is, Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't change the REAL possibility of threat that existed prior to the invasion.

At that time, most of the world, to include most liberals believe Saddam posessed and was producing WMDs, and that did NOT start with Bush. That started with the fact that Saddam actually did so.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Exactly, and we know this to not be the case. The only true reasons are oil and US control of the region.

Actually, I was being unneccessarily cruel to people who failed high school chemistry.

Even high school dropouts, should know that virtually any man-made synthetic pharmeceutical, nerve agent, or chemical has a limited shelf life, after which it degrades and becomes ineffective. Just by looking in you medicine cabinet at your perscription drugs should inform you of this. They have an expiration date, after which they are useless, due to chemical degradation.

I would think even an adult with an 8th grade education understands this.

So, the handwringing over unaccounted for weapons built in 1989, is an interesting accounting question. But, anyone who thinks we should have invaded because there were unaccounted for weapons from 1989 is either lying to themselves, or they are a moron.

The only reason to invade would have been the CURRENT production of nuclear weapons or nerve agents, and the desire and ability of the Bath regime to give them to al qaeda. All of which have shown to be lies.

 

[Taomon]

Diplomacy was tried and failed for 12 years.

We do not occupy Iran brutally. The brutality comes from Islamic extremists waging a war of terror against their own people and us.

I have justified our actions ethically plenty of times, and have not once heard a good argument that refutes it.

What military personnel feel about being there is 1, irrelevant; and 2, a presumption on your part.

That military personnel take this presumed "hatred" out on civilians is pure, unsupported assumption based on an extremist POV.

Don't presume to tell me what I know because it appears you obviously have no idea.

Diplomacy failed only because we want to control that oil, and after we burned Saddam in 1991 he hated us. I think he was a monster too, but he was a monster that we created. And we could have resolved the situation if we could have set aside our greed for one minute. There was no weapons program and the weapons inspections in conjunction with our sanctions pretty much solved that.

We do occupy Iraq brutally. Are we rebuilding the infrastructure? Are we there with nation builders? Are we there offering medical and educational services? Or are we there with weapons pointed at the civilians assuming that an insurgenat is behind every door?

 

[Gunny]

Diplomacy failed only because we want to control that oil, and after we burned Saddam in 1991 he hated us. I think he was a monster too, but he was a monster that we created. And we could have resolved the situation if we could have set aside our greed for one minute. There was no weapons program and the weapons inspections in conjunction with our sanctions pretty much solved that.

We do occupy Iraq brutally. Are we rebuilding the infrastructure? Are we there with nation builders? Are we there offering medical and educational services? Or are we there with weapons pointed at the civilians assuming that an insurgenat is behind every door?

Diplomacy failed when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, got his butt kicked, signed a ceasefire agreement and continually defied the terms of that agreement until he was removed from power.

Saddam Hussein was NOT a monster we created. Saddam Hussein was a monster of his own creation long before the US entered the picture.

We are rebuilding the infrastructure just as fast as terrorists destroy it. It is not our place to offer medical or educational services. It is the Iraqi gov't's place. We did indeed offer medical services until the government was established, and still provide them in remote locations.

And no, we DON'T have weapons pointed at civilains assuming there is a terrorist behind every door. THAT would be too easy from a military strategic and tactical POV. There would be no "insurgency" if that were the case.

The fact that the "insurgency" exists at all refutes your argument.

 

[Taomon]

Diplomacy failed when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, got his butt kicked, signed a ceasefire agreement and continually defied the terms of that agreement until he was removed from power.

Saddam Hussein was NOT a monster we created. Saddam Hussein was a monster of his own creation long before the US entered the picture.

We are rebuilding the infrastructure just as fast as terrorists destroy it. It is not our place to offer medical or educational services. It is the Iraqi gov't's place. We did indeed offer medical services until the government was established, and still provide them in remote locations.

And no, we DON'T have weapons pointed at civilains assuming there is a terrorist behind every door. THAT would be too easy from a military strategic and tactical POV. There would be no "insurgency" if that were the case.

The fact that the "insurgency" exists at all refutes your argument.

we gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait. He was our ally/client up until that point. Gosh, I wonder why he was bitter.

Again, I do not condone Saddam Hussein's regime, but we friggin created it. Saddam was a monster and the US entered the picture in the 1970's when he was one of a few Iraqi thugs hired to kill the president of Iraq. Saddam failed but when the president was finally killed, Saddam took over.

He was instantly our client. We sold him weapons, bio/chem agents, dual use technology and intel. We turned a blind eye while he committed atrocities against the Iranians and his own people. It was not until Kuwait that Saddam was our enemy. In fact, when he was at his most dangerous and capable of attacking us we did not worry about that because he was our kind of guy. Yeah, Reagan was so good for America right? It is his fault we dealt with Saddam and it is his fault that we created al Qaeda.

And by the way, when an invading army destroys medical and educational institutes, how is it not their responsibility to rebuild that? That is an inhuman way to look at things, but so is war.

And an insurgency exists. This doesn't negate my argument. If America was invaded tomorrow, we would all fight, we would all commit acts of guerrilla warfare and possibly against sympathizers of the invading army. This by the way would be labeled as terrorist attacks. Think about that as you consider the insurgency.

We are not the good guys in Iraq, sorry but it's true. we are the aggressors. We invaded them.

 

[Gunny]

we gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait. He was our ally/client up until that point. Gosh, I wonder why he was bitter.

Again, I do not condone Saddam Hussein's regime, but we friggin created it. Saddam was a monster and the US entered the picture in the 1970's when he was one of a few Iraqi thugs hired to kill the president of Iraq. Saddam failed but when the president was finally killed, Saddam took over.

He was instantly our client. We sold him weapons, bio/chem agents, dual use technology and intel. We turned a blind eye while he committed atrocities against the Iranians and his own people. It was not until Kuwait that Saddam was our enemy. In fact, when he was at his most dangerous and capable of attacking us we did not worry about that because he was our kind of guy. Yeah, Reagan was so good for America right? It is his fault we dealt with Saddam and it is his fault that we created al Qaeda.

And by the way, when an invading army destroys medical and educational institutes, how is it not their responsibility to rebuild that? That is an inhuman way to look at things, but so is war.

And an insurgency exists. This doesn't negate my argument. If America was invaded tomorrow, we would all fight, we would all commit acts of guerrilla warfare and possibly against sympathizers of the invading army. This by the way would be labeled as terrorist attacks. Think about that as you consider the insurgency.

We are not the good guys in Iraq, sorry but it's true. we are the aggressors. We invaded them.

We did not give Saddam "the green light" to invade Kuwait. We also did not create Saddam Hussein. He created himself. He was a brutal thug and hitman before he could probably spell "USA."

Saddam being our "client" did not make Saddam our ally. He was the enemy of our enemy so the US supported him against them.

Blaming Reagan for either Saddam Hussein or al Qaeda is ludicrous. Saddam declared war against Iran on his own over a piece of land.

Al Qaeda was the result of Wahabbism; which, was a Sunni effort to combat the spread of Shi'ism. Arab/Muslim hatred for anyone in the Middle East goes back centuries to long before the US existed.

That the insurgency exists negates your argument that US military personnel target civilians believing a terrorist is behind every door. If it was that cut an dried, there'd be a lot of bodies and no insurgency.

Your opinion that the US is not "the good guys" EVER, regardless the situation, is obvious, and noted.

 

[Taomon]

We did not give Saddam "the green light" to invade Kuwait. We also did not create Saddam Hussein. He created himself. He was a brutal thug and hitman before he could probably spell "USA."

Saddam being our "client" did not make Saddam our ally. He was the enemy of our enemy so the US supported him against them.

Blaming Reagan for either Saddam Hussein or al Qaeda is ludicrous. Saddam declared war against Iran on his own over a piece of land.

Al Qaeda was the result of Wahabbism; which, was a Sunni effort to combat the spread of Shi'ism. Arab/Muslim hatred for anyone in the Middle East goes back centuries to long before the US existed.

That the insurgency exists negates your argument that US military personnel target civilians believing a terrorist is behind every door. If it was that cut an dried, there'd be a lot of bodies and no insurgency.

Your opinion that the US is not "the good guys" EVER, regardless the situation, is obvious, and noted.

Saddam was a street thug, this is true. He became our client because we both hated Iran, this is true. Saddam spoke to Bush Sr. with his intentions of invading Kuwait prior to doing so. This is also true.

The green light I spoke of was Bush's reply that the US does not have any diploamtic ties to Kuwait and cannot become involved with any regional conflicts.

Sounds like a go to me. Especially after Reagan built Saddam up throughout the 1980's.

And by the way, Reagan also matched Saudi Arabia dollar for dollar - illegally and covertly - funding the Mujaheen in Afghanistan. We paid the money, provided weapons and training through the Pakistani ISI. Osama bin Laden was part of that. al Qaeda was funded through that. What we experienced after Russia pulled out of Afghanistan is called blowback.

Now look at us. Hell yeah I blame Reagan. And I blame Charlie Wilson too. Fucking cowboys, never think things through, just go in shootin.

 

[jillian]

No. I will never go to war unless our country is invaded. Why? Because I value human life. I value justice. I value protection of the weak and innocent. Our military does not value such things. They value aggression and military might. They value domination.

Actually, you say all those things. But you really don't value life, or justice or protection of the weak and innocent since we've already established that without knowing a single thing about Israel, including the fact that its no where near Pakistan and has never had anything to do with pakistan, you're perfectly peachy keen with missiles being fired into that country. So you're not exactly a pacifist. [/QUOTE]

So anyone who objects to war is a parasite? Do you have to limit your discussion to insults because you do not have an argument?

Again, you don't object to war. You only object to certain types of people defending themselves. Based on that, I think we can disregard this:

I am anti-war.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Taoman, you need to start listing your sources because there's quite a bit of stuff that your saying that's not true.

 

[Gunny]

Saddam was a street thug, this is true. He became our client because we both hated Iran, this is true. Saddam spoke to Bush Sr. with his intentions of invading Kuwait prior to doing so. This is also true.

The green light I spoke of was Bush's reply that the US does not have any diploamtic ties to Kuwait and cannot become involved with any regional conflicts.

That is not a green light. That is a response based on the situation at the time it was given. Events and the UN altered that situation.

Sounds like a go to me. Especially after Reagan built Saddam up throughout the 1980's.

What it sounds like to you belies the facts.

And by the way, Reagan also matched Saudi Arabia dollar for dollar - illegally and covertly - funding the Mujaheen in Afghanistan. We paid the money, provided weapons and training through the Pakistani ISI. Osama bin Laden was part of that. al Qaeda was funded through that. What we experienced after Russia pulled out of Afghanistan is called blowback.

BTW ... Jimmy Carter started covertly supplying the Muhajadeen via the CIA.

Now look at us. Hell yeah I blame Reagan. And I blame Charlie Wilson too. Fucking cowboys, never think things through, just go in shootin.

You blame the US period. You are one of those people who refuse to accept reality for what it is and demand everyone else live in your version of liberal utopia. Problem is, your version of utopian perfection is not eveyone else's version so you are in fact attempting to impose your beliefs on others.

Even if you could somehow manage to do that to the US, that doesn't change the rest of the world, and your willingness to always see the US as the bad guy is incomprehensible; especially, when actual fact does not support your stances.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Jimmeh's human rights disaster. Thank you, Jimmeh.

A little history lesson for you, Taoman, but let’s not let facts get in the way.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Oh, yeah, here's your money quote, taoman:

"Thus Jimmy Carter's misguided implementation of human rights policies not only indirectly led to overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but also paved the way for loss of more than 600,000 lives, Iran's rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001."


Read it and weep.

 

[Taomon]

Actually, you say all those things. But you really don't value life, or justice or protection of the weak and innocent since we've already established that without knowing a single thing about Israel, including the fact that its no where near Pakistan and has never had anything to do with pakistan, you're perfectly peachy keen with missiles being fired into that country. So you're not exactly a pacifist.

I am not peachy keen with missiles being fired into Israel. I never said that. I simply stated, many times over that the Pakistanis have just as much right to defend themselves. It is your contention that Pakistan is wrong and Israel is only defending themselves when they shoot unarmed civilians.

And for the record, Israel borders Pakistan. The Gaza strip is overrun by both countries. It should be Pakistani territory, but Israel wants it and encroaches upon it.

And no I am not exactly a pacifist. I do abhorr violence, but will use it to defend myself or those who cannot defend themselves. I know that is the reason given for invading Iraq, but our actions there speak louder than words.

Again, you don't object to war. You only object to certain types of people defending themselves.

And you base your statement on the fact that you disagree with me regarding who has rights and who doesn't.

I don't think Bush can pull off peace in Israeli-Pakistani areas. He will try to use aggression, as the Isreali's have. It will be a slaughter.

 

[Taomon]

That is not a green light. That is a response based on the situation at the time it was given. Events and the UN altered that situation.



What it sounds like to you belies the facts.



BTW ... Jimmy Carter started covertly supplying the Muhajadeen via the CIA.



You blame the US period. You are one of those people who refuse to accept reality for what it is and demand everyone else live in your version of liberal utopia. Problem is, your version of utopian perfection is not eveyone else's version so you are in fact attempting to impose your beliefs on others.

Even if you could somehow manage to do that to the US, that doesn't change the rest of the world, and your willingness to always see the US as the bad guy is incomprehensible; especially, when actual fact does not support your stances.

Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Taomon]

Oh, yeah, here's your money quote, taoman:

"Thus Jimmy Carter's misguided implementation of human rights policies not only indirectly led to overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but also paved the way for loss of more than 600,000 lives, Iran's rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001."


Read it and weep.

Oh I see, so human rights policies are bad and brutal regime's like the Shah of Iran's are good. Of course, now I see.

You are all sheep.