The war

[AndrewF]

In this case, if you give them the fish, they could "reverse engineer" the fish and make a shark. So while we gave them the fish, in time they could make thier own fish by studying the one we gave them.

Speculation....and I'll even go as far as to say 'not likely'....Iraq was pretty keen on using WMD's & chemical weapons against Iran....did with a fair amount of abandon actually (to add my colour commentary). Likely, they wouldn't have saved any.

Now my question is - and perhaps you or Blue could best answer this:

What was the 'interest' the US had in that conflict? (or Britain, France, Germany etc... etc... etc....)

 

[Puckstop31]

In one of the recent replies? (ie, change?) - if not, I'll take you up on that offer. If not/so, it still speaks volumes about the responsibility in which the US used at that time in handing out its technology....and I know Regan is pretty popular, but that doesn't excuse the lack of discretion.

Adding to Blues responce to you on this issue. Again, sorry for reading ahead...

"Indeed we did. That technology was tranferred to Iraq when we had a vested intrest in them defeating the Iranians during the 1980's Iran/Iraq war. Just like the Iraqi's used that technology to shoot down US built F-14's during said war. Back in the days of the Shah, Iran was a close US ally. Just like most things in life, things change... Change is the only constant in life.

So Andrew, your arguement that "we gave them the tech" in the first place is rather moot. How can we predict what political change will happen in the future of a "ally"?

For instance, I take issue with the US selling M1 tanks and good ammo to the Egyptians. I think, sooner or later, we will see M1 vs. M1 combat on TV."

Now, to the exclusion of hind-sight....which we all know is brilliant - but doesn't apply at the time OBL was offered up, when was that war on terror declared?

War on Terror, bad anology in this situation.

Still, Clinton has said that they knew he was a major threat. AFAIK, he knew he (OBL) was responsible for the bombings in Africa. That should have been enough to at least DETAIN him.

Clinton did some good things domestically, on the world affairs front, he was a unmitigated disaster. I mean, look at who his Secretary of State was???

"Madam Allbright...." <shudder>

Cause Michael Moore isn't doing Republican-friendly documentaries

Nice... Nice work. LOL Micheal "pass the Ben and Jerrys" Moore does more to help the right than anything we could ever do ourselves. I want him to keep on screaming... LOL

I've gotta keep a reserve...keep the 'right' on their toes

Indeed... Checks and Balances my friend. I'll do the same for you.

 

[Puckstop31]

Speculation....and I'll even go as far as to say 'not likely'....Iraq was pretty keen on using WMD's & chemical weapons against Iran....did with a fair amount of abandon actually (to add my colour commentary). Likely, they wouldn't have saved any.

He must have saved some... He murdered some 15,000 kurds (in 1991, 5 years after the Iran/Iraq war ended) or so with GB (a blister agent) and VX (a nerve agent).

What was the 'interest' the US had in that conflict? (or Britain, France, Germany etc... etc... etc....)

From the US perspective, at that time, Iran was a major enemy of the US. (well, I guess they still are) if Iran was to win the war, it would have given them a undue influence over the region. Something that was certianly NOT in the best intrest of the US. This was also during the times that the Iranians threatened most US flagged shipping at the Straight of Hormuz.

In a nutshell, it was not so much our intrest that Iraq win as it was for Iran to NOT win. Please note that this is simply a little of what I know, mixed with some speculation. I think it makes sense though. Also note that this is not a subject area I am super keen on, but I will do a little homework, just for fun. Also, I was still in highschool when all these things were happening and was only interested in stopping pucks and chasing skirts at the time.

 

[andy.]

lol, I must admit I haven't heard of Whabbist Muslims before, I have read about them now

When I read your first thread about them puck I thought the word "Whabbist" was a non-word like a splutter, I admit I was wrong there the do have very strong views

 

[Puckstop31]

lol, I must admit I haven't heard of Whabbist Muslims before, I have read about them now

When I read your first thread about them puck I thought the word "Whabbist" was a non-word like a splutter, I admit I was wrong there the do have very strong views

No worries friend. We all learn new things each day. Me thinks what you learn will be interesting.


Enjoy!

 

[AndrewF]

So Andrew, your arguement that "we gave them the tech" in the first place is rather moot. How can we predict what political change will happen in the future of a "ally"?

1) Ally is at the very possible best an increadibly loose term in this case (as you mentioned before, lessor of two evils) and 2) I'll disagree with you on that stricly based on the established fact that Saddam was a wee bit of a loose cannon. The responsible action is to (if you must protect your interests) TCB yourself....not let a crack-pot do it for you by providing them with all sorts of nasty weapons which can be turned against you (and as I mentioned before, some of those violated the Geneova (sp?) convention). That's common sense.
Lastly, 3) What kind of bone-heads dole out this technology to ANYONE??? Aside from the technology, weapons-grade Anthrax was one of the items in the gift-basket to the Iraqi's.....Allies or not, that's just stupid!

War on Terror, bad anology in this situation.

It's more about getting the authority to detain someone on suspicion.... the war on terror has actually provided a certain 'freedom' to detain possible terrorists without reason. To my knowledge, there was nothing in place at the time that Clinton could act on.

Still, Clinton has said that they knew he was a major threat. AFAIK, he knew he (OBL) was responsible for the bombings in Africa. That should have been enough to at least DETAIN him.

Without something concrete, this gets chalked up to speculation....and much like we have to take it at face value that Bush believed there were WMD's still in Iraq and he had to act, it would be better to chalk Clinton's actions up to not having the appropriate laws to entertain the possibility of detaining OBL....major threat or not. However, I'll concede the point if there is any solid proof of there being a legal reason for detaining OBL.

Clinton did some good things domestically,

I'm shocked and will make record of you saying this!

on the world affairs front, he was a unmitigated disaster. I mean, look at who his Secretary of State was???

"Madam Allbright...." <shudder>

Can't comment on Allbright.....what I can comment on is that comparing an ousider's view of Clinton vs. Bush.....well, we've already established the fact that as far as publicity goes (like trying to sell us on WMD's), Bush is lacking.....although I hear Tom Cruise's old publicist is officially out of a job and I'm sure Tom would write a letter of recommendation for his own sister

Nice... Nice work. LOL Micheal "pass the Ben and Jerrys" Moore does more to help the right than anything we could ever do ourselves. I want him to keep on screaming... LOL

And he does so with a great deal of humour too. Did you read his letter to the president over Katrina? ROFLMAO!!!

Indeed... Checks and Balances my friend. I'll do the same for you.

I'd expect no less!

 

[AndrewF]

He must have saved some... He murdered some 15,000 kurds (in 1991, 5 years after the Iran/Iraq war ended) or so with GB (a blister agent) and VX (a nerve agent).

This is a prime example of why sharing knowledge should not occur - allies or not.

However, once the Gulf War Part I basically crippled Iraq in almost every conceivable way, it's unlikely WMD's were going to surface - regardless of Saddam's desire for them.

From the US perspective, at that time, Iran was a major enemy of the US. (well, I guess they still are) if Iran was to win the war, it would have given them a undue influence over the region. Something that was certianly NOT in the best intrest of the US. This was also during the times that the Iranians threatened most US flagged shipping at the Straight of Hormuz.

In a nutshell, it was not so much our intrest that Iraq win as it was for Iran to NOT win. Please note that this is simply a little of what I know, mixed with some speculation. I think it makes sense though. Also note that this is not a subject area I am super keen on, but I will do a little homework, just for fun. Also, I was still in highschool when all these things were happening and was only interested in stopping pucks and chasing skirts at the time.

I think I'll look that up as well....could be interesting!

 

[Zoom]

I have so much to say in reply, but my computer hates me and I have no idea when I can post and when it's going to kick me off, so I have to say that I can't make a detailed reply because odds are it won't make it to the posting part anyway...

bear me with and my probably outdated replies when I do get the chance to make them.

 

[Dizzy]

We still going on the War?

I haven't the energy for more circles today....!

 

[Puckstop31]

1) Ally is at the very possible best an increadibly loose term in this case (as you mentioned before, lessor of two evils) and 2) I'll disagree with you on that stricly based on the established fact that Saddam was a wee bit of a loose cannon. The responsible action is to (if you must protect your interests) TCB yourself....not let a crack-pot do it for you by providing them with all sorts of nasty weapons which can be turned against you (and as I mentioned before, some of those violated the Geneova (sp?) convention). That's common sense.
Lastly, 3) What kind of bone-heads dole out this technology to ANYONE??? Aside from the technology, weapons-grade Anthrax was one of the items in the gift-basket to the Iraqi's.....Allies or not, that's just stupid!

Can't argue much here. This is why I would not be a good President.

It's more about getting the authority to detain someone on suspicion.... the war on terror has actually provided a certain 'freedom' to detain possible terrorists without reason. To my knowledge, there was nothing in place at the time that Clinton could act on.

IMHO, this is the time when a real leader needs to take some initiative and "create" a reason. OR, time for the spooky black op guys to make him "go away". I am sure that statement will draw some fire, I expect it should.

In a nutshell, YES I am condoning something not entirely "legal" to remove a extreme threat from the mix.

I'm shocked and will make record of you saying this!

Like I said before, I cow-tow to NO political party. I mean, hey.. He DID get some real welfare reform through....

But I disagreed with WAY more than I agreed with.

Can't comment on Allbright.....

She was a HORRIBLE Secretary of State. She bowed to the UN thugs and BLAMED THE US for a lot of things about the world. Horrible at best, treasonous at worst. She is the WORST kind of liberal. And nightmarishly ugly too...

what I can comment on is that comparing an ousider's view of Clinton vs. Bush.....well, we've already established the fact that as far as publicity goes (like trying to sell us on WMD's), Bush is lacking....

I have said this before... He gave the EXACT SAME arguement as your hero did. Why is it different just because Bush did it? If Clinton had the balls to act, HE would be the guy with egg on his face and my side of the table whould be screaming "where are the WMDs???"

Tom Cruise's

Don't even get me started on THIS retard.... LOL

And he does so with a great deal of humour too. Did you read his letter to the president over Katrina? ROFLMAO!!!

More proof he is a loser with NO meat to his arguement... Spin, Spin, Spin.... I think we established that the Katrina responce was not directly his fault. I'd go to jail for a few days to have the opportunity to punch him in his big, fat face...just once.

 

[Puckstop31]

This is a prime example of why sharing knowledge should not occur - allies or not.

Even if the technology being shared is not PRIMARILY designed for weapons purposes. There is a lot of tech out there whose primary purpose is not warfare, but easily could be... Such as pesticides, crop dusting, etc....

However, once the Gulf War Part I basically crippled Iraq in almost every conceivable way, it's unlikely WMD's were going to surface - regardless of Saddam's desire for them.

If they were not there, how did he use them shortly there after???

Also, I would take to task the idea Iraq was crippled. His military was, sorta. He could have COMPLETLEY destroyed his military forces, but the media was crying "oh, we are being SO MEAN to them". This was from the news coverage of the "corridor of death." We were taking it to the enemy and accomplishing one of the stated goals of the coalition, destruction of the Iraqi Army. But thanks to the bleeding heart peacenicks, you know the ones who do not understand how the world REALLY works, Bush I stopped. A Phyrric victory if you ask me, but not because of the military... Because of POLITICS.

 

[AndrewF]

I have said this before... He gave the EXACT SAME arguement as your hero did. Why is it different just because Bush did it? If Clinton had the balls to act, HE would be the guy with egg on his face and my side of the table whould be screaming "where are the WMDs???"

Not a hero. He just comes out on top in terms of global public perception. I'm dealing in perceptions and as far as perception goes, a) 'balls' doesn't apply to either of them and while there wasn't egg in Clinton's face, there was a dress, if I recall correctly b) Bush is a publicists nightmare. Clinton would admit he was wrong and go for spiritual couselling....hmmmmmm

More proof he is a loser with NO meat to his arguement... Spin, Spin, Spin....

But it gets such a lovely reaction

 

[AndrewF]

If they were not there, how did he use them shortly there after???

Fair enough. They're gone now and the intel use to determine their existence is suspect.

Also, I would take to task the idea Iraq was crippled. His military was, sorta. He could have COMPLETLEY destroyed his military forces, but the media was crying "oh, we are being SO MEAN to them". This was from the news coverage of the "corridor of death." We were taking it to the enemy and accomplishing one of the stated goals of the coalition, destruction of the Iraqi Army. But thanks to the bleeding heart peacenicks, you know the ones who do not understand how the world REALLY works, Bush I stopped. A Phyrric victory if you ask me, but not because of the military... Because of POLITICS.

LOL! The media were taking prisoners in the GW pt. I. However, I'm definately of the mind more should have been done at that time. At the VERY least, Saddam should have been removed at that time if for nothing else than invading Kuwait. Not enough was accomplished unfortunately and it left the door open for the current round of fighting.

 

[Puckstop31]

Not a hero. He just comes out on top in terms of global public perception.

So a leader should care more about results or perception?

a) 'balls' doesn't apply to either of them

I disagree... But we should leave it at that.

and while there wasn't egg in Clinton's face, there was a dress, if I recall correctly b) Bush is a publicists nightmare.

I agree on both points... LOL

Clinton would admit he was wrong and go for spiritual couselling....hmmmmmm

Right, but only after there was no other alternative, just like most politicians.

 

[Dixie]

And what was in Hillary's face???

 

[AndrewF]

So a leader should care more about results or perception?

Not more, but with the president's approval rating floundering, he needs to do something about it.

 

[Puckstop31]

Not more, but with the president's approval rating floundering, he needs to do something about it.

I beg to differ. He does not need, nor should he cow tow to the press. If you cannot see the left leaning bias in our press, you simply refuse to.

For instance, why are not the MONUMENTAL happenings in France making more headlines? If that is not proof of the failures of socialism.... Or of the hypocrisy of most European nations.... What is happening there is the result of racism and socialism.

To me, approval ratings are all about SPIN, SPIN, SPIN.

 

[AndrewF]

I beg to differ. He does not need, nor should he cow tow to the press. If you cannot see the left leaning bias in our press, you simply refuse to.

For instance, why are not the MONUMENTAL happenings in France making more headlines? If that is not proof of the failures of socialism.... Or of the hypocrisy of most European nations.... What is happening there is the result of racism and socialism.

To me, approval ratings are all about SPIN, SPIN, SPIN.

US press has little impact in our household. Though I do understand American media can/does have political leanings (Fox being one example).

 

[Puckstop31]

US press has little impact in our household. Though I do understand American media can/does have political leanings (Fox being one example).

Fox being the only one you hear about because it is the only one that has a right lean.

Also, FWIW, I DO find it interesting what you DO NOT hear in the news in Canada.

 

[Puckstop31]

A interesting quote I saw today... This is for you who believe in "peace" at all costs...

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)


Don't be a sheep... Be a wolf-hound.