Yeah, we should have just sat down with Saddam and had a nice fireside chat.

 

why not? we are doing it with n.korea and we did that with china when they shot down US airplane couple years ago

 

We aren't even talking to N. Korea directly. That's why they're ****ed.

OK - You are obviously an idiot. You don't even know what's going on in the world, much less know enough to form an opinion.

I refrained from saying it before because it's not constructive to the argument.

I will not reply to any more of you idiocy, no matter how hard you try to jab some sort of pain point in there to get a rise out of me.

This sort of mis-informed misplacing of the truth is all I've ever heard form any of the protestors out in front of my building (I live in Downtown Seattle).

Some of them were at least interesting to talk to, and were quite civil, but they all stretched the truth, and just quoted newsreels without having any clear understanding of what that newsreel was trying to say.

They would say "It's all about oil!" I would say "Well, if you believe that, fine, but we only get 3% of our oil from Iraq...and wouldn't we be kissing their azz right now if we really needed it?"

They just look at me without anything more to say because they don't understand the correlation of modern history, politics, and understanding of reality.

We've spent 12 years and many resolutions trying to get this guy to fess up, and he won't.....the end.....talking is over.

My rant is over.

I'm done.

 

Not missing the sarcasm there, I have wondered about such things before. What if Truman and Stalin had gotten together for a weekend flyfishing trip? No bodyguards, no secret service, no cameras, no taperecorders; just guys out in the wilds gettin' to know one another. I'm by no means saying this is a practical solution to geopolitical turmoil but I have to wonder what effect it may have. Blair & Chirac, Bush and Saddam and so on. I know Putin hung out at Bush's ranch for a bit, early in his presidency, and they were real chummy, but that was after relations between our nations had already calmed.

I just think it would be interesting to see it actually happen.

 

It's about time that you are done. All of your postings have been filled with inaccurate facts and lies. You posted lies about the how the government of Iran is setup. You were wrong about who was the President of U.S. during and right after the Gulf war. You are the idiot and I'm glad that you will stop posting. Maybe you can post again once you get your facts straight, time for you to go to your local public library and pick up some good history books.

Peace.

 

Good job, you forced me to rebutt....

I never said Clinton was president RIGHT after or DURING the Gulf War....what kind of crack are you smoking?

Clinton's presidency:
Jan. 21st 1992 - Jan 20th, 2000

The Gulf War Ended 2/28/1991

Jesus - see what I mean - you misquote everything....

I'm unsubscribing - someone tell me when this moron is gone so I can discuss this freely with intelligent people who can discuss their views with fact and not fiction....

 

Perhaps you didn't directly say it, but you implied that it's his (Clinton's) fault we didn't support the insurrection against Saddam right after Desert Storm. Here was the post with your reply on 3/28 at 5:29 MST.

[copy]
---Jatt806 typed: ----

Yes, you are right he has gassed his own people in 1987. But how come we didn't invade Iraq then and why do people like Bush and Rumsfeld keep bringing up things like this now, 16 years later? This is just an excuse to attack Iraq.

Maybe back then Iraq was our ally and we didn't care how many people Saddam killed. Right after the Gulf war, The U.S. persuaded Shihites and Kurds to turn on Saddam, thousands of them did all over Iraq, but when they needed our help in doing so, we turned our backs on them. Thousands of Shihites were killed by Saddam as we watched and did nothing. Now we are wondering why these same Shihites are not turning on Saddam again. They got screwed by us once and they don't want that to happen again.

Peace and God bless America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---IANSW typed: ---

Yeah, you can thank good ole no-backbone Clinton for that failed insurrection. Man I hated that guy. What a puzzy. Made the whole country look bad, then took all the credit for Congress balancing the budget. "Slick *****" is a true nickname.

Personally, WE DEFINATELY should have been more supportive of that. But Clinton was a moron, as was his whole Administration....so we didn't.
[/copy]
(emphasis added)

From my read it does appear that Ian is referring to Clinton & Co. as the responsible parties for the lack of support when in fact it was still Bush 1 and Co. that made the decision not to help out.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled civil discussion and airing of differences...

 

Good link to follow up the human shield link
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/ClwydIraqWar.htm

But here is my post, What would you to solve the problem in Iraq

Diplomacy has not worked, Saddam has not complied with one of the 17 resolutions

Time has not worked, 12 years has brought no success

Sanctions have not worked, Saddams people starve yet he builds more palaces since the sanctions that say he has to give 50% of humanitarian aid to his people.

Inspections have not worked, they worked in South Africa because inspectors were shown weapons that they could evaluate, Iraq has not done that and the inspections will not work because scientists are not detectives. They can only look at previous weapons facilities, and interview scientists which Iraq will not allow to leave the country and must be accompanied by a government interpreter.

The UN has not worked - The UN unanimously passed a resolution that said Saddam complies or faces harsh punishment. There was no question he has not complied by anyone in the UN, yet they did not want to enforce their own resolutions. France even went one step further and blocked any potential resolution that would force Saddam to comply before Iraq even saw it.

Force has worked - It got Saddam out of Kuwait.

What might work? - A united voice, a voice that said Saddam you are an evil man who oppresses his people, you support terrorism, you are not cooperating with the UN to prove that you do not have WMD. If one voice around the world would stand up to Saddam and tell him to leave, I believe that would be enough to prompt him or his people to kick him out (I am an idealist) but that will not happen (pacifists and conspiracy theorists insure this.) War might have been avoided, the people of Iraq could have been free of an evil man, everyone would be able to sleep better at night knowing that Saddam would not use or distribute weapons for ill purposes, and there would have been minimal loss of life, if that would have worked.

Or do we trust that he his sane enough to not use his weapons because he wants to stay in power, and therefore leave him alone? He has invaded five of his neighbors and his sanity to want to stay in power does not explain why he tryed to assisinate President Bush (senior), if he had been successful did he think he would not be dealt with? This man is crazy.

Please voice your opinions of what you would do. I have followed this issue closely since August and donated to get into the OT forum to discuss it. I am glad that 90% of the people here are not just smart about cars, but also world affairs, I look forward to your replies.

 

Thanks man.

 

you guys ever read The Onion? funny ****.

Bush in the battlefield

 

Exactly.

And to clear things up - I meant CLinton didn't do anything from 92 on...

The political climate unfortunately didn't allow Bush Sr. to do anything...I assumed that was common knowledge.

But we should have definately pushed the UN to pass a war resolution back in 98, when things were hotter. But no - the polls were good for Clinton and he was scared to rock the boat, because he's a puzzy.

There - is that clearer?


IanS

 

 

Maybe you forgot to keep reading the rest of the posts.

 

 

Just some things I here Protestors say,

No Blood for Oil, this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
OPEC (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) is the economic organisation of oil-producing countries that regulate prices and minimise profits of exchange dealers.

If anybody will gain from this war (as far as oil and money) it will be Saudi Arabia (this is where most of the increased production has come from to keep crude prices down during the fear of oil's instability), the Saudi's are at their highest output in 21 years (heaviest production since 1981)

Let the inspections work. The inspections are not working, they need cooperation for them to work. One thing some have forgotten is that inspectors are not detectives they are scientists. They can only evaluate what is shown to them, they are not trained to find or seek out weapons.

How do we even know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Back in the 90’s Saddam was accused of having weapons of mass destruction programs by the UN. He vehemently denied this up and down. His son in law fled Iraq and exposed Saddam’s programs, which included biological, chemical, and yes nuclear, they were far more advanced than anyone had thought. The UN inspectors documented these programs and that is how we have the numbers of tons of anthrax, VX, and nerve gas. The former chief nuclear weapons inspector (Dr. David Kay) in one of the early inspections (before Iraq started playing cat and mouse) actually found a diagram of a nuclear bomb along with other documents. This diagram was taken to experts who confirmed it would work. Saddam told his son in law that all was forgiven, and when his son in law did return Saddam executed him as well as the rest of his family. Saddam says nothing of the weapons cataloged by UN inspectors in the 90’s as if they simply disappeared. With his history of invading five of his neighbors we know his intentions, and why he hides these weapons.

North Korea is a larger threat than Iraq. North Korea freely admits it has weapons of mass destruction because it is bartering for money, and South Korea and Japan are negotiating so that process has not been exhausted as is the case for Saddam. The enemy who hides his weapons is the one with the most malicious intent.

The sanctions have caused the Iraqi people to suffer. This you will here a lot, but one thing you will never here, or see on any of these web sights that claim this is what the sanctions are. Simply put the sanctions against Iraq say that Saddam cannot buy weapons with money from oil, cannot trade oil for weapons, and has to give 50% of oil proceeds to his people as humanitarian aid. Some claim that these sanctions have devastated Iraq killing it’s civilian population, and are preventing Saddam from having any money to continue weapons programs. First what about the above sanctions as stated above is killing people. Second Saddam has built more palaces after the Gulf War (since the sanctions were imposed) than before, he is obviously not complying with the sanctions and his people suffer for it, big surprise. I will whole heartedly admit that the sanctions are a failure which is another reason to get him out. The sanctions as well as inspections was the only way we could keep him in check without having to go in and get him, that plan has failed.

The United States is the one who sold him these weapons. So that justifies him breaking UN resolutions, and some how legitimizes the treatment of his people? Allies change and that is true for any nations. Should we have told Lincoln that because slaves were brought over to be used by Americans that they should not be free?

Also, we did not support the Kurdish uprising in the early 90's. So? this President has a clear goal of seeing this campaign through, does that somehow say that he shouldn't, I would think the exact opposite.

-Things I DON'T here protestors say.

Saddam must go, he is causing this war because of noncompliance, and he is an evil man that does horrible things to his people

The Iraqi people deserve to live without fear of public execution

Saddam must let the Red Cross see out captured troops because that is world law

Why did American forces find illegal Al-Samude missles that Saddam had said he destroyed.

Why are missles flying 190 miles from Iraq to Kuwait when the UN states that missles can travel no further than 150 miles or they are illegal.

Why did Saddam hang the woman for waving to coalition forces two days ago

Why are their tapes of American soldiers with close range gun shot wounds to the head, and further why are Iraqi military posing with these soldiers and that is being broadcast, which both are illegal.

Actually Stalin could answer those, he said it best when he called the people who protested the war against him "usefull idiots."

 

Well said

 

Nothing worse than a badly timed "owned" post.

 

I thought you were gonna stop posting? Another lie, eh?

 

This didn't get much response... just want educated debate...

 

Very, very, nice engine bay all the goodies I want but can't afford right now

 

It is true that Clinton botched his policy on Iraq pretty good, and I didn't hear protestors shouting that he shouldn't attack Iraq when he said he would.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.sh...003/3/16/24709

 

This guy "iansw" was saying was that when Iraqis rose up against Saddam in 1991 that it was Clinton that turned his back on them and that is not true. It was Pres. Bush Sr. that turned his back on them. Clinton wasn't even the President at the time.

Also Clinton inherited the Iraq mess from Bush Sr. in 1992 and now his son is cleaning up the mess.

I am not anti-war, I was just objecting to lies that "iansw" has been posting on this thread. He was wrong about who was the President of U.S. right after the Gulf war and he was also wrong about the setup of the Iranian gov't. He stated that the ayatollah of Iran is democratically elected and nothing could be further from the truth. If he is unsure of historical facts, then he should stop posting them.
Peace.

 

chill noob

Aside from minor factual inconsistencies. I think most of his arguments are well thought out and logical. Can we look past the small ****?

 

Who was president at the time doesn't really matter. Give it a rest n00b.

 

 

That's what the French said too, each time a new region was occupied they screamed, "negotiation, negotiation" it worked so well that they had their entire country occupied.

12 years and 17 resolutions of words have not worked, now come the bombs, but remember several deadlines were given to Saddam to comply, he did not so he chose the bombs instead of words.

 

They may have been minor inconsistencies, but the way the guy (iansw) posts them with confidence got to me. At least he should acknowledge his lies. Ok, that enough. I will stop posting on this thread and get back to work.

 

*sigh*

I already responded to what I really meant. I did get my facts a little mixed up, but only in translation....

I don't think the Kuwaiti Government, or most of the world, considers what George Bush Sr did a "mess".

You're nitpicking....That had nothing to do with my point in the first place. Let it go. I mis-spoke on one small thing, that's all...I know the rules of a flame-war is to take 1 small thing and exaggerate it. That's what you're doing....I'm not going to fall for it.

And yes, the Ayatohlla is democratically elected....That is absolutely true....look it up. They simply are not a 2 party system like we are.

But noone in their country is threatened to be killed if they don't vote or write-in a vote, unlike Saddam's Regime.

 

nobody ever listens to what i have to say ...























:attention

 

You are waaaay wrong on this one. The Ayatollah is not elected by the people of Iran, he is appointed by a small group of Mullahs. Its the president of Iran that gets elected by the people and his name is Khatami. I don't need to look it up, I know this to be a fact. You need to read some books on Iranian politics before posting.

 

iansw - You might want to check these two websites out.

www.iranchamber.com/government/structure_of_power.php

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...side/govt.html

 

Ok - you got me - but my point still stands - their president, not the Ayatohlla, was elected.

Also, their Constitution states:
"Having regard to the intrinsic nature of this great movement, the Constitution guarantees to oppose any kind of despotism, intellectual, social, and as regards monopoly economics, and to struggle for freedom from the despotic system, and to entrust men's destiny to their own hands."

basically a near copy of our "All men are created equal" speech.

So I was wrong - I must have mis-read that before....but my general point stays the same - the majority of the iranian government is a democracy, which poses some problems for us attacking them under the guise of freeing them from a tyranny.

IanS

 

 

Its not really because he admitted he was wrong. Once again rgould posted it at a wrong time.

 

hey, but at least he "finally posted something"

 

FFS can you guys
STOP WITH THE OWNED BS?!

Jeez some people are trying to spectate on an intellectual discussion without having to deal with junior high jeering from the sidelines.

 

Yeah, sorry man - I agree with you.....

 

yeah.. or this creating alternate identities to come back here to take part in this BS ownage

 

yeah, yeah man..

 

:attention