Speaking my brains...

[headrock6]

Re: Re: Re: Re: umm

Originally posted by crom-dubh
Our way of dealing with fanatics ( the IRA, which we HAVE been dealing with for well over 12 years) have been hampered by the US. What was the US' way of dealing with fanatics before 9/11?

The grassroots(irish american community )funded the IRA,not the US government..I cant speak for the grassroots back then,but your argument is based on well you didnt do anything before so we shouldnt do anything now and thats moronic any way you look at it..You should be happy we've taken on this responsibility.Maybe you and your family in the future wont ever have to deal with those types of atrocities that happened over there ever again..And by the way,if it wasnt for Clinton dealing with them you probably would have never seen a cease fire in your lifetime.

Originally posted by crom-dubh
By saying that you no longer need proof to wage war on a country is saying that you can do damn well what you like to who ever you like.( Hey lets bomb France coz they didnt support us. They must be league with terrorists.)

I was gonna stay away from this comment cuz it doesnt deserve a response but I will anyway..We have all the proof we need to wage war against Iraq...He hasnt disarmed according to resolutions..And he broke the cease fire he signed in 91 by not disarming..So in reality,this war didnt just start,it never ended..

And Iran and Syria will fall on thier own..Maybe we will have to invade N.Korea..Im actually banking on it...But to say you can live with Saddam having WMD's after everything hes done is irresponsible and nothing short of mad...

 

[crom-dubh]

OK you are not reading what I am saying. You said that, and I quote " And your way of dealing with fanatics in the last 12 years has been super effective wouldnt ya say" I responded to that comment. I did not imply that we should do nothing, I asked what the US had done to combat terrorism before 9/11.

I quote you again "The most amazing argument ive heard in this whole topic is people saying we need proof before we go in..God forbid you see proof of WMD's..Cause the only proof your gonna get is an image of 30,000 people dead in the street somewhere and that isnt acceptable to the US and shoudnt be acceptable to any sane person.. " In that statement you are implying that you do not need proof to act. My reply was to that statement. I was not talking about the war now.



I have never condoned anyone possessing WMD's, but I think in Iraq at the moment the coalition is in a bit of a sticky predicament.
For arguments sake say that Saddam doesnt in fact have any WMD's. Bang goes the main reason for the war.

If he does have them, he will not hesitate to use them in the last stages in the conflict. He has nothing to lose. But thousands of coalition troops as well as innocent civilians wil have a lot to lose....their lives.

 

[Cube]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: umm

Originally posted by headrock6
We have all the proof we need to wage war against Iraq...He hasnt disarmed according to resolutions..

So we can expect the war to extend into Israel then?

can't really use failure to comply with UN resolutions as an excuse when you support a country that has ignored more than anyone else -6

 

[crom-dubh]

Yup

Isreal has violated 65 UN sanctions whilst Iraq has violated 35..

 

[Mark/Static]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
What was the US' way of dealing with fanatics before 9/11?

You mean Kaddafi, Molosovic, Noriega, & Saddam 91?

Originally posted by crom-dubh
By saying that you no longer need proof to wage war on a country is saying that you can do damn well what you like to who ever you like.( Hey lets bomb France coz they didnt support us. They must be league with terrorists.)

As much as I would've loved Powell to share the "good stuff" with the UN on February 5th, I know that doing so would have burned intelligence assets. I know none of this isn't going to mean **** to anyone who feels the US government is indistinguishable from the terrorists we're at war with, but I'm pretty sure the US government knew more about Saddam's chem-bio weapons than they divulged.
On another note; On March 19th Hans Blix was talking about an 81 page report to the security council, and that was supposed to be a condensed version. That's 81 pages of things that Iraq still hasn't complied with under resolution 1441, a resolution unanimously voted on by 15 nations, and put the burden of proof on Iraq. Yet somehow the US government is the one who must show proof.

 

[crom-dubh]

You mean Kaddafi, Molosovic, Noriega, & Saddam 91?


None of these were terrorist groups (OK libya was cruised for spporting terrorists but only because his targets were americans)

As much as I would've loved Powell to share the "good stuff" with the UN on February 5th, I know that doing so would have burned intelligence assets. I know none of this isn't going to mean **** to anyone who feels the US government is indistinguishable from the terrorists we're at war with, but I'm pretty sure the US government knew more about Saddam's chem-bio weapons than they divulged.
On another note; On March 19th Hans Blix was talking about an 81 page report to the security council, and that was supposed to be a condensed version. That's 81 pages of things that Iraq still hasn't complied with under resolution 1441, a resolution unanimously voted on by 15 nations, and put the burden of proof on Iraq. Yet somehow the US government is the one who must show proof

I am not saying that there isnt proof about Saddam (not saying there is either) I was replying to a previous comment which imlied that we shouldnt have to wait for proof for a reason to to attack anyone because that would then be too late.

 

[Mark/Static]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
None of these were terrorist groups

The question was about fanatics.

Originally posted by crom-dubh
(OK libya was cruised for spporting terrorists but only because his targets were americans)

Emphasis added. You have a better reason for attacking an enemy?

Originally posted by crom-dubh
I am not saying that there isnt proof about Saddam (not saying there is either) I was replying to a previous comment which imlied that we shouldnt have to wait for proof for a reason to to attack anyone because that would then be too late.

Gotcha.

 

[headrock6]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
OK you are not reading what I am saying. You said that, and I quote " And your way of dealing with fanatics in the last 12 years has been super effective wouldnt ya say" I responded to that comment. I did not imply that we should do nothing, I asked what the US had done to combat terrorism before 9/11.

I think Mark just summed it all up with his list.....But if your asking "what has the US done before 9/11"your obviosly asking why now..And thats just a cop out about why we shouldnt go to war,plain and simple..

Originally posted by crom-dubh
I have never condoned anyone possessing WMD's, but I think in Iraq at the moment the coalition is in a bit of a sticky predicament.
For arguments sake say that Saddam doesnt in fact have any WMD's. Bang goes the main reason for the war.

No u havent but your saying that him possesing them after using them not once but twice in the last 20 years and probably once more before this war is over is acceptable by letting him stay in power..Your sympathy and apologies would have meant less than a hair on my ass when he used them on mine or any country in the free world because we sat back and did nothing about it..And if he doesnt have WMD's(resolution 1441 approved by 15 nations says he does)then we have a lot of answering to do but theres about a 1% chance of that happening..

Originally posted by crom-dubh
If he does have them, he will not hesitate to use them in the last stages in the conflict. He has nothing to lose. But thousands of coalition troops as well as innocent civilians wil have a lot to lose....their lives.

Is that your reason for not going to war??Every troop in any war faces great danger..But freedom isnt aquired by running in the face of adversity..Innaction has led to 1,000,000 Rwandans being slaughtered,mass genocide in Kosovo and millions of Iraqis dying..These troops know what thier fighting for...They fight for you and me in a hell of sand to protect you,me,and people they will never meet..They know the risks and that is why they are heroes..

 

[Cube]

Originally posted by headrock6
These troops know what thier fighting for...They fight for you and me in a hell of sand to protect you,me,and people they will never meet..They know the risks and that is why they are heroes..

Now that I agree with 100%.

It doesn't matter the reasons they're out there, the troops of all countries involved in this are heroes.

well said -6

 

[crom-dubh]

.I think Mark just summed it all up with his list.....But if your asking "what has the US done before 9/11"your obviosly asking why now..And thats just a cop out about why we shouldnt go to war,plain and simple..

I really dont see how you can think that I am sympathetic towards Saddam. You are just reading far more into what I am typing than what I am actually saying. I just dont agree with some of the reason being given to justify the war.

The question was about fanatics.
Quadaffi- Fair enough
Milovevic- Wasnt a fanatic, just a tyrant.
Noriega- Was a double agent for the CIA and Cuba, Was indited for drugs and money laundering. Not a fanatic.
Saddam 91'- Again is not a fanatic, just another tyrant