Welcome To P8ntballer.com
The Home Of European Paintball
Sign Up & Join In

Time to face the music and dance Mark and Headrock

Status
Not open for further replies.

pgaglio

Used Car Salesman
May 2, 2003
260
0
0
Detroit/Motown, USA
Visit site
Currently in the US, the big hullaballoo is over these 16 words from Bush's State of the Union speech:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The Democrats seem to smell political blood, however, as far as I've heard, the Brits continue to stand by the intell upon which this statement was based.

I still fail to see where Bush (or Blair for that matter) lied about any of the reasons for going to war in Iraq. The Administration's case for the war here in the US went substantially beyond the issue of WMDs.
 
D

duffistuta

Guest
Over here, war was predicated on the simple statement that 'we know he has WMD and he is an immediate threat to our security.'

That's it, and any talk of regime change or liberation as motive was quashed by the Govt instantly.
 

pgaglio

Used Car Salesman
May 2, 2003
260
0
0
Detroit/Motown, USA
Visit site
Originally posted by duffistuta
Over here, war was predicated on the simple statement that 'we know he has WMD and he is an immediate threat to our security.'

That's it, and any talk of regime change or liberation as motive was quashed by the Govt instantly.
From what limited portions of Blair's speeches I heard, it seemed there was more to it than that. Obviously you have a better perspective than I, since I'm not a close follower of UK news.
 

crom-dubh

WHATEVER...
Sep 9, 2001
847
0
0
watford
Visit site
I still fail to see where Bush (or Blair for that matter) lied about any of the reasons for going to war in Iraq. The Administration's case for the war here in the US went substantially beyond the issue of WMDs.


So what were the other reasons?
 

headrock6

Bloody Yanks!!
Jun 5, 2002
591
0
0
Strong Island
Visit site
Fact police.

Originally posted by Buddha 3
First of all, the Dutch peacekeepers that were brought up earlier in this thread did not turn their tails and left. It was the Dutch government which sent them in there with a lousy mandate. For some reason they had decided that they were supposed to keep the big, bad warring parties away from eachother (good move), but to do so, they shouldn't send any offensive weapons (what?). No tanks were sent in. The only Dutch armour that was sent to Bosnia was the YPR "Battle taxi", which had it's turret with 25mm Oerlikon gun removed and replaced with a .50 calibre machine gun armed cuppola, because they figured that the Serbs might take offense at the 25mm gun...(what what!?). For the rest, they were only armed with light infantry weapons, so when the Serbs came in with tanks and such, there wasn't much they could do about it, even though they tried, and some lost their lifes in the process. It was the Dutch government which tied the hands of the peacekeepers.

Okay people, continue your debate. :D
I wasnt really trying to slam the Dutch Jay..Your correct that 1000 Dutch raw recruits and basically unarmed,sent to keep the peace was quite ridiculous..My point was the Liberians arent screaming for the French's protection and was in response to the Somalia reference..I should have said why I think UN peacekeepers are worthless but I was lazy..But I will now:D

In Somalia,the US was there UNILATERALLY on a humanitarian mission under Bush Sr to stop warlords from stealing international food relief from a starving Somali population...Just 1 month into Clintons administration,The UN magically stepped into rebuild a Somalian state that that had dissapeared...

Within a few months the UN had US troops target a warlord stuck in the middle of Mogadishu..We all know what happened without having to rehash the story again..22 American soldiers dead...1000 Somali thugs killed..Pakistan refused to send tanks and heavily armored vehicles which were well at thier disposal..So what happened next you ask??Well Clinton withdrew the US military,and the UN mission collapsed..Go figure:rolleyes: ..Soon after Clinton went before the UN General Assembly and stated the US would NEVER again put its military under UN command..Maybe one of his wisest decisions ever...

Now skip to Bosnia..Serbs,Bosnians,and Muslims are slaughtering each other on all sides with the Serbs being the worst offender..EU Nato countries put themselves under UN control again..There was no peace,just a raging war..So you would think the French,Brits,Dutch,and Pakistanis would either turn into peace enforcers ready to fight and take sides,or withdraw all together..Instead we got a farce in peacekeepeing..A few dozen half drunk Serb irregulars could could halt an armored column of Brits or French,humiliate them,imprison them in warehouses and prevent aid from reaching Muslim outposts..Paris,London,and Amsterdam refused US offers of airpower..So 30,000 French,Brits,and Dutch peacekeepers literally became hostages..From 1993 to 1995 we concentrated on rescue missions in case they had to be saved from either being executed by Serbs or other locals..

Then it gets worse..I wont rehash the Sbrenica massacre but that was the one with the Dutch..But I dont blame them..I blame the UN for not ordering airstrikes..After that Clinton,used massive airstrikes and within days,the end of the Serb offensive..The US then sent heavily armed forces in to keep the peace alongside the Brits,French,and Pakistanis..The Russians even tagged along but under US authority as they also wanted nothing to do with being under UN authority..So far the peace has held..

The French and Belgians under UN authority in Rwanda were withdrawn,rather than fighting the genocidal Hutu's and masscares occured...3.5 million have died in Congos civil war and the French idly sit by..

From Somalia,Rwanda,Bosnia,and othe places the UN has been worthless when it comes to peacekeeping..All they do is hinder progress and then run when any form of danger occurs..So people can hate Americas military might all they want,but when peace is needed,America answers the call...


Im done ranting as well:)
 

headrock6

Bloody Yanks!!
Jun 5, 2002
591
0
0
Strong Island
Visit site
Originally posted by crom-dubh

So what were the other reasons?



Well lets see..First is to drain the swamp of terrorist thugs..I dont see much difference between a man who funds 19 hijackers to fly planes into buildings and a man who sends 40 million dollars to familes of people who blow up civilians on buses..The ringleader of the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in which a vacationing crippled American was shot in the head and dumped off the boat ends up being caught in Iraq..An airplane at Salman Pak sits to be used for terrorist training in the dessert..Terrorist camps in the north are wiped out in the early days of the war..


In the 80's Israel blows up a nuclear reactor supplied by the French..In 91 UN inspectors find an Nuke program more advanced than anyone thought..In 2003,we find Nuke parts hidden in a rose garden and a scientist who was told to hide these until sanctions are lifted..Unless you believe Saddam repented his old evil ways,Neville Chamberlaining the issue just doesnt fly anymore when people are trying to murder us..
 

crom-dubh

WHATEVER...
Sep 9, 2001
847
0
0
watford
Visit site
Within a few months the UN had US troops target a warlord stuck in the middle of Mogadishu..We all know what happened without having to rehash the story again..22 American soldiers dead...1000 Somali thugs killed..Pakistan refused to send tanks and heavily armored vehicles which were well at thier disposal..So what happened next you ask??Well Clinton withdrew the US military,and the UN mission collapsed..Go figure ..Soon after Clinton went before the UN General Assembly and stated the US would NEVER again put its military under UN command..Maybe one of his wisest decisions ever...

Headrock. I was under the impression that many of the cock ups in Somalia were due to to the US acting without informing the UN as what they were doing. UN staff being arrested, Un buildings being raided, raids in Mog without informing the Pakistanis so the UN troops were totally unprepared for the rescue mission, etc.

Well lets see..First is to drain the swamp of terrorist thugs..I dont see much difference between a man who funds 19 hijackers to fly planes into buildings and a man who sends 40 million dollars to familes of people who blow up civilians on buses..The ringleader of the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in which a vacationing crippled American was shot in the head and dumped off the boat ends up being caught in Iraq..An airplane at Salman Pak sits to be used for terrorist training in the dessert..Terrorist camps in the north are wiped out in the early days of the war..


OK so the only evidence of Saddam supporting terrorists who are a threat to the US was found AFTER the war? I was under the impression this evidence existed before the war and was a reason why we went in. Have the links to Al quida been proved yet?

In the 80's Israel blows up a nuclear reactor supplied by the French..In 91 UN inspectors find an Nuke program more advanced than anyone thought..In 2003,we find Nuke parts hidden in a rose garden and a scientist who was told to hide these until sanctions are lifted..Unless you believe Saddam repented his old evil ways,Neville Chamberlaining the issue just doesnt fly anymore when people are trying to murder us..

Ok so even if (and thats a big IF) Saddam was willing to strike the USA with weapons of mass destuction (which we still cannot prove he owned), there is no evidence whatsoever of him owning a delivery system which could reach US soil.
 

headrock6

Bloody Yanks!!
Jun 5, 2002
591
0
0
Strong Island
Visit site
EDIT:JTHM-glad I could serve a purpose:)..The thing that bothers me most is that even though every country agreed he had them,everyone acts now like,see,see,I told you so..Its a joke..Hans Blix was on BBC yesterday saying he was surprised none were found because him and his team thought they were there??This is the UN poster boy saying they were there and everyone but us took his word like he was God..Duff might be the only one who outsmarted us all cuz he really didnt think they had any to begin with..



Originally posted by crom-dubh


Headrock. I was under the impression that many of the cock ups in Somalia were due to to the US acting without informing the UN as what they were doing. UN staff being arrested, Un buildings being raided, raids in Mog without informing the Pakistanis so the UN troops were totally unprepared for the rescue mission, etc.


Well first off movies arent very accurate..The UN ordered them in!!Navy Seals were in Mogadishu as well yet they arent even mentioned in the movie..Ever seen Braveheart??Great movie,just not very accurate:rolleyes:



Originally posted by crom-dubh
OK so the only evidence of Saddam supporting terrorists who are a threat to the US was found AFTER the war? I was under the impression this evidence existed before the war and was a reason why we went in. Have the links to Al quida been proved yet?


Forget Al Qaeda for just one sec...Its a war on terror..The ricin that thugs wanted to drop in the middle of London probably came form the north of Iraq..I dont care if its Al Qaeda,Hamas,the IRA,people who hijack American tourists on a ship,or some thug from the US who blows up a government building..I dont differenciate..Never have...



Originally posted by crom-dubh
Ok so even if (and thats a big IF) Saddam was willing to strike the USA with weapons of mass destuction (which we still cannot prove he owned), there is no evidence whatsoever of him owning a delivery system which could reach US soil.



So Saddam just terrorizing his neighbors because he cant reach us is ok??Heres a guy who has attempted to get Nukes for the last 20 years and im supposed to feel alot better that its ok he has em because he cant reach our shores??:rolleyes: ..Im sure Kuwait,Israel,Turkey,and Saudi Arabia would love that logic..Its not all about the US..Look at North Korea real closely...And your telling me thats the situation we should have waited for before removing him??Sorry but I just dont see us sending 150,000 troops into a madmans country who wouldnt hesitate to unleash one...
 

crom-dubh

WHATEVER...
Sep 9, 2001
847
0
0
watford
Visit site
LOL dude.

Ok the info I have on Somalia did not come from the movie. In fact the movie doesnt mention all of the bumbled missions before Mog.

I recall that Bush and Blair tried to tell us that Saddam had links to Al qaeda and that was one of the reasons going to war. I asked if they have proved that yet.

Again Saddams WMD's were a threat to the US was another reason for going to war. I ask again how was this possible and have they found any proof to substansiate this claim.


The problem I have is that every time someone questions the original motives for going to war, no one wants to give a direct answer.

Over to you Headrock :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.