How the hell did Bush get back in??

Re: interesting link

Rabbit, there didn't seem to be any problems negotiating with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war.
 
They were more innocent times, long before Gulf War One, the gassing of the Kurds, the Muslim threat and 9/11 etc Anyway , two wrongs never would make a right, and America is correct to learn from past mistakes rather than basing their policy on past mistakes.
 
Re Guantanamo...I support the US detention of terrorist fighters in Guantanamo. After what they've done I'm surprised they are being treated as well as they are. Personally, I'd be prepared to get harsher if I had some of them in my hands and I knew they had information I needed to save lives. Abu Ghraib would have been a holiday camp compared to what I would do to them. The fact that the US military put its people on trial over that, and then jailed them was further evidence that the Yanks do try to use restraint and proper process.
Click to expand...

This is a very telling post. Full of hatred. Some of these people in Guantanamo are only guilty of living in the wrong place, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time - namely Afghanistan - a place which you hold up as a fine example of democracy. How many Afghanis have you spoken with to confirm this view? Surely you formed this view through thorough investigation of the facts, by consulting all data from all sides and reaching a reasonable conclusion?
Also, having observed you attacking Piggy about his stance on violence I find it quite repugnant that you speak of Abu Ghriab and refer to it as a holiday camp compared to what you would do to them. There are few enough things that seperate us all from animals, and one of those things is respect for the lives and wellbeing of others. This is not simply an emotional position. We have laws on war, and the treatment of prisoners of war.
Do you respect the law, Asimov? If so, how can you condone Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib?
If not, then what the hell are the allies fighting for? Is the law not a fundamental part of any democracy?

The west has its hands tied behind its back in this war by the system of civil and human rights we operate under.
Click to expand...

Our system of civil and human rights are what makes us free. Do not be so eager to stamp them into the ground. People have fought and died for them. They are the very things we cherish, and must convince others to cherish also, by doing the right thing, so we can say to these people to DO AS WE DO, not as we say to do.

The animals we are fighting have no such constraints. They hold televised decapitations...and all you can do is squeal about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? Give me a break!
Click to expand...

We have constraints because we value our lives, our culture and our society. Without constraints there is chaos. Survival of the fittest. Without constraints, what are we offering the people of Iraq?
 
Lets start back there with...Piggy!

I could talk about Palestine and Israel but it's too broad a subject to get into here.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not surprised you want to avoid that subject Piggy. You're pretty quick to blame it all on the Yanks, but when some counter arguments are presented you run away.

And you say it "..remains to be seen" if democracy works in Afghanistan?
Man...its already working! They just held FREE, FAIR and PEACEFUL democratic elections in the country and elected a democratic leadership. Anyone who attempts to depose that democratic government is no 'freedom fighter' as you would call them, but terrorists and criminals.

I just had a look at all those links you provided.
Did you actually read the texts you propose to defend your points with? They seem to run counter to your own argument!
Let me demonstrate:

[broken link removed]
"With JSOW (Cluster Bombs) we can attack SAMs [surface-to-air missiles] from well outside the threat rings and destroy rather than suppress" the target, a Navy document notes. In other words, years of bombing in Iraq have had less than spectacular results of Iraq’s air defenses and the U.S. military is looking for some way of causing more permanent damage to the country's military capabilities. On average 5 percent do not detonate.
Click to expand...

So the US military defines the target of JSOWs as military installations - not personnel! And in no place in that article does it say that the US has ever used them to TARGET civilians. The 5% fail rate of detonations is the cause of rare civilian casualties after the fact. Civilians walking into target areas afterward and picking up unexploded munitions.
That can happen with any kind of explosive weapon Piggy. Perhaps you've heard, but they still have to carry out mine clearing and bomb disposal from First and Second World War munitions!
95% detonation rate is very high, and accuracy is better than you get with your average terrorist car bomb.

Piggylink
American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.
Click to expand...
And your problem with this is....????


Regarding Depleted Uranium. This is a heavy metal used to tip certain armour piercing shells. Those shells are highly succesful in killing Tanks, hardened bunkers and Armored weapons. They are a key weapon therefore in battlefield warfare.
The uranium tip emits low level radiation (that is - Alpha radiation) - which also forms the background radiation we live with every day, and which is also emitted by common appliances in the home such as TVs.
According to Prof Ian McAulay of Dublin's Trinity University who carried out the EU study:
"I don't think there is any reason to be afraid - in the case of the average back garden, there is as much uranium as you would find in a shell" !!
BBC Article

Anotherperson:
Oh, when were the trials then? - I must of missed those.
Click to expand...
I believe trials are starting - with Moussaoui, the 20th WTC hijacker who missed his flight. I guess they'll all get a fair trial in the end. I'm not sure they deserve it personally. I hope Moussaoui gets the death sentence he richly deserves.

Marie:
Asimov - I wonder if you have any theories as to why George W. Bush, intolerant of what he felt to be the slowness of the work of the UN Weapons Inspectors led by Hans Bick, did not propose sorting his differences with Saddam Hussein out around a negotiating table?.........
Click to expand...

Actually Marie, if you would just read my posts you'll already know that I did not support the invasion of Iraq...I'll remind you....."I think it is a bloody waste of young American lives and a lot of taxpayers money." (pg 4 11/11/04 1:33 am).
I'd have just let the Iraqis stew under Saddam, and encouraged him to continue fighting the Iranians.
Much more productive to see them killing each other.
To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson..."I don't see why young American boys should be doin' for the Iraqis what they oughtta be doin' for themselves."

Shnaek:
I think I've answered your point in what I've written above.
Our system of rights works when people respect the system from both sides. The animals caught fighting out of uniform would have just been summarily executed in past wars. Shot as spies or saboteurs. Unfortunately we don't do that any more. Instead we give them clean clothes, food, a bed and a fair hearing. And we then let them go to attack us again!

U.S. military officials say that despite being freed in exchange for signing pledges to renounce violence, at least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to terrorism, at times with deadly consequences.
Click to expand...
[broken link removed]

I have a deep and abiding hatred of people who creep around in the dark, stabbing in the back, planting bombs that are INTENDED to kill civilians, murdering innocent men by gruesome evil decapitations, always hiding their face and fading away when faced with an opponent who will fight them standing up and face to face.
They aren't 'freedom fighters' - they are bullies and cowards!

I would love to be one of those Marines in Fallujah getting real payback from those s**ts. What a pleasure that would be, to put a bullet in one of them myself.
 
The uranium tip emits low level radiation (that is - Alpha radiation) - which also forms the background radiation we live with every day, and which is also emitted by common appliances in the home such as TVs.
Click to expand...

Did you not learn about alpha radiation in school? Alpha sources are not the nicest things to inhale or ingest.

Anotherperson:

Quote:Oh, when were the trials then? - I must of missed those.

I believe trials are starting - with Moussaoui, the 20th WTC hijacker who missed his flight. I guess they'll all get a fair trial in the end. I'm not sure they deserve it personally. I hope Moussaoui gets the death sentence he richly deserves.
Click to expand...

Guilty until proven innocent. American justice!
These people have been locked up for years.
 
He's as guilty as hell. A trial is superfluous.

As to the rest of them...better locked up than running around Fallujah, eh? The poor dears might get hurt by a nasty American.

PS...I recommend you don't inhale or ingest your TV. Likewise stay out of Iraqi tanks and bunkers during wartime.
 
PS...I recommend you don't inhale or ingest your TV
Click to expand...

Eh? I don't own a TV.

Are you suggesting that DU is 100% safe, and inhaling the dust is harmless?
 
I'm suggesting that if you are close enough to an exploding Depleted Uranium tipped shell to inhale it...you're already dead.
Shouldn't have been in that Iraqi tank, should you, silly person.

PS Get a TV, tune it to FOX News and rip the knob off! :lol
 
Asimov, you don't have to be right next to a DU shell on impact to experience the effects of DU. The DU breaks up and goes into the air so everyone gets a chance to breathe some in.
 
According to Prof Ian McAulay of Dublin's Trinity University who carried out the EU study: "I don't think there is any reason to be afraid - in the case of the average back garden, there is as much uranium as you would find in a shell" !!
Click to expand...

So don't dig you garden either...you'll breath in Alpha radiation and contaminate the neighbourhood.

Are you suggesting the cessation of use of all DU tipped shells? Is there any international agreement on this? Or do you just want Americans to stop using them unilaterally? Do the Russians use them? Did the Iraqis or Iranians use them? Would they use them if they had them?

You live in a Utopia where everyone fights fair and war is clean and clinical.

Dream on.
 
Asimov - are you trolling?

Don't talk about Fox News. It has to be the most biased one sided pieces of trash ever to be broadcast. It is a lot more biased than Al Jazeera ever was.

BTW. A question I often asked, and will ask again.

What has Iraq ever done to America?

I am not talking about how bad they are or what they *might* do, but what DID they do?
 
Gee, you have a short memory.

Saddam invaded Kuwait. An ally of the US and a friendly peaceful country.

When the US asked him politely to leave...he refused.

When the Americans went there to throw him out - he set his army on them, killing lots of Americans and Kuwaitis.

And when he was beaten, his retreating army tried to burn Kuwait to the ground.

That about started it.

Any other questions?

The Fox News comment was a joke by the way...ha ha.
Lighten up.

Then again...since you mention Al Jaz...the two are equal and opposite. I doubt you've ever watched Al Jaz for more than a few minutes. Are you a fully paid up subscriber?
 
Re: Asimov - are you trolling?

Gee, you have a short memory.
Click to expand...

What are we talking about here?

I know what started the whole thing, and I know how evil the entire regime was, and how many people must have died under Saddam, and how the normal Iraqis hate him, and how he was just a ganster.
I agree with all that, but wasn't this all settled 13 years ago when sanctions were placed on them until they rid themselves of WMDs.
They were no threat to anyone.
An American Bush supporter recently told me that it was better to fight on the streets of Baghdad than the streets of New York.
My point is that I *think* we can assume that Iraq had no WMDs. If they had, either they would have used at least one, or they would have been found. With 130k Americans with billions of dollars of the most advanced equipement, whether it be satellites, or spy planes, I find it hard to believe that he had anything dangerous any more.
Even the rifles/handhelp weapons of the army was no match for them.
There is no way Saddam and Bin Laden were ever making deals together. They never would because they hate what each other stands for.

If we know this now, then I am very sure the American intellegence knew it two years ago!

The point is (another one), that Iraq invaded Kuwait on some trumped up charge of it stealing one of its oil-fields, and was kicked out.
By the start of the war they were of no threat to anyone. Two-thirds of the country was under the American/British control anyway.

Why not give the weapons inspectors more time?
Why not spend a tiny fraction of the cost of war on more inspectors?

If he didn't comply with the demands, then surely the CIA could just assinate him? If he dies, the country opens up and there is no need for war.

Then again...since you mention Al Jaz...the two are equal and opposite. I doubt you've ever watched Al Jaz for more than a few minutes. Are you a fully paid up subscriber?
Click to expand...
I have only ever seen the news stories carried on Western Channels, but no way are they equal!

I would defer to the experts on this. John Simpson stands by that claim strongly. A point he even made about it was that Al Jazeera often gave time to broadcast stories and debates of why the Americans should attack Iraq.
I have never seen (and yes I do occassionally watch it) Fox be anything except pro-American.
I have seen that O Reilly do, what I would call, incite hatred of France. I could not believe how he went on how we should avoid everything French and how you can download anti-French bumper stickers from his web site. This was only a couple of months ago!
 
What did Iraq do to the US?

Saddam invaded Kuwait. An ally of the US and a friendly peaceful country.
Click to expand...
Iraq invaded Iran, not an ally of the US and not a friendly, peaceful country. That invasion led to the US supporting Iraq - the invasion isn't the problem, it's who gets invaded?
 
Re: Asimov - are you trolling?

Must I keep repeating myself?...read my previous posts...
Actually Marie, if you would just read my posts you'll already know that I did not support the invasion of Iraq...I'll remind you....."I think it is a bloody waste of young American lives and a lot of taxpayers money." (pg 4 11/11/04 1:33 am).
Click to expand...
Is that clear enough?

Iraq invaded Iran, not an ally of the US and not a friendly, peaceful country. That invasion led to the US supporting Iraq - the invasion isn't the problem, it's who gets invaded?
Click to expand...

Yeah!! Right ON!! That was when the US had a sensible policy of ensuring their enemies kept on killing each other instead of American kids.
Unfortunately Bush let 9-11 and the anger of the nation go to his head. He should've just stepped up the arms supplies to both sides and continued goading them to obliterate each other. I liked that policy a lot.

As for John Simpson praising Al Jazeera, I've Googled for 10 minutes but can't find any such quotes from him. I'm sure you can provide a link?
Not that I'm doubting you by the way, because I did find a BLOG by someone who quoted Simpson as also having said that
".... he thought Bin Laden had a "beautiful face" and, when commenting on Islam, that the horrible wailing coming from mosques was "such a beautiful sound".
Click to expand...

I'm sure you are also aware that at the beginning of the war Simpson was travelling on a road near Mosul when an American aircraft attacked his convoy, killing some of his escorts and almost killing him too.
I guess John has good reason to dislike America, so he's probably not the most unbiased reporter himself.

When an Islamic terrorist wants to get some publicity for his latest decapitation video (snuff movies...hard core porno) he just hands it into his friendly local Al Jaz station and he can be confident of having his 15 minutes of fame broadcast to the world. Thats real Public Service Broadcasting.
 
.

"I'm suggesting that if you are close enough to an exploding Depleted Uranium tipped shell to inhale it...you're already dead.
Shouldn't have been in that Iraqi tank, should you, silly person."


Well Trollismov it aint like that

Read what the Brit MOD have to say

[broken link removed]


A sample :

Reference 17. TAB 21/3107 – Clearance of Armoured Fighting Vehicles. The third
TAB concerns the clearance of Armoured Fighting Vehicles and lists DU as one of a number
of risks inherent in this task. The TAB references the other related TABs and the AERs, as
well as JSP 392. The TAB recommends an initial assessment for the presence of DU and
describes the recommended equipment for this task. When engaged in the clearance of
Armoured Fighting Vehicles, the TAB recommends that EOD operators wear a service
respirator and a full NBC suit as well as two pairs of gloves until the presence of DU is
positively discounted. The reliance on a service respirator is in recognition of the greater risk
faced by specialist EOD staff when entering or working for protracted periods in vehicles hit
by DU rounds.

i.e. Similar routine to that followed in the Pharma manufacturing industry when cleaning toxic areas

Nice ! eh ?
 
Asimov trolling?

One of the silent probable majority reading along (and enjoying it mostly for Asimov's perspicacity and good humor). To some others: Please don't resort to name calling, especially when it's a fog of a name like "troll"!
 
Avoiding Army Radiation Claims....

Of course, while there's any risk at all (even .000001%) soldiers should be told to wear lots of protection!
All over.

And don't forget the earplugs too!

Keeps those pesky lawyers at bay - y'know.

Thanks Chapman. My one and only fan.
 
?

Asimov - Unfortunately two beautifully crafted scintillatingly-intelligent ripostes "deleted" themselves as I'm having problems sending (get the message "All fields must be filled in"......then screen goes blank). Will try again later after the grocery-shopping.
 
legitimate leadership war "terrorism"

The system seems to be letting me post again now!

Asimov - You had made it clear you were not in agreement with Bush sending troops to Iraq on the grounds that it costs young American lives, but that as they were now there they should take out the insurgents/terrorists. You have also been explicit on your position regarding the treatment of suspected terrorists by the US soldiers. A number of posters quote breach of international agreements on treatment of prisoners and your response has been (to paraphrase) that they deserve it by dint of being terrorists/insurgents.

You hold me culpable and suggest I have blood on my hands for my attempts to understand the position of Iraqis currently fighting against the coalition forces in Iraq - specifically Falluja. You conflate attempts to understand the complex and deadly dynamics currently unfolding on the global stage with sympathy and agreement with murder and mayhem - which is not my position.

The original questioner was bewildered as to why Bush was re-elected to the US Presidency and I wondered if you had any theories on why Bush - arguably the most powerful world leader with the security of (probably?......the munitions experts on this thread will doubtless confirm!) the deadliest and biggest array of armaments, chooses to go invade a minor player such as Iraq rather than "get around the table" (which in a previous post you rightly say must in the end happen).

I have a theory about why Bush chose killing over talking but am interested to hear other views.

Evoking 9/11 cannot have been the provoking event or the American warships would have set off for the Gulf immediately. "Weapons of mass destruction" were not the provoking event as the thorough work of the Weapons Inspectors had revealed none and Saddam Hussein's vaunted "army" turned out to be a couple of thousand scared and confused young men who surrendered within days of the invasion.

Why couldn't (or wouldn't?) George Bush meet with Saddam Hussein within the full panoply of the international diplomatic community with the full support and backing of the UN which such an initiative would have automatically received?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top