Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 92
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    If anybody took the time to read what Tommy Franks actually thought...Franks clearly is disappointed in the Iraqis, who, in his view, initially chose looting and insurgency over “pulling themselves together to reform their country.” And he faults the international community, which never committed “serious numbers of peacekeepers or funds” to help Iraq after Saddam. During the planning, Franks and his team expected that 150,000 international troops would join U.S. forces in the post-war phase. They never materialized.


    This is probably the reason we are behind schedule
    There is probably no doubt that not having support there when Saddam was toppled sure hasnt helped our timeline.

    But the other part of that is that we shouldnt have really expected the international community to come running in to help when we didnt include them in the decision to come in (but its not Franks fault...especially if he was told to expect it.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    You would leave the country (most likely) in the hands of Uday and/or Qusay, who probably made Saddam look like jamespaulritter. Is that what you want??
    I don't know that much about them...would they have had the balls to do what they have done thusfar if they didnt have their little daddy to hide behind?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I don't know that much about them...would they have had the balls to do what they have done thusfar if they didnt have their little daddy to hide behind?
    From the Wiki
    Although his status as Saddam Hussein's eldest son once made him the prospective successor to his father, Uday fell out of favor with Saddam for his extravagance and recklessness. In October 1988, at a party thrown in the honor of the wife of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Uday beat and stabbed to death his father's personal valet and food taster, Kemal Hana Gegeo. Gegeo had recently introduced Saddam to a beautiful, younger woman, Samira Shahbandar, who later became Saddam's second wife. Uday took this as an insult to his mother (his father's first cousin). While drunk, Uday carried out the murder coolly and coldly, bludgeoning Gegeo repeatedly in front of horrified guests before finishing him off with a steak knife. Mubarak later called Uday a "psychopath."

    A report on March 20, 2003 by ABC news made several allegations against Uday:

    * As head of the Iraqi Olympic Committee, Uday oversaw the imprisonment and torture of Iraqi athletes who were deemed not to have performed to expectations. According to widespread reports, torturers beat and caned the soles of the soccer players' feet. The experience is intensely painful, but leaves no marks on the rest of the body.
    * A former member of the French foreign ministry claimed that Uday and his bodyguards had forced their way into the hotel room of a French couple and forced them at gunpoint to perform sex acts so that Uday could video tape them for later re-viewing.
    * A former Uday look-alike who had served in the past as a body double, now living in the West, claimed that Uday was unable to perform sexually without causing pain and drawing blood from his sexual partners. The double said that Uday had raped numerous women, including a visiting Russian ballerina.
    * Uday has purchased or stolen approximately 1200 luxury automobiles, including a Rolls-Royce Corniche valued at over $200,000.Uday is reported to have arrived at a polling station during a referendum on his father's regime in a pink Rolls-Royce.

    Other allegations include:

    * Uday feeding victims into a wood-chipping machine, or throwing them into an acid vat. No evidence of such torture has been found.
    * Uday kidnapping young, attractive Iraqi women from the streets in order to rape them. No evidence of this allegation has been produced either, but it was widely known that Uday would crash parties and otherwise "discover" women who he would later rape. Time magazine ran an article in 2003 detailing his sexual brutality, which did include the use of acid, and that he sometimes killed women after raping them.


    After the war, a correspondent for TIME magazine discovered an iron maiden of undetermined age and origin in the grounds outside the Olympic building. An iron maiden is a sarcophagus with spikes facing inward that puncture the victim's body. There is no evidence that it was ever used.

    "Around 7 feet tall, three feet across and deep enough to house a grown man, the sarcophagus-shaped device found in Baghdad was clearly worn from use, its nails having lost some of their sharpness. It lay on its side within view of Uday's first-floor offices in the soccer association. Ironically, the torture device was brought to TIME's attention by a group of looters who had been stripping the compound of anything of value. They had left behind the iron maiden, believing it to be worthless."

    Anything else you'd like to know?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    For the purpose of?
    Sometimes I wonder if you really read the posts in some of these forums.

    Go back and read what he said. The purpose wopuld be to keep the terrorists in one place and not attacking the US. I amamzed that this isn't more obvious.



    Your hosting prices are pretty high too.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  5. #45  
    More Uday, from ESPN

    As president of the Iraqi National Olympic Committee, Uday allegedly tortures athletes for losing games. He sticks them in prison for days or months at a time. Has them beaten with iron bars. Caned on the soles of their feet. Chained to walls and left to stay in contorted positions for days. Dragged on pavement until their backs are bloody, then dunked in sewage to ensure the wounds become infected. If Uday stops by a player's jail cell, he might ******* on his bowed, shaven head. Just to humiliate him.
    But far less is known about Uday's treatment of Iraqi athletes, whose accounts suggest they were tortured for reasons that are not always apparent -- but had nothing to do with politics or crime.

    Some athletes say he does it to encourage better performances. Others say he does it just for fun.

    "The word that suits him is sadist," said Latif Yahia, who as Uday's former body double and a member of his entourage claims to have witnessed the punishment of about 10 athletes. "I think Saddam's more human than Uday."
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  6. #46  
    The main difference between the two plans is that if we invade, its arguable that 2000 American lives will be lost and 200 Billion dollars would be spent.

    If we don't go in, it not clear how or when we would feel the damages of not acting.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    After reading through your Not Invade list, I think I tend to agree. It sounds like to me a perfect scenario of the same thing over the previous 12 years, but now in a post 9/11 world with emboldended terror orgs.
    Its arguable that not only 9/11 has emboldended but our invasion of Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It looks like we would have given Saddam more time to accomplish the nuke program he testified he was working on to get back in place.
    I would think that it would be easier for him to buy one than make one.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It would have given the AQ that fled to Iraq a safe haven to continue to get stronger.
    Arguably, by claiming that we are in the war on terrorism, we could have made strikes in Iraq on the camps without declaring war on Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    But due to political climate in Iraq's regime, we would have lost even more control of the situation. If he did have WMDs at his finger tips, it would be a scary situation with an unkown leader at the sitting at the button while feeling pretty scared after what we just did to Saddam.
    I am pretty sure (I know your not) that we knew he didnt have WMD, at least not the convential kind that somebody else could have done anything against us with if we took out Saddam.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Ah....oil for food money made sanctions a weakened option.
    I know that now...but why didnt we find out about this earlier. I dont understand why we couldnt figure out he was getting over on us??

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    As for inspectors....Saddam played them like clowns for 12 years! He lied he had no WMDs when he did. He lied that he didn't have them when he didn't and he wouldn't let anyone else in without being obstructed to veriy which lies were true...if any. How bad is it when we are required to anounce 24 hours ahead of time the exact location we are going conduct a "surprise" inspection?
    We accepted those restrictions...we could have renegotiated the deal right before we went in if needed. If he refused, we could have used that in our favor with the UN security council and our international partners.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Big difference with the Cold War is USSR already had Nukes and Saddam didn't....yet..but was trying to get them as soon as possible....and the USSR did not have a history of using or supporting terrorist groups to attack it's enemies in a post 9/11 enviroment.
    Fair enough. But its not clear (at least to me) that Saddam supported AQ to attack us (not that he didnt support AQ). As I was typing this...I wonder if the real winner here is Bin Laden? What if he played Saddam for support knowing full well that he was going to go after the US? (new conspiracy theory )

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    They already had training camps in N Iraq. They fled there after Afgan. They were there, using the country to get stronger again.
    Nothing stops us (especially now in the international eyes) from taking them out with strategic missile and bomb attacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Those mountains humbled the two strongest nations (Russia and US) in the history of the world.
    I think we have done a pretty good job considering we didnt have Pakistan's support in the beginning. We just need more troops. AQ has been packing it back and forth at their leisure.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    The Gov of the countries in the area need to crack down on terror groups in their country and not actively support them and give them aid, safe haven, and resources. Until that happens, we are just giving them more time to regroup and attack again.
    I totally agree. We clamp down on the borders of Iraq with everything and we squeeze it until we choke every single insurgent. Lets stop messing around and get serious.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. #47  
    Insertion: fine...they are both bad people...so lets whack em...Soprano style ;-)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8.    #48  
    It's funny....Da jumped in right away without even reading what the thread was about and started bashing it to the ground.....but then fill silent when I asked out of honest interest why. Is he going to pass up a friendly opportunity to support his point of view.......even when I am willing to be persuaded that there might have been a better choice with potentially bette consequences given the political and intel challenges at the time.

    I am still fairly new the Off Topic thread, but is this common for him? If not, life probably just got busy.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It's funny....Da jumped in right away without even reading what the thread was about and started bashing it to the ground.....but then fill silent when I asked out of honest interest why. Is he going to pass up a friendly opportunity to support his point of view.......even when I am willing to be persuaded that there might have been a better choice with potentially bette consequences given the political and intel challenges at the time.

    I am still fairly new the Off Topic thread, but is this common for him? If not, life probably just got busy.
    I cant speak for DA (or for Howard Dean...LOL I couldnt resist )...that being said:

    I dont support the argument (and I have seen it in other threads as well) that 'we' (whomever you interpret that to be ) cannot be critical without offering an alternative (it assumes that there is an alternative).

    If someone does offer an alternative (especially to this Iraq situation), I think they will see its very difficult and you will have to operate on various assumptions either way.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I cant speak for DA (or for Howard Dean...LOL I couldnt resist )...that being said:

    I dont support the argument (and I have seen it in other threads as well) that 'we' (whomever you interpret that to be ) cannot be critical without offering an alternative (it assumes that there is an alternative).

    If someone does offer an alternative (especially to this Iraq situation), I think they will see its very difficult and you will have to operate on various assumptions either way.
    No...you did great....and I appreciate and respect that. You had a possibly differing point of view and backed it up with why. We discuss and we learn each other's point of view. May not agree in the end. That is fine. That is natural. But we are the wiser for sharing, listening, and thinking about other's points of view. Because you have done that, we have agreed on a lot of stuff that at first we thought we looking at totally differently.

    But there are those on all sides, though lately at least it does seem to happen more on the far left Dem side, that do that Hit and Run tactic. Disagree, say your wrong, you screwed up....and then run away without offering any suggestions of what we could have done better, or why they felt they screwed up. I posted a link the Good Bad Iraq thread that pointed several examples of bad Dem & Rep expressions of the war and also some good examples of Dems that shared they disagreed with the Pres but also gave another alternative and suggestions. There is a big difference.
  11.    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    The main difference between the two plans is that if we invade, its arguable that 2000 American lives will be lost and 200 Billion dollars would be spent.

    If we don't go in, it not clear how or when we would feel the damages of not acting.
    I agree it is a heck of choice......

    If you were responsible for 200 million Americans, would you have been confident enough given the intel available at the time given my answers below...or the lack of intel you are able to confirm (i.e. that Saddam really did NOT have WMDs) to leave it to fate for such a strike not to happen?

    Its arguable that not only 9/11 has emboldended but our invasion of Iraq.

    So would it be better and safer to leave the terrorist only encouraged by only 9/11 with a safe haven in Iraq?

    I would think that it would be easier for him to buy one than make one.
    By his OWN testimony he was planning on getting his own nuke program back into operation. It was going to happen.

    Arguably, by claiming that we are in the war on terrorism, we could have made strikes in Iraq on the camps without declaring war on Iraq.
    And leave a productive terrorist enviroment in place for them come back 10 days later?

    Kind of opposite of teach a man to fish and he never goes hungry thing.....take away all terrorist support group.....ie, stop gov from giving them money, aid, supplies, safe havens.....and it is harder to operate, grow, and strike back.

    I am pretty sure (I know your not) that we knew he didnt have WMD, at least not the convential kind that somebody else could have done anything against us with if we took out Saddam.
    The nature of intelligence is gathering all the facts and making a decision of the possibilities of the outcome of that information. It is extremely rare to have a smoking gun in hand whenever making a decision (cuba missile crisis being the ONLY one in modern warfare history I can recall as the exeception to this rule, besides waiting to be attacked as proof such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 which is least to say counter productive). There was confirmation from over 10 nation's inteligence agencies AND from the UN intel that Saddam had WMDs and that is about as close as you can get to that though. Remember that that this was in a time were we were already attacked and know that it will happen again if given half a chance. Given the nature of Saddams continual deceptions he recently admitted to on 7/25/2004 where he purposely tried to give the impression he had WMD until he could finalize his plans and bribes to get WMDs again....and given the strong probability at the time he had direct and established connections to Alq....( CLICK HERE and CLICK HERE ) .....given the fact that inspections were not working because Saddam admitted to trying to deceive them with a vengance so that we did NOT know he did not have them and more importantly so that Iran did not find out he did not have any for fear of being attacked by them....this all has to be considered when analyizing the risk to national security of another homeland attack with either a bio or nuke strike on US soil by waiting until it happend as proof to go after Saddam who was trying his hardest to make it look like he was in a position to do it?

    I know that now...but why didnt we find out about this earlier. I dont understand why we couldnt figure out he was getting over on us??
    That is what always bothered me most about scandals......they always try to cover them up!

    We accepted those restrictions...we could have renegotiated the deal right before we went in if needed. If he refused, we could have used that in our favor with the UN security council and our international partners.
    Those were the renegotiated terms of the deal that the UN made as a last ditch effort to conduct inspections. If we did not agree to all of Saddams outrageous conditions to trivialize the inspections, he completely refused to let them back in. I really do think it is often down played how many chances we gave Saddam during 12 years of simply trying to verify his lies about WMDs or not. It was under these silly conditions that tied the hands of the inspectors that France insisted was going to work.....just give them more time to inspect, so we can still get more money coming out the back door.

    As I was typing this...I wonder if the real winner here is Bin Laden? What if he played Saddam for support knowing full well that he was going to go after the US? (new conspiracy theory )
    Wouldn't put it past him. Wouldn't be the first time it happened in history.

    I think we have done a pretty good job considering we didnt have Pakistan's support in the beginning. We just need more troops. AQ has been packing it back and forth at their leisure.
    The russians had the troops committed and they still could not handle a land war in those mountains. I haven't been there, but by all accounts, talking to friends who served there, etc... it is one heck of a nasty place to fighting.

    How many more times the troops than we currently have in Iraq would you want to put in the mountains to accomplish that?
  12. #52  
    Have a healthy, meatless holiday

    On this Fourth of July, let's stay healthy by declaring our independence from the meat industry. Let's enjoy wholesome meat alternatives, grains, vegetables and fruits at our holiday feast. Right
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Have a healthy, meatless holiday

    On this Fourth of July, let's stay healthy by declaring our independence from the meat industry. Let's enjoy wholesome meat alternatives, grains, vegetables and fruits at our holiday feast. Right
    I shall indulge myself with plenty of cow this weekend. If it weren't expected to be in the '80's this weekend, I would also wrap myself in it's hide.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Have a healthy, meatless holiday

    On this Fourth of July, let's stay healthy by declaring our independence from the meat industry. Let's enjoy wholesome meat alternatives, grains, vegetables and fruits at our holiday feast. Right
    Good idea. (I hope your being serious).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    But there are those on all sides, though lately at least it does seem to happen more on the far left Dem side,
    I think because the conservatives are in office, the Dems are always going to be the ones voicing concern over our actions (some Reps will too but obviously even if they feel as strongly, they wont speak as loudly because of the politics involved).

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    ...that do that Hit and Run tactic. Disagree, say your wrong, you screwed up....and then run away without offering any suggestions of what we could have done better, or why they felt they screwed up. There is a big difference.
    There is but thats the argument I pointed out earlier.

    If everytime I disagreed and the only time I could voice that disagreement was if I could come up with a suggestion or a better way...I might not EVER be able to dissent with my opinion. The other side to that though is that just because I cant come up with a better way or a suggestion or alternative doesnt automatically mean that my suggestion or point of view is wrong.

    I dont think that is the standard that we should choose to apply before speaking. I do think though that we should always be open to sitting down and discussing our points of view with each other (as politicians should do) in order to come up with a better plan or goal.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I dont think that is the standard that we should choose to apply before speaking. I do think though that we should always be open to sitting down and discussing our points of view with each other (as politicians should do) in order to come up with a better plan or goal.
    Very well said!
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Have a healthy, meatless holiday

    On this Fourth of July, let's stay healthy by declaring our independence from the meat industry. Let's enjoy wholesome meat alternatives, grains, vegetables and fruits at our holiday feast. Right
    I'll take a great big rib-eye, medium-rare thanks
  18. #58  
    Maybe there was no alternative to invading Iraq, who knows, because - wait, here's a little pre-weekend puzzle: Bush recently said in an interview "xxx" in the Middle East was "a national security problem". What was the "xxx" he was talking about, was it

    (A) WMD
    (B) Terrorism
    (C) Israel
    (D) Oil

    ???






    Ok, you guessed right because it was me who asked: D, oil.


    "We're hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem"
    (George W. Bush)
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Maybe there was no alternative to invading Iraq, who knows, because - wait, here's a little pre-weekend puzzle: Bush recently said in an interview "xxx" in the Middle East was "a national security problem". What was the "xxx" he was talking about, was it

    (A) WMD
    (B) Terrorism
    (C) Israel
    (D) Oil

    ???






    Ok, you guessed right because it was me who asked: D, oil.


    "We're hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem"
    (George W. Bush)
    Yawn - oh well, at least you're consistent
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Yawn - oh well, at least you're consistent
    Come on, you have to admit that until now it was not official that not only WMD or Terrorism, but als oil from the Middle East (or the potential lack thereof) were a national security problem for the US.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions