Do you know for a fact they were turned down because they were gay ?
I know we had hardly any people that spoke Arabic.
I do know that we had little if any field operatives in many of these countries. We were forbidden to have them on the payroll because of possible human rights violators being on our payroll, wouldn't want that. We had no or little idea what was going on in many of these countries and the info we did have was not shared between agencies and it was spotty at best.
15 hours of taped conversation with JFK and his advisors were released today. Odd how thme more things change the more they stay the same.
Many of the concerns and debates Kennedy and his advisers engaged in over foreign policy and life at home four decades ago mirror those faced by the Bush administration today.
Among the highlights are conversations between Kennedy and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Earle Wheeler after his return from Vietnam. Wheeler advises the U.S. maintain the current level of support to the South Vietnamese, and informs the president that "the Viet Cong are not bleeding in this war. The South Vietnamese are bleeding."
In later discussion, an unidentified voice asks a question that the country would ponder years later: "How are you going to get out once you've gotten in?"
Kennedy also is heard lamenting what he views as softening support by French President Charles DeGaulle and other European leaders.
"They put out some pretty vicious stuff out of Paris every day," Kennedy says. "They either attack us for trying to dominate Europe or they attack us for withdrawing from Europe or that we won't use our nuclear force or that we'll get them into a war and they're not consulted."
Partisan nonsense. (Possibly unAmerican nonsense? I think that is what liberals said when Clinton was accused of using the military to direct attention away from his criminal acts.) The plans have been in place for a long time. The preparations have been in place for a long time. Even when the unusually high poll numbers were being reported.
Eleven weeks after the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution demanding yet again that Iraq disclose and disarm all its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, it is appropriate to ask, "Has Saddam Hussein finally decided to voluntarily disarm?" Unfortunately, the answer is a clear and resounding no.
Viewed dispassionately and with the blinkers of American self –interest firmly on, going after Iraq is a strategic and almost Machiavellian masterstroke for the US.
The rogue in the Middle East is exterminated. Oil supplies are assured. The control of the oil spigot by American interests ensures economic stability.
The UN has essentially been de-fanged and if we go it alone the impotence of this world body is laid bare for all to jeer and mock. Germany and France will be rendered irrelevant in the global arena – relegated to decrepit status. European alliances will be forged with the new powers – the friendly backers and Turkey if it pitches in.
The unassailable US might will dominate the world.
I suspect the mind of Condoleezza Rice is behind all this – it requires the deviousness of a woman to implement such a strategy.
No doubt, time is working for us. We have to buy some more time, and the American-British coalition will disintegrate because of internal reasons and because of the pressure of public opinion in the American and British street. Nations know the truth and are more capable of understanding than the leaders who are preoccupied with the Zionist conspiracies that are hatched by the media, conspiracies that blind those leaders.
The "WE NEED MORE TIME" quote once again, is it the.......writings of an anti-war protestor ? The writings of Kofi Annan ? The writings of Tom Daschle ? The writings of a French or German diplomat ?
Could be any one of them. But it's none of the above. It was words from Sadamn Hussein in an exchange between Saddam Hussein and Egyptian journalist Sayyid Nassar in November.
No...Saddam is actually coming across as a reasonable, rational leader, by comparison. It's the usurper in th Offal Office who is coming across as psychotic and unstable.
Frightening, isn't it? Now that he knows a big chunk of the world is against Dumbya, he can sit back and let the man make a big ass of himself and kill tons of people in the process. All the blood will be on Bush's hands.
Funny how the Islamic world manages to win the public relations war most of the time, isn't it?
Did you see who the co-chair is ?..... Iran. Swell.
And Lybia is chairing the human rights comittee. Perhaps they could also nominate Milosevic for a good will ambassadorship. And yet we're supposed to let them make decisions for the world ?
And Lybia is chairing the human rights comittee. Perhaps they could also nominate Milosevic for a good will ambassadorship.
When is North Korea going to be nominated to the U.N. commision on world hunger? The U.N. under Koffi Annan, seems to be just a bunch of bureaucrats who would rather live in New York City than their own countries. That's my opionion, anyway.
You have the power, now. Get your friends together and get it done.
Why stop at the UN? There's alliances galore out there that the US is part of.
We're a nation filled with Men of Action. This dialogue stuff is tiring. The people speak funny-sounding languages. And they don't always agree with the US. The audacity! It's annoying.
It has nothing to do with disagreeing or talking funny, as much as you'd like to brush it off or lump the arguments into something it's not.
It has to do with the realization of what it has become. It takes moving mountains to get things accomplished. It takes diplomatic wrangling to decide who's going to sit where and the shape of a table. It's becomed bogged down by countless conferences. Kofi himself has admitted this. THere were over 5,000 conferences alone last year, one hand has no idea what the other is doing.
Then we see Things like Iraq, Iran and Lybia chairing key comittee's that have huge consequences yet as a nation we should apparently cast our fate to that exact organization. Or at the least consider thier opinions which we have done.
The U.N can and was a good or usefull organization. The talk and action or lack thereof is rendering it useless. And the appointment or acknowledgement by rogue states from the U.N is baffling. It has become something it was never intended to be and it's fate I believe will go the way of the league of nations.
The UN is after the national parks, you know. They want to conduct training there. I bet that's why they want to stop snowmobiling in Yellostone. In the winter, they train with white helicopters so they can't be seen against the snow---Joe.
I think the United Nations has every right to be infuriating as hell before it places a stamp of approval on any action that could end up costing tens of thousands of lives, and destabilizing one or more regions.
It will continue to unapologetically place the suffering of small people ahead of the timelines and the convenience of the world's one superpower.
But, like I said, the victors last November have the numbers. Engagement with the world is certainly a burdensome process you can do without.
I think the United Nations has every right to be infuriating as hell before it places a stamp of approval on any action that could end up costing tens of thousands of lives.
Doyou think it's that reason alone ? You think it has nothing to do with political pandering to their countrymen and women ? Think their decisions aren't based on their own best interest too ?
It will continue to unapologetically place the suffering of small people ahead of the timelines and the convenience of the world's one superpower.
What about the suffering of the people in Iraq ? Think they want to see Saddamn go soon ? Think they are looking forward to more months or years of living under him ?
"What about the suffering of the people in Iraq ? Think they want to see Saddamn go soon ? Think they are looking forward to more months or years of living under him ? "
As opposed to the distinct possibility of dying as collateral damage in a brutal conflict? Or spending years as refugees? I don't know, which sounds worse to you? Seems to me you're average Iraqi is looking at a couple possibilities of his future in the near term -- both of them undesirable.
Me? I don't have much desire to be a hero or a martyr. One looks worse to me.
As opposed to the distinct possibility dying as collateral damage in a brutal conflict? Or spending years as refugees? I don't know, which sounds worse to you?
Well the first problem is that Sadamn specifically puts military equipment in residential areas, he uses human shields and cares little who's in the way.
I think you'd be amazed at the price people are willing to pay for freedom. Ask the Afghanie citizens if they'd be happy to see the Taliban roll back into town. I distinctly remember one Iraqi soldier who in very well spoken english asked me to take him to America. At first I was dumbfounded and really didn't know what to say. I tried to explain how I was just one guy in the U.S Marines and I couldn't help him. He said that he was glad we were there and kept pleading. Not all soldiers I encountered were like that of course, some were fanatical followers and fought very hard and in the middle was the guy who was doing his job at a minimum and was only there because he was forced out of his home at gunpoint to serve.
From the contact I had many, not all of the people in general were glad we were there, it gave them hope, and the same U.N we are looking at today applied pressure to stop at the border and we unwisely did, I wonder how many would have been alive now ? We left and I feel abandoned them in many ways. My guess is that when they know for sure we are there and not going to stop at Bagdhad that many will surrender or try to overthrow the remnants of Sadamn's people.
"From the contact I had many, not all of the people in general were glad we were there, it gave them hope, and the same U.N we are looking at today applied pressure to stop at the border and we unwisely did, I wonder how many would have been alive now ? "
If they had the hope or the will, they would have gotten rid of Saddam themselves in the last 10 years. If they didn't I can only assume they want him in power.
It has nothing to do with abandoning them. Regime change was not the mission in '91.
Any talk of what should have been done, or how it should have been done is hindsight.
If they had the hope or the will, they would have gotten rid of Saddam themselves in the last 10 years. If they didn't I can only assume they want him in power.
O.K you're a group of citizens that are unarmed. Sadamn's loyalist forces quickly kill any opposistion. They are ruled by an iron fist. It's not as easy as one might think. If the door is cracked open enough others will follow if it looks like he'll be thrown out.
It has nothing to do with abandoning them. Regime change was not the mission in '91.
Actually Rick there was a coup attempt in 95' that we were going to back. All the mechanisms were in place. We pulled our support 1 day before it took place but the actions had already been taken and the insiders exposed, it fell apart and most were killed, imprisioned, tortured etc. Very few survived and some managed to flee.
I realize it wasn't the mission in 91' it is highinsight though. Not only did Bush get some bad advice, the CIA told him they'd be overthrown in months. Also he saw the carnage of the highway of death. He said enough. Much of the lobbying to stop was from the same exact UN that is supposed to have the answers today.
BTW I saw the Italian President today talking with Bush, he gave full support and said that France and Germany do not speak for all of Europe.
It doesn't change the fact that not only doesn't it specifically call for Saddams removal...
10. Should Iraq resort to using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, be found supporting terrorist acts against the U.S.or coalition partners anywhere in the world, or destroy Kuwait's oil fields, it shall become an explicit objective of the United States to replace the current leadership of Iraq.
Regime change was not the main plan, but that was left open for Sadam to decide as you can see.
Remember this...
Bush 1 should have stuck to his original plans and got rid of Iraq's leaders after they torched Kuwait's oil fields. It sure would have saved us from what we have gone through these many years and what is probably going to happen in the near future.
May I ask...
Sure you can, that is why we are here.
why do you think he did, or do you?
I assume that you are refering to "didn't follow his own mandate, as set forth in the document". I think that was pretty well explained by L2F and would refer you to his post in order to save some time.
I think that we are kind of saying the same thing. We did not go there the first time to remove him, but we left that option open. We should have followed through.
I remember a friend of mine telling me that we should not go after Saddam at that time because he didn't think we should keep troops there for 5 years to rebuild the nation. I also remember asking him if we wouldn't be there 10 years or more if we did not take Saddam out. Well, here we are still talking about it and wanting to give him more time because we shouldn't rush into war. Just one more decade ought to do it, he'll change his ways I am sure.
Dan, removing the regime was NOT the original plan of Bush-I, it was removing the Iraqis from Kuwait, and the "option" of removing the "Regime" was only spoken of IF that regime used chem/bio weapons and in fact, as we now know, they DID use them, and many Veterans are sick to this day, because of it.
fold, Rob thinks that Gulf War Syndrome is due to vaccines that the military were required to take rather than Irqi use of chemical weapons. Do you have any thoughts on that?
I should note guys, that it's nearly my opinion that the vaccines are what's causing my fellow servicemen to be sick. Many others share that opinion though. It's one of the only ways I can logiclly conclude how a desk jock in Riadyh, or someone off shore on ship or a pilot who flew out of Diego Garcia who never set foot in S.A, Kuwait ore S.A has symptoms. They were not very likeley exposed to any chemicals but have the same symptoms as frontline troops. Perhaps there's something else but it would be hard to determine how else they would hae gotten it. There's been a few who were court martialed for refusing to take the vaccinations.
Bush said he would agree to a second resolution from the U.N and Turkey said it would host troops.
Eight European leaders back Bush on Iraq Brian Whitmore Boston Globe
Published Jan. 31, 2003 EURO31
PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC -- The leaders of eight European countries called Thursday for a united front against Saddam Hussein and expressed support for Washington's drive to disarm him, sharpening the European split between supporters and foes of the U.S. approach toward Iraq.
In a statement, the leaders of Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic warned that the United Nations would lose its credibility if it failed to ensure that Saddam Hussein complied with the U.N. Security Council resolution on disarmament.
No kidding.
The statement implicitly rebuked Germany and France, which are both opposed to war. The split between France and Germany and the other eight governments underscored deepening divisions on the continent over when and how to disarm Saddam's regime.
"The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security," said the statement, published in the Wall Street Journal, the Times of London and several other European newspapers.
"We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed," the statement said. "The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully . . . . The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences."
The leaders expressed gratitude to the United States for past support, saying: "The governments and people of the United States and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions" in defending democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
"Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and communism," the statement said.
You're cynical about the motives of the Germans and the French.
Berlusconni of Italy met with Bush yesteday. Was his show of support timed for the visit?
What do you think he got for signing on?
Another question: What does this gang of countries get out of tweaking Germany and France? Some of them are in Eastern Europe. Rumsfeld signaled to them last week about what he called a shift in power and influence to Eastern Europe.
Your cynical about the motives of the Germans and the French.
Yes I am.
Berlusconni of Italy met with Bush today.
What do you think he got for signing on?
Actually I think that was yesterday but I don't know what he "got" for sigining up, What have you heard ?
Another question: What does this gang of countries get out of tweaking Germany and France?
What do France and Germany get out of tweaking the US ? Perhaps these other countries don't feel that France and Germany speak for all of Europe which they obviously don't. Perhaps people should realize that there are other nations in Europe who support our efforts.
I read an article, I wish I could remember where, that was old Europe and the new Europe. It was saying that a lot of countries in Europe getting tired of the way Germany and France think they run the show. The article I read went on to state how the other counties economies were growing and how France and Germany's was stagnating. Man I wish I could find that article.
Includes a story about how "aliens took ordinary desert scorpions and used their bio-engineering to grow the scorpions to giant size. Scorpions of a cow-size!"
North Korea was thrust upon us by no ones actions but North Korea's.
The People" already are expressing in the dwindling support for GDubbya and his efforts to control several fronts of attack upon Democratic nations.
Really, his poll numbers are back up although for what it's worth I don't care for polls. But let me ask you, you say. "GDubbya and his efforts to control several fronts of attack upon Democratic nations"
Umm, What Democratic nations ? Iraq and N. Korea are not Democratic nations. Or are we attacking Canada and I missed it on the news ?
DUBbya's "We don't need YOUR HELP to make war" attitudes and gestures to our friends in NATO and the other free and Democratic nations who are "Allies", but not with us on this "path to war"? THEY are the Nations I was talking about. There's alot  Â
What gestures ? Hell we could already be in there if we wanted to. It's not like this has been an overnight thing Bill. You mean you don't like George ? Say it aint so. What about the ones who are on board ? If we're talking NATO their are more for than against. The UN ? Well let's see, we have Lybia chairing the human rights comission and Iraq and Iran chairing the nuke commision. He's made every effort to bring other nations on board.
I thought from previous posts you were in favor of removing Sadamn ? Must have changed your mind I guess.
So you're not in favor of going without the U.N and then on the other criticize Bush for not having as many countries on board.
I don't want that many nations as last time on board frankly. We won't miss the French or German troops, believe me. Too many nations last time was a major factor in haulting. Then it was thrown back to the UN where they've done little for almost 12 years.
Do you know for a fact they were turned down because they were gay ?
I know we had hardly any people that spoke Arabic.
I do know that we had little if any field operatives in many of these countries. We were forbidden to have them on the payroll because of possible human rights violators being on our payroll, wouldn't want that. We had no or little idea what was going on in many of these countries and the info we did have was not shared between agencies and it was spotty at best.
15 hours of taped conversation with JFK and his advisors were released today. Odd how thme more things change the more they stay the same.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76344,00.html
So the the French are bad fighters. I could think of worse vices.
Like being cowards?
I expect a "Wag The Dog" invasion, any day now.
Partisan nonsense. (Possibly unAmerican nonsense? I think that is what liberals said when Clinton was accused of using the military to direct attention away from his criminal acts.) The plans have been in place for a long time. The preparations have been in place for a long time. Even when the unusually high poll numbers were being reported.
Eleven weeks after the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution demanding yet again that Iraq disclose and disarm all its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, it is appropriate to ask, "Has Saddam Hussein finally decided to voluntarily disarm?" Unfortunately, the answer is a clear and resounding no.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030123-1.html
Well Bill the wheels were set in motion when his numbers were higher. You're right, it's all about a poll number.
On Monday, Libya won “election” as the new chairman of he U.N.’s Human Rights Commission:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76203,00.html
And there are people that think the UN should be taken seriously.
Viewed dispassionately and with the blinkers of American self –interest firmly on, going after Iraq is a strategic and almost Machiavellian masterstroke for the US.
The rogue in the Middle East is exterminated. Oil supplies are assured. The control of the oil spigot by American interests ensures economic stability.
The UN has essentially been de-fanged and if we go it alone the impotence of this world body is laid bare for all to jeer and mock.
Germany and France will be rendered irrelevant in the global arena – relegated to decrepit status. European alliances will be forged with the new powers – the friendly backers and Turkey if it pitches in.
The unassailable US might will dominate the world.
I suspect the mind of Condoleezza Rice is behind all this – it requires the deviousness of a woman to implement such a strategy.
Anyone concur??
sounds like a good result to me.
You're giving this administration a lot of credit there, Naradar. You think there's that much intrigue going on?
You're giving this administration a lot of credit there, Naradar. You think there's that much intrigue going on?
The above from a fellow that gives the administration no credit.
Rice is a brilliant woman - check out her credentials. Rice entered
college at 15 and graduated at 19.
She was also indoctrinated by Madeline Albright's father - Joseph Korbel - a Czech genius.
Powell and Rummy are savvy guys and Cheyney brings all the guile and utter lack of values of a CEO.
little boy bush is the only mental goblin in the group.
little boy bush is the only mental goblin in the group.
Maybe, but a giant compared to you!!!
'Bill - Fold' 1/25/03 3:38am
LOL :)
The "WE NEED MORE TIME" quote once again, is it the.......writings of an anti-war protestor ? The writings of Kofi Annan ? The writings of Tom Daschle ? The writings of a French or German diplomat ?
Could be any one of them. But it's none of the above. It was words from Sadamn Hussein in an exchange between Saddam Hussein and Egyptian journalist Sayyid Nassar in November.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3609642.html
Looks like his plan is working well so far.
more outrageous liberal comments:
well, it's damning with faint praise.
Looking reasonable and rational next to Bush is like falling off a log
Iraq to chair U.N. disarmament conference
And they say that the U.N. isn't becoming irrelevant.
It isn't becoming irrelevant because it already is irrelevant!
I can't help but feel sorry for these folks
I know lots of people who work in the airlines and travel industry. Tough times ahead for them.
Dan,
Did you see who the co-chair is ?..... Iran. Swell.
And Lybia is chairing the human rights comittee. Perhaps they could also nominate Milosevic for a good will ambassadorship.
And yet we're supposed to let them make decisions for the world ?
When is North Korea going to be nominated to the U.N. commision on world hunger? The U.N. under Koffi Annan, seems to be just a bunch of bureaucrats who would rather live in New York City than their own countries. That's my opionion, anyway.
How many of you think the U.S.A. should get out of the U.N.? I think we should, the U.N. has been and still is useless.
Start writing your Congress, you guys.
You have the power, now. Get your friends together and get it done.
Why stop at the UN? There's alliances galore out there that the US is part of.
We're a nation filled with Men of Action. This dialogue stuff is tiring. The people speak funny-sounding languages. And they don't always agree with the US. The audacity! It's annoying.
So, Rick, you support Iraq chairing the disarmament conference? How about Libya heading up the human rights committee? That makes sense to you?
Rick,
It has nothing to do with disagreeing or talking funny, as much as you'd like to brush it off or lump the arguments into something it's not.
It has to do with the realization of what it has become. It takes moving mountains to get things accomplished. It takes diplomatic wrangling to decide who's going to sit where and the shape of a table. It's becomed bogged down by countless conferences. Kofi himself has admitted this. THere were over 5,000 conferences alone last year, one hand has no idea what the other is doing.
Then we see Things like Iraq, Iran and Lybia chairing key comittee's that have huge consequences yet as a nation we should apparently cast our fate to that exact organization. Or at the least consider thier opinions which we have done.
The U.N can and was a good or usefull organization. The talk and action or lack thereof is rendering it useless. And the appointment or acknowledgement by rogue states from the U.N is baffling. It has become something it was never intended to be and it's fate I believe will go the way of the league of nations.
The UN is after the national parks, you know. They want to conduct training there. I bet that's why they want to stop snowmobiling in Yellostone. In the winter, they train with white helicopters so they can't be seen against the snow---Joe.
Forget it Rick, you're obviously mad about something and would rather generalize (again) than debate the person adressing you.
I think the United Nations has every right to be infuriating as hell before it places a stamp of approval on any action that could end up costing tens of thousands of lives, and destabilizing one or more regions.
It will continue to unapologetically place the suffering of small people ahead of the timelines and the convenience of the world's one superpower.
But, like I said, the victors last November have the numbers. Engagement with the world is certainly a burdensome process you can do without.
Rick,
Doyou think it's that reason alone ? You think it has nothing to do with political pandering to their countrymen and women ? Think their decisions aren't based on their own best interest too ?
What about the suffering of the people in Iraq ? Think they want to see Saddamn go soon ? Think they are looking forward to more months or years of living under him ?
"What about the suffering of the people in Iraq ? Think they want to see Saddamn go soon ? Think they are looking forward to more months or years of living under him ? "
As opposed to the distinct possibility of dying as collateral damage in a brutal conflict? Or spending years as refugees? I don't know, which sounds worse to you? Seems to me you're average Iraqi is looking at a couple possibilities of his future in the near term -- both of them undesirable.
Me? I don't have much desire to be a hero or a martyr. One looks worse to me.
Well the first problem is that Sadamn specifically puts military equipment in residential areas, he uses human shields and cares little who's in the way.
I think you'd be amazed at the price people are willing to pay for freedom. Ask the Afghanie citizens if they'd be happy to see the Taliban roll back into town. I distinctly remember one Iraqi soldier who in very well spoken english asked me to take him to America. At first I was dumbfounded and really didn't know what to say. I tried to explain how I was just one guy in the U.S Marines and I couldn't help him. He said that he was glad we were there and kept pleading. Not all soldiers I encountered were like that of course, some were fanatical followers and fought very hard and in the middle was the guy who was doing his job at a minimum and was only there because he was forced out of his home at gunpoint to serve.
From the contact I had many, not all of the people in general were glad we were there, it gave them hope, and the same U.N we are looking at today applied pressure to stop at the border and we unwisely did, I wonder how many would have been alive now ? We left and I feel abandoned them in many ways. My guess is that when they know for sure we are there and not going to stop at Bagdhad that many will surrender or try to overthrow the remnants of Sadamn's people.
It was also the fact that he(Bush) never told anyone that that(replacing Saddman) was the objective
Bull. Look at number 10 on this assessment made in July 1991 link
"From the contact I had many, not all of the people in general were glad we were there, it gave them hope, and the same U.N we are looking at today applied pressure to stop at the border and we unwisely did, I wonder how many would have been alive now ? "
If they had the hope or the will, they would have gotten rid of Saddam themselves in the last 10 years. If they didn't I can only assume they want him in power.
It has nothing to do with abandoning them. Regime change was not the mission in '91.
Any talk of what should have been done, or how it should have been done is hindsight.
Rick,
O.K you're a group of citizens that are unarmed. Sadamn's loyalist forces quickly kill any opposistion. They are ruled by an iron fist. It's not as easy as one might think. If the door is cracked open enough others will follow if it looks like he'll be thrown out.
Actually Rick there was a coup attempt in 95' that we were going to back. All the mechanisms were in place. We pulled our support 1 day before it took place but the actions had already been taken and the insiders exposed, it fell apart and most were killed, imprisioned, tortured etc. Very few survived and some managed to flee.
I realize it wasn't the mission in 91' it is highinsight though. Not only did Bush get some bad advice, the CIA told him they'd be overthrown in months. Also he saw the carnage of the highway of death. He said enough. Much of the lobbying to stop was from the same exact UN that is supposed to have the answers today.
BTW I saw the Italian President today talking with Bush, he gave full support and said that France and Germany do not speak for all of Europe.
It doesn't change the fact that not only doesn't it specifically call for Saddams removal...
10. Should Iraq resort to using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, be found supporting terrorist acts against the U.S.or coalition partners anywhere in the world, or destroy Kuwait's oil fields, it shall become an explicit objective of the United States to replace the current leadership of Iraq.
Regime change was not the main plan, but that was left open for Sadam to decide as you can see.
Remember this...
Bush 1 should have stuck to his original plans and got rid of Iraq's leaders after they torched Kuwait's oil fields. It sure would have saved us from what we have gone through these many years and what is probably going to happen in the near future.
May I ask...
Sure you can, that is why we are here.
why do you think he did, or do you?
I assume that you are refering to "didn't follow his own mandate, as set forth in the document". I think that was pretty well explained by L2F and would refer you to his post in order to save some time.
I think that we are kind of saying the same thing. We did not go there the first time to remove him, but we left that option open. We should have followed through.
I remember a friend of mine telling me that we should not go after Saddam at that time because he didn't think we should keep troops there for 5 years to rebuild the nation. I also remember asking him if we wouldn't be there 10 years or more if we did not take Saddam out. Well, here we are still talking about it and wanting to give him more time because we shouldn't rush into war. Just one more decade ought to do it, he'll change his ways I am sure.
Dan, removing the regime was NOT the original plan of Bush-I, it was removing the Iraqis from Kuwait, and the "option" of removing the "Regime" was only spoken of IF that regime used chem/bio weapons and in fact, as we now know, they DID use them, and many Veterans are sick to this day, because of it.
fold, Rob thinks that Gulf War Syndrome is due to vaccines that the military were required to take rather than Irqi use of chemical weapons. Do you have any thoughts on that?
I should note guys, that it's nearly my opinion that the vaccines are what's causing my fellow servicemen to be sick. Many others share that opinion though. It's one of the only ways I can logiclly conclude how a desk jock in Riadyh, or someone off shore on ship or a pilot who flew out of Diego Garcia who never set foot in S.A, Kuwait ore S.A has symptoms. They were not very likeley exposed to any chemicals but have the same symptoms as frontline troops. Perhaps there's something else but it would be hard to determine how else they would hae gotten it. There's been a few who were court martialed for refusing to take the vaccinations.
MORE EVIDENCE OF A RUSH TO WAR AND UNILATERALISM.
Bush said he would agree to a second resolution from the U.N and Turkey said it would host troops.
Eight European leaders back Bush on Iraq
Brian Whitmore
Boston Globe
Published Jan. 31, 2003 EURO31
No kidding.
Thanks for remembering.
The rest of the article.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3624682.html
Rob:
You're cynical about the motives of the Germans and the French.
Berlusconni of Italy met with Bush yesteday. Was his show of support timed for the visit?
What do you think he got for signing on?
Another question: What does this gang of countries get out of tweaking Germany and France? Some of them are in Eastern Europe. Rumsfeld signaled to them last week about what he called a shift in power and influence to Eastern Europe.
Rick,
Yes I am.
Actually I think that was yesterday but I don't know what he "got" for sigining up, What have you heard ?
What do France and Germany get out of tweaking the US ? Perhaps these other countries don't feel that France and Germany speak for all of Europe which they obviously don't. Perhaps people should realize that there are other nations in Europe who support our efforts.
"What do France and Germany get out of tweaking the US ?"
Less than the recent Gang of 8 got out of tweaking France and Germany.
They cast their lot in a certain direction.
I read an article, I wish I could remember where, that was old Europe and the new Europe. It was saying that a lot of countries in Europe getting tired of the way Germany and France think they run the show. The article I read went on to state how the other counties economies were growing and how France and Germany's was stagnating. Man I wish I could find that article.
Pravda has really gone off the deep end now.
Is Hussein Owner of Crashed UFO?
Includes a story about how "aliens took ordinary desert scorpions and used their bio-engineering to grow the scorpions to giant size. Scorpions of a cow-size!"
Have a look for a good laugh.
Iraq has been sold on e-bay for $1.80 U.S.. The troops can come home now.
Bill,
North Korea was thrust upon us by no ones actions but North Korea's.
Really, his poll numbers are back up although for what it's worth I don't care for polls. But let me ask you, you say. "GDubbya and his efforts to control several fronts of attack upon Democratic nations"
Umm, What Democratic nations ? Iraq and N. Korea are not Democratic nations. Or are we attacking Canada and I missed it on the news ?
Or are we attacking Canada and I missed it on the news ?
It's all about the beer, eh! Like, G.W. only is doing it for the big beer business', you hoser!
Bill,
What gestures ? Hell we could already be in there if we wanted to. It's not like this has been an overnight thing Bill.
You mean you don't like George ? Say it aint so. What about the ones who are on board ? If we're talking NATO their are more for than against. The UN ? Well let's see, we have Lybia chairing the human rights comission and Iraq and Iran chairing the nuke commision. He's made every effort to bring other nations on board.
I thought from previous posts you were in favor of removing Sadamn ? Must have changed your mind I guess.
Bill,
So you're not in favor of going without the U.N and then on the other criticize Bush for not having as many countries on board.
I don't want that many nations as last time on board frankly. We won't miss the French or German troops, believe me. Too many nations last time was a major factor in haulting. Then it was thrown back to the UN where they've done little for almost 12 years.
Did we need UN approval for Afghanistan ? Hmmm ?