Off Topic Messages

Re: Colin Powell...

Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:08 am

Blue-Gypsy wrote: DJC? you provided the link so I have to assume you support what MB280E has stated above. I mean at least most of your ramblings are based on some fact...but this?

DJC please provide the quote where Colin Powell admits to lying.

Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:27 am

EagleUSA wrote:I'm honestly amazed that so many non-Americans find our politics and issues fascinating enough to discuss at length. Makes one wonder if there is anything going on in their world???


People wouldn´t care at all about American politics if they didn´t affect other countries.

Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:16 am

What amazes me is how quickly people forget, or chose to ignore that Iraq had chemical weapons, used them on their own population, and that the inept UN couldn't find them. I wonder where they went? Syria, Iran, North Korea? Hmmm...... Of course there is also the fact of all of the soldiers suffering from Gulf War syndrome, which has yet to be explained. I am quite sure that if Saddam needed to get rid of those weapons, he had ample time to find a buyer during the protracted UN sanctions/inspections which lasted close to 10 years. I can not even imagine what a disaster it would have been if Al Gore was president on 9/11. What is even more unbelievable is that Bill Clinton had the opportunity to kill Osama Bin Ladden and didn't do it. The US had a SEAL team on the ground and had him in sight, and they were repeatedly asking for permission to engage the target. Bill Clinton was; unfortunately, engaged with Monica Lewinsky at the time and in between that distraction and fretting over how this would impact his presidency, was unable to make a decision until it was too late. Imagine Al Gore; hat in hand, protesting before the UN about the devastation of 9/11 and asking for a resolution condeming the attack. I will take Bush; warts and all, any day over another hand wringing president. Osama Bin Ladden was emboldened to continue and increase the level of his attacks on this country because of the Clinton/Gore administration's failure to respond. Starting with Somalia in '93 to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, Clinton failed to respond directly to the threat. You would think that we would have learned that lesson once and for all at Munich with Adolph Hitler. Appeasement only increases the threat and emboldens the enemy.

Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:37 am

ML4EP -

You wrote:
What amazes me is how quickly people forget, or chose to ignore that Iraq had chemical weapons, used them on their own population, and that the inept UN couldn't find them. I wonder where they went? Syria, Iran, North Korea? Hmmm......


Our memory might be better than yours.

Yes, he had chemical weapons.

A UN resolution ordered him to get rid of them.

He complied.

Hans Blix & his inspectors couldn't find a trace of them.

Bush invaded anyway.

Still no trace.

But no mystery, either.

Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:35 am

The UN couldn't find it's ass with both hands, a road map, and a flash light. The UN could give lessons in corruption to the mafia. I've deployed to the middle east twice in the last three years, where have any of you been? Once you've been over there and seen it with your own eyes, come talk to me. I didn't join the military to be the world's policeman. But because of 9/11 I went, and I would much rather fight those animals over there than in the streets of the USA. By the grace of God we have never had to fight a war on our own shores against a foreign enemy since 1812. I hope we continue to be so lucky. Saddam Hussein did not just give up weapons of mass destruction because the UN told him to, if you believe that you are only kidding yourself. Those people hate us and everything we stand for. It's not about religion, muslims, or the koran. It's the same old story since the dawn of time: a dictator or group who wants absolute power over their domain. Alot of people want to compare this war to vietnam, but there's no comparison. The US could easily have won vietnam if Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara had the backbone to do what was necessary. My uncle was Gen. Westmoreland's air commander from 64 to 66, and stated flatly that the war could have been won in 6 weeks with the forces in country at that time. That's TWO YEARS prior to the gulf of tonkin and TET buildups. The war went from arguing about the shape of the table at the paris peace talks, to complete agreement to all US terms in 12 days during December of 1972. Why...Linebacker II, the unrestricted bombing of North Vietnam. The US military was finally turned loose, destroying any target of military significance, thus ending the war. Had this been done in 66 as originally planned, history would be much different. Sometimes I think "self loathing" Americans are a bigger threat than the enemy. Stick your head in the sand and maybe it will all go away.

Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:10 pm

ME4EP -

You wrote:
The UN couldn't find it's ass with both hands, a road map, and a flash light. The UN could give lessons in corruption to the mafia. I've deployed to the middle east twice in the last three years, where have any of you been?


You're side-stepping the argument.

It isn't a matter of UN inefficiency, is it ?

The US has invaded the place & the chemical weapons aren't there !

Saddam complied with the UN resolution & got rid of them.

I congratulate you on your military service, we all owe a debt to you.

But comparing your record to ours is not relevant to the debate.

Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:52 pm

What about terror camps and/or terrorism in general in Iraq during Saddam Hussain´s time...?? And what about terrorism in Iraq these days with the Americans there...?? In your fight against terrorism you have created more terrorism!


Sincerely MB280E

Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:43 pm

You keep saying Saddam complied with the UN and got rid of WMD. What did he do with them? Do you honestly believe a man of that character would wake up one morning and get rid of the things because of a UN resolution/inspection? I sincerely doubt they were destroyed. More likely they were given to another country/group. As far as the US creating more terrorists, I don't recall killing any babies, women, children, or old people. But I can check with some of my co-workers, I'm getting older and my memory isn't as sharp as it used to be. I'm pretty sure we didn't cut anybody's head off with a small knife and film it for the internet. I do know for a stone cold FACT that when a school bus full of afghanistan children ran over a tank mine left by the good old USSR, we sent a plane in to medivac them from the site to one our base hospitals. I KNOW, because it was my airplane that went. Things like that happen ALOT over there, and none of it ever gets reported in the news. I wonder why. Could it be that the media is biased and only wants to accentuate the negative? Hmmm......maybe.

Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:56 pm

ML4EP -

You wrote:
Do you honestly believe a man of that character would wake up one morning and get rid of the things because of a UN resolution/inspection?


Well, yes !

He thought that by doing so he could avoid being invaded, toppled from power, and put on trial by the west !

As it turned out, it was a vain hope.

Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:04 am

ColinB wrote:ML4EP -

You wrote:
Do you honestly believe a man of that character would wake up one morning and get rid of the things because of a UN resolution/inspection?


Well, yes !

He thought that by doing so he could avoid being invaded, toppled from power, and put on trial by the west !

As it turned out, it was a vain hope.


Poor old Saddam. And he tried so hard to comply :( I think not. That's far too simplistic. The man repeatedly, over a long period of time strove to create the impression that he had something to hide through his lack of compliance with the inspection teams. If there were really no WMD and he was just trying to appear more formidable than he really was, he played a foolish game and lost. Let's not pretend Hans Blix had concluded there were no weapons. He said nothing of the sort, although he likes to give that false impression now. The reality is that, although taking a fairly reserved position, he did point out that a large number of weapons were unaccounted for. David Kelly was also very clear that Saddam had WMD and would only be disarmed if military action was taken. As a former inspector, he had no faith in the ability of the inspection process to deliver. The work of the Iraq Survey Group has also highlighted that Saddam had not given up his desire for an active WMD programme, and that there were countless breaches of UN Resolutions. It's evident that he had been less successful than we anticipated in maintaining a WMD programme, but it's ridiculous to suggest that he was a compliant victim. He was in fact pure scum and people seem to forget that or at least choose to let it slide in a wave of anti-war sentiment.

Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:12 am

The UN couldn't find it's ass with both hands, a road map, and a flash light.


Now that was the best! :lol:

Colin he complied? Was that before or after the fact that he kicked out UN inspectors at gunpoint?