GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-2012, 10:26   #101
expatman
Senior Member
 
expatman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cape Coral, Fl. & Kampala, Uganda
Posts: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
How dare he actually use what we gave him. String him up!
I agree with you.

He should have been strung up. He lost the first war and agreed to get rid of all of those weapons but clearly did not.
__________________
Formerly SW.Fla.Glocker and.... EVIL, CRIMINAL, VERY BAD AND SCARY SECURITY CONTRACTOR....(insert evil, sinister laugh here)
expatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 11:48   #102
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatman View Post
Here is an example of a sarin gas round being used against U.S, troops. It was not effective at the time. The fact remains that it was used and did exist regardless of who gave it to them or manufactured it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/...explodes-iraq/

Let us remember. It was Saddams responsibility to disclose the status of ALL of his chemical weapons to stay in accordance with his agreement at the end of the first gulf war. He could not/would not disclose the disposition of those weapons. In fact, he led the world to believe that he had this capabilities. He may of lied about this in order to keep his enemies at bay (USA, Iran, Local rebels). Either way, it ends up his fault if the world believed him and acted accordingly.

My apologies to the OP for the thread being veered off of its original topic of evil contractors.
So again we're talking about the left over and inoperable 80's stuff that was never the claimed basis of the invasion in the first place.

Interesting passage in the article here:
Quote:
Field-test results could be in error
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and more analysis needed to be done. “We have to be careful,” he told an audience in Washington Monday afternoon.
Rumsfeld said it may take some time to determine precisely what the chemical was.

Two former weapons inspectors — Hans Blix and David Kay — said the shell was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons.

Kimmitt said he believed that insurgents who planted the explosive didn’t know it contained the nerve agent.

.........
“The cell is designed to work after being fired from an artillery piece,” he said, adding that dispersing the substance from a device such as the homemade bomb "is virtually ineffective as a chemical weapon."

........
But Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, said the discovery does not provide evidence that Saddam was secretly producing weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War, as alleged by the Bush administration to justify the war that removed him from power.
I guess if construed in a light most positive to your allegations, this could possibly be considered "using chemical weapons against US troops" but that's getting pretty desperate since even the experts in that article say it didn't match what was claimed as the invasion justification and wasnt an operable weapon.

Last edited by G19G20; 04-10-2012 at 11:51..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 11:55   #103
expatman
Senior Member
 
expatman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cape Coral, Fl. & Kampala, Uganda
Posts: 665
Not desperate at all really. At least not considering all the other sources citing the discovery of various chemical weapons found. We were lucky that this one did not work properly. Don't get mad at me. You asked for proof of WMDs and I provided some sources for you. You may not agree that they were in relevant quantities but as I stated, they were there.

I wonder how many we missed. I wonder if Saddam was able to sneak some away to other countries.

And by the way. I never claimed that we based our invasion over these few weapons. As I said, you asked for proof/sources and I provided them.
__________________
Formerly SW.Fla.Glocker and.... EVIL, CRIMINAL, VERY BAD AND SCARY SECURITY CONTRACTOR....(insert evil, sinister laugh here)
expatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 12:36   #104
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
How dare he actually use what we gave him. String him up!
I know in your mind we gave Iraq chemical weapons. I don't believe that is as simply stated as you are pretending. Here is a pretty good analysis. Try to keep an open mind as you read that.
http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/...mical.html?m=1

In someone as young as you are, it's difficult to explain how the timeframe something happens is important. 1985 was much different than 1990. 1995 was much different than 2003.

In 1991, we stopped short of toppling saddams regime and entered into an agreement that he repeatedly violated. He made the now obvious mistake of bluffing the world into thinking he had WMD, and acting like a badass with us after 9-11, from a strategically opportune piece of real estate.

Most of us that were there saw the reasons for us being there. It's really not necessary for you to agree, as your approval was not needed.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 04-10-2012 at 12:37..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 12:51   #105
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
That's fine but anyone aware of the actual history knows I meant the claims of Powell, Rice, and the media in the lead up to the invasion. But if you want to get technical, a few rusted out cans from the 80's arent even "weapons" anymore. You can actually use a weapon. Is a rusted out AR that's missing the barrel still a "weapon"? Not in my book.

I still want to see a source that claims chemical weapons use in Iraq in 2003. Depleted uranium rounds by our forces don't count, btw.



I guess at the most basic level, no that is the point. The video is just another example of why meddling in the affairs of other countries causes more problems than it solves and we're creating just as many terrorists as we're killing with this stuff. Undeclared wars with no defined enemy in countries that didn't directly threaten or attack us don't work and you'd think we'd have learned this from the failed adventures of other empires in the same region (see Britain, Ottomans, Soviets, etc). They don't end either....until the empire is broke and forced to leave.
You are misinformed. Chemical weapons and nuclear precursors were present.

But really, there were numerous reason for the war, not just the one you are stuck on misrepresenting. WMD were found, and used against American forces. If they are harmless, perhaps we could have 5 or 6 of them burried 3 inches deep in your back yard?

It's obvious that you have made up your mind on the WMD, and that you think it's all the Bush's fault. Just so you can't pretend that most everyone else didn't think he had them, watch this.

Now,there were a few other reasons given.

If you want to reacquaint yourself with a bit of history, which would lead to a better understanding, look here: http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 04-10-2012 at 12:52..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 14:37   #106
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Why would I care what Joe Biden or Bill Clinton thinks? Showing me a bunch of establishment politicians saying the same (wrong) things doesn't prove anything. I don't believe what -any- establishment politician says, regardless of the letter next to their name. All I read in that link is fear-mongering with little to no basis in reality from a bunch of politicians that -all- benefit from war machine campaign donations and influence from certain foreign interests.

Last edited by G19G20; 04-10-2012 at 14:38..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 14:39   #107
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Why would I care what Joe Biden or Bill Clinton thinks? Showing me a bunch of establishment politicians saying the same (wrong) things doesn't prove anything. I don't believe what -any- establishment politician says, regardless of the letter next to their name. All I read in that link is fear-mongering with little to no basis in reality from a bunch of politicians that -all- benefit from war machine campaign donations and influence from certain foreign interests.
You can lead a horse to water...
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 14:50   #108
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I know in your mind we gave Iraq chemical weapons. I don't believe that is as simply stated as you are pretending. Here is a pretty good analysis. Try to keep an open mind as you read that.
http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/...mical.html?m=1

In someone as young as you are, it's difficult to explain how the timeframe something happens is important. 1985 was much different than 1990. 1995 was much different than 2003.

In 1991, we stopped short of toppling saddams regime and entered into an agreement that he repeatedly violated. He made the now obvious mistake of bluffing the world into thinking he had WMD, and acting like a badass with us after 9-11, from a strategically opportune piece of real estate.

Most of us that were there saw the reasons for us being there. It's really not necessary for you to agree, as your approval was not needed.
(Ignoring the fact that lightly referenced blog posts that rely mostly on Wiki entries aren't usually considered proof.)

The link claims that the US and other countries provided chemical weapons, precursors and equipment in the 80's. I don't see your point. That link doesn't exonerate anyone. In fact, it's even more embarrassing to realize that many of those countries were the same ones that joined the "coalition of the willing".

Once again, if the very existence of -any- chemical weapons program in Iraq was the justification for invasion then it really only proves why meddling comes back to haunt us later. It always does. And that was the basis for this thread in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You can lead a horse to water...
Yeah but you can't make him drink the Kool-aid.

Last edited by G19G20; 04-10-2012 at 14:53..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 16:53   #109
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
(Ignoring the fact that lightly referenced blog posts that rely mostly on Wiki entries aren't usually considered proof.)

The link claims that the US and other countries provided chemical weapons, precursors and equipment in the 80's. I don't see your point. That link doesn't exonerate anyone. In fact, it's even more embarrassing to realize that many of those countries were the same ones that joined the "coalition of the willing".

Once again, if the very existence of -any- chemical weapons program in Iraq was the justification for invasion then it really only proves why meddling comes back to haunt us later. It always does. And that was the basis for this thread in the first place.



Yeah but you can't make him drink the Kool-aid.

I thought you paulistinians were free market dudes. You implied that we (The USA) sold them chemical weapons. Name one. There were chemicals that could be used as precursors to chemical weapons sold (free market?). Maybe you have a link to show a copy of the receipt for some chemical weapons we sold them? Maybe not. I'm thinking not.

The initial charge was yours. Maybe you can support it, or maybe not. I'm thinking.....

Anyway, times change. We sell stuff to those that our friends today. There is no guarantee that they will be our friends tomorrow. That's the way life really works, as opposed to how we would probably like it to work.

The article also shows that since about the mid-80's, Iraq went out of it's way to become self sufficient in making WMD.

Fact is, WMD were there. We found some. That is well documented. Old, new, shiny or rusty is irrelevant to the cease fire agreement. The inspectors were kicked out. Another violation. And, in a post 9-11 world, I don't blame the USA leadership for being a little less tolerant of Saddam than they were in the pre 9-11 world. Stuff happens.

WMD was only one of the reasons given for the invasion. They were there, maybe not in the numbers we (and every other nation) believed were there, but that was not the only reason for the invasion.

The good news in all of this, is that you were no where in the decision making process. No offense, but you just don't seem to have a good grasp on what war is about. It's ugly, messy, and very hard on the people where it is happening. That teaches a lesson. The harder you fight them, the longer the peace. Germany and Japan are pretty good examples of that. As the war progressed, polls showed decreasing support for OBL and terrorism in many countries around the world.

So, bottom line, a bunch of people here who actually work in the field of discussion agree with us going, and you don't. Oh well, we'll just have to live with your disapproval.

Political Issues
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 16:59   #110
DaveG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by aircarver View Post
In liberal utopia, wars are fought by throwing marshmallows .....

.
...and Sept 11th never happened either...
DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 17:04   #111
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
...and Sept 11th never happened either...
It happened, but according to them, it was our fault.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 17:44   #112
FPS
Senior Member
 
FPS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 2,422
That lady shouldn't have walked directly into oncoming traffic. WTF?

.
__________________
Gone Fishin'
FPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 18:05   #113
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I thought you paulistinians were free market dudes. You implied that we (The USA) sold them chemical weapons. Name one. There were chemicals that could be used as precursors to chemical weapons sold (free market?). Maybe you have a link to show a copy of the receipt for some chemical weapons we sold them? Maybe not. I'm thinking not.
Sure, Im for the free market. However, I wouldn't support the US gov't facilitating a rifle sale to you, then arresting you as a threat to society because you own a gun.

Here's a couple nice counter articles about US gov't involvement in Iraqi weapons sales:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/10/...us-connection/

http://www.rense.com/general29/wesold.htm

Heck of an article here on DIRECT CONFIRMED US Govt ties with Iraq's chemical and bio weapons programs, among many other revelations.
http://murraywaas.net/id31.html

Funny how the same people keep coming up over and over like Rumsfeld.

Quote:
The initial charge was yours. Maybe you can support it, or maybe not. I'm thinking.....
That murray article above lays it all out better than I possible can.

Quote:
Anyway, times change. We sell stuff to those that our friends today. There is no guarantee that they will be our friends tomorrow. That's the way life really works, as opposed to how we would probably like it to work.

The article also shows that since about the mid-80's, Iraq went out of it's way to become self sufficient in making WMD.
And it shows why our meddling always comes back to haunt us. Why keep doing the same stupidity over and over while expecting different results?

Quote:
Fact is, WMD were there. We found some. That is well documented. Old, new, shiny or rusty is irrelevant to the cease fire agreement. The inspectors were kicked out. Another violation. And, in a post 9-11 world, I don't blame the USA leadership for being a little less tolerant of Saddam than they were in the pre 9-11 world. Stuff happens.

WMD was only one of the reasons given for the invasion. They were there, maybe not in the numbers we (and every other nation) believed were there, but that was not the only reason for the invasion.
You make a valid point about kicking the UN out and various "resolutions" but that's not justification for a war of aggression. You can watch the UN address again if you need a refresher about "mobile labs", "weapons factories" and other lies:

ETA: Can somebody...anybody...tell me who those guys sitting right behind Powell are? I sure didn't elect them and I don't see them giving press conferences or speeches to Americans. Those would be Powell's main men during that address but who are they???

Quote:
The good news in all of this, is that you were no where in the decision making process. No offense, but you just don't seem to have a good grasp on what war is about. It's ugly, messy, and very hard on the people where it is happening. That teaches a lesson. The harder you fight them, the longer the peace. Germany and Japan are pretty good examples of that. As the war progressed, polls showed decreasing support for OBL and terrorism in many countries around the world.
It's also EXTREMELY profitable to arms dealers, politicians, and banks. That's what war is about. It's also why this country is BROKE now. It really sucks that I didn't get to put my stamp of approval on spending trillions and losing thousands of Americans lives for nothing. Yeah I really regret not having a hand in that. Fortunately, wise folks like yourself are around to send other people's kids off to die in countries that never so much as uttered a threat against us.

Quote:
So, bottom line, a bunch of people here who actually work in the field of discussion agree with us going, and you don't. Oh well, we'll just have to live with your disapproval.

Political Issues
No kidding? People that were getting a slice of the pie agree with getting their slice? Who would have thought...

Last edited by G19G20; 04-11-2012 at 02:06..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 09:22   #114
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


I guess it's a matter of perspective. I thought of it as service to my country, doing hard things others could or would not do. There is no requirement for you to appreciate that though.

We are talking about events that are in the past. With or without your understanding, it's water under the bridge.

Have a nice day.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 04-11-2012 at 09:23..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 10:48   #115
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
General Colin Powell UN Speech on Iraq Part 1of5 - YouTube

ETA: Can somebody...anybody...tell me who those guys sitting right behind Powell are? I sure didn't elect them and I don't see them giving press conferences or speeches to Americans. Those would be Powell's main men during that address but who are they???
What does their being elected have to do with anything?!

On Powell's right is George Tenet, CIA director as of Feb-2003 (when the address was given). On Powell's left is John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN at the time.

Not sure how George Tenet would be considered Powell's "main man" but whatever.
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 10:59   #116
hamster
NRA Life Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,067
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You are misinformed. Chemical weapons and nuclear precursors were present.
Political Issues
hamster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 12:20   #117
Skyhook
Senior Member
 
Skyhook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 22,531
Send a message via Yahoo to Skyhook


Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
What does their being elected have to do with anything?!

On Powell's right is George Tenet, CIA director as of Feb-2003 (when the address was given). On Powell's left is John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN at the time.

Not sure how George Tenet would be considered Powell's "main man" but whatever.

Elected or not elected.. that seemed to really matter to BHO when he tried to make the SCOTUS irrelevant.

Of course... BHO's opinions may be irrelevant.
__________________
Life member: LEAA, NYSPRA, GOA, JPFO, Endowment Member NRA, NRA Legion of Honor
***********
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it."- George Orwell
Skyhook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 13:27   #118
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
What does their being elected have to do with anything?!

On Powell's right is George Tenet, CIA director as of Feb-2003 (when the address was given). On Powell's left is John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN at the time.

Not sure how George Tenet would be considered Powell's "main man" but whatever.
Thanks for the answer. The men sitting behind Powell are always the "go-to" guys (main men) when questions arise or Powell would be about to say too much. Odds are those are the gentlemen feeding Powell the info. You see the same stuff during congressional hearings and the like.
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 13:49   #119
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Thanks for the answer. The men sitting behind Powell are always the "go-to" guys (main men) when questions arise or Powell would be about to say too much. Odds are those are the gentlemen feeding Powell the info. You see the same stuff during congressional hearings and the like.
Then I'm not sure I understand your comment about them not being elected.

And as for them being present...it would be odd if the DCI (who, actually, didn't work for the SecState, just as the DNI doesn't now) wasn't there, and our Ambassador to the UN wasn't invited. There is such a thing as diplomatic optics, after all. Not having Negroponte there would have undermined his credibility at the UN.

Just curious...do you remember any of this contemporaneously?
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 17:47   #120
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by hamster View Post
Political Issues
Well, I signed scores of post deployment screening forms for engineers, that I completed in Iraq, that loaded up all the yellow cake uranium, over a million pounds of it, for shipment out of Iraq in 2004.

Can you find a cartoon about that funny guy?
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:23.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 601
135 Members
466 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31