Our nation pitched in once before...

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
But if I let you search me for a .44, would you stop mid-search and declare that I do have a .44 even though the search to that point hadn't found one?
I wouldn't assume you had quit trying to aquire one or you did not have one the next time we crossed paths.

This leading the witness stuff is easy, you don't even have to try hard.
 
I wouldn't assume you had quit trying to aquire one or you did not have one the next time we crossed paths.

This leading the witness stuff is easy, you don't even have to try hard.
No doubt caution would be warranted in the situation you describe.
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
It't too stupid to take on. If you saw me driving a red corvette 10 years ago is that proof that I own a red corvette and/or have the desire to own one today?
Not comparing apples to apples on this. The analogy should go as this.

If someone shot a member of his own family, should the courts set him free and then allow him to continue to live with other family members? That would be a more correct analogy, because your analogy poses no threat. In other words, no one is going to care about what car you drive. But if you have shown a tendancy to be a ruthless murderer, then people will care what weapons you have on you.
 
6

60Grit

Guest
Not comparing apples to apples on this. The analogy should go as this.

If someone shot a member of his own family, should the courts set him free and then allow him to continue to live with other family members? That would be a more correct analogy, because your analogy poses no threat. In other words, no one is going to care about what car you drive. But if you have shown a tendancy to be a ruthless murderer, then people will care what weapons you have on you.
Boy that was a big ol' waste of words...........


Good post,,, but a waste on the collective, non the less.
 
Not comparing apples to apples on this. The analogy should go as this.

If someone shot a member of his own family, should the courts set him free and then allow him to continue to live with other family members? That would be a more correct analogy, because your analogy poses no threat. In other words, no one is going to care about what car you drive. But if you have shown a tendancy to be a ruthless murderer, then people will care what weapons you have on you.
We stood aside and did nothing as Saddam gassed his own people with weapons we had given him. You tell me why we didn't care then.
 
6

60Grit

Guest
We stood aside and did nothing as Saddam gassed his own people with weapons we had given him. You tell me why we didn't care then.
We were working the UN angle, at the request of the Dems.
I guess the UN is not as effective as you boys believe they are.

I bet if y'all would assimilate them then you'd really have something to work with though...:bounce:
 
We were working the UN angle, at the request of the Dems.
I guess the UN is not as effective as you boys believe they are.

I bet if y'all would assimilate them then you'd really have something to work with though...:bounce:
We were in charge but it's your fault. LOL.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
We were in charge but it's your fault. LOL.
March of 1988, Saddam gassed the Kurds, August 1988, Iran/Iraq end war with a cease fire. Eighteen months later US begins the liberation of Kuwait. George H.W. Bush is president and Democrats control the houses of Congress. 1990 thru 2003 Saddam Hussein thumbs his nose at the UN eidicts by violating No Fly zones, Firing on US aircraft enforcing UN ordered No Fly zones, refusing spot inspections for weapons, including missles, chemical, biological and nuclear that UN inspectors felt existed and expected to find.

Who was in charge from 1988 thru 2003?
 
March of 1988, Saddam gassed the Kurds, August 1988, Iran/Iraq end war with a cease fire. Eighteen months later US begins the liberation of Kuwait. George H.W. Bush is president and Democrats control the houses of Congress. 1990 thru 2003 Saddam Hussein thumbs his nose at the UN eidicts by violating No Fly zones, Firing on US aircraft enforcing UN ordered No Fly zones, refusing spot inspections for weapons, including missles, chemical, biological and nuclear that UN inspectors felt existed and expected to find.

Who was in charge from 1988 thru 2003?
Daddy was Commander in Chief when Saddam gassed his own people in 1988 and I don't believe he objected in any serious way.
 
What would you have had him do? Invade Iraq?
Well, clearly he didn't invade Iraq for this crime against humanity. Apparently the Republicans didn't grasp the seriousness of the incident until after 9-11.
 
6

60Grit

Guest
Well, clearly he didn't invade Iraq for this crime against humanity. Apparently the Republicans didn't grasp the seriousness of the incident until after 9-11.
Obviously Linborg, you had an eight year period in your life when your head was buried in the sand, or something......:bounce:
 
Thread starter #54
Well, clearly he didn't invade Iraq for this crime against humanity. Apparently the Republicans didn't grasp the seriousness of the incident until after 9-11.
This, in an off-handed kind of way, makes the point of the original post #1. :huh::huh:
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
Well, clearly he didn't invade Iraq for this crime against humanity. Apparently the Republicans didn't grasp the seriousness of the incident until after 9-11.
Your exactly right. He didn't, god forbid the wrath of the liberals had he done so.

Do you get where the climate at the time was. Can't you draw the parallel to now?
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
Well, clearly he didn't invade Iraq for this crime against humanity. Apparently the Republicans didn't grasp the seriousness of the incident until after 9-11.
But Bush One did invade Iraq and worked with the UN to restrict Saddam Hussien's abiliies to attcack his neighbors and the Kurds.

But again you failed to give a "straight up" answer to a "straight up" question.
 
But Bush One did invade Iraq and worked with the UN to restrict Saddam Hussien's abiliies to attcack his neighbors and the Kurds.

But again you failed to give a "straight up" answer to a "straight up" question.
Your questions miss the point, which you continue to dodge. As I said, Bush did not invade Iraq because Saddam "gassed his own people." Yet now the Republicans never tire of trying to justify juniors's invasion by invoking an incident that didn't raise an eyebrow among them in 1988 and doesn't prove he had WMD in 2003.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
Your questions miss the point, which you continue to dodge. As I said, Bush did not invade Iraq because Saddam "gassed his own people." Yet now the Republicans never tire of trying to justify juniors's invasion by invoking an incident that didn't raise an eyebrow among them in 1988 and doesn't prove he had WMD in 2003.
I don't know of anyone said Bush pushed to invade Iraq because he gassed the Kurds. There was and still is debate as to what really happened. But your assertion that Republicans did not raise and eyebrow is incorrect. All of this is evidenced below.

I think the incident with Kurds is regarded as evidence that Irag and Iran, as well, had chemical and biological weapons and were willing to use them. This is an assertions that is widely accepted.

My questions were some what irrelevant, considering you and I have no power to approve an invasion.

The questions including the "who was in charge" are more rehtorical, hoping to inspire a response as to your positions.

As for the use of Gas in 1988 not proving that he had WMD's in 2003, I would give two responses. If in 1988, I fired my .44 mag at you and was sent to jail for 15 years, would you assume that I did not have another weapon
if I approached you on the street?

The other, Harry Truman dropped two H-Bombs within days of each other. Why do you think the Japanese surrendered because of the two bombs dropped or fear of the third? The one we did not have.
_________________________________
The 1991 Gulf War Rationale
by Gilles d'Aymery

a) Chemical ordnances

Iraq had turned to chemical warfare in the last part of the Iraq-Iran war when the Iraqis were on the brink of being submerged by human waves of Iranian fighters, often teen-agers. The Reagan Administration turned a blind eye on, and winked at the Iraqi actions as the U.S. covertly supported the Iraqi regime in its endeavor to defeat the Iranians, fearing that the Ayatollahs (Khomeini & co.) would export their fundamentalist revolution to the entire Arabian Gulf Peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates, etc.). Iranians reciprocated, though to a lesser extent, until, exhausted, the two sides reached a cease-fire.

After the invasion of Kuwait, in August 1990, the Bush Administration began asserting that the Iraqi regime had gassed its own people in Northern Iraq (the Kurds). The administration was specifically pointing its finger to the Halabjah deadly gas attack in March 1988 (Halabjah is a Kurdish town in Northern Iraq), after the cease-fire had taken place. The event took place. Halabjah was gassed. What is not clear is which side did it. At the time, the Reagan administration suggested that the Iranians were the culprits. Upon careful consideration, analysts have come to the conclusion that the Iraqis were responsible for the attack. The town had been taken over by Iranian elite forces and it would have made little sense for their government to gas its own troops while, in all likelihood, the Iraqis had reasons to proceed with such a dire attack. The town, as said, had been taken over by the Iranians and some Kurd factions had allied themselves with Iran. The fact remains that to this day, there is no definite evidence of who did what. While logic might point into the Iraqi direction (see the analysis of Glen Rangwala on the CASI forum, at http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00034.html) doubts linger. For example, Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies notes that "Iranians also used poison gas at Halabjah and may have caused some of the casualties" (The Military Threat from Iraq, page 36). See also the March 2002 opinion of Anthony Arnove on Zmag, "Convenient And Not So Convenient Massacres," at http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-03/28arnove.cfm to get an idea of the selective use of these events by the US government.

[ed. The following two paragraphs were added on February 1, 2003.] The New York Times published a January 31, 2003 Op-Ed by Stephen C. Pelletiere who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000. According to Pelletiere who, in his words, "was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington," "[Saddam Hussein] has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war." (we append a relevant excerpt of this Op-Ed at the end of this dossier.)

Murky business, isn't it? Both Iran and Iraq violated the international chemical weapons treaty (as did the USA in Vietnam... Remember Agent Orange? Has the USA ever paid war reparations for using WMD in Vietnam?). But, Phyllis Bennis, a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, writes in a primer, Understanding the U.S.-Iraq Crisis, that "One former Iraqi officer, General al-Shamari, told Newsweek that he was in charge of firing chemical weapons from howitzers against Iranian troops, and that U.S. satellite information provided the targeting information. A former CIA official confirmed to Newsweek that the U.S. provided military intelligence to Iraq, including on chemical warfare. General al-Shamari now lives safely in the U.S., running a restaurant outside of Washington DC." (See http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/primer4.htm#33.) Murky business indeed!
 
Your cut-n-paste response shows that I am correct. At the time of the incident the Republican administration did not protest. It was only years later when senior was building a case for war against Iraq (sound familiar?) that there was "concern."

As for your simplistic scenario, I said in an earlier post that caution would be prudent. Do you think I would be justified in whipping out my .44 and gunning you down on the street upon your approach?

I fail to see how the WWII events are at all analogous to Iraq. Iraq has never attacked us with any kind of weapons, much less WMD, and we had inspectors on the ground in Iraq that were in the process of confirming that Saddam had no WMD.
 

dixie

Senior Member
Your questions miss the point, which you continue to dodge. As I said, Bush did not invade Iraq because Saddam "gassed his own people." Yet now the Republicans never tire of trying to justify juniors's invasion by invoking an incident that didn't raise an eyebrow among them in 1988 and doesn't prove he had WMD in 2003.
my my my, how soon they forget, WMD's were found, dig in the old post lin, your memory is failing you as bas as your party is
 
Top