Eat this Saddam lovers

[Bosh]

The US espionage thing is a red herring son

How so? It happened:

United States intelligence services infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency that it used to disguise its work, according to U.S. government employees and documents describing the classified operation.
.....
But unbeknownst to UNSCOM, the U.S. signals and sensor technicians who installed and maintained the system were intelligence operatives, and the repeater stations they built had a covert capability. Hidden in their structure were antennas capable of intercepting microwave transmissions, and the U.S. agents placed some of them near important nodes of Iraqi military communications.
......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/march99/unscom2.htm

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by TCO
Nah...those guys were evil fascists. Are you really comparing us to them. Get some time in the real world. We are the brave guys who won WW2 and the Cold War.

Those guys in wW2 also claimed to be he good side, as probably does every party in every Conflict.
Which was interesting, as both the French and the Germans claimed to have god on their side during WW1

You wil rarely (if ever) find any warfaring Party who claims that they are the evil guys and their enemy the good ones

[GePap]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

cause huh , those man portable sams where being sold to anyone who wanted them , .......

have a nice day

Oh gosh, he could seel Ak-47's to anyone as well...surely those were banned by the cease-fire as well! He could even sell granades and RPG's surely those were banned! Heck, any weapons system could be sold...so surely Iraq was banned from having even kitchen knives!

This was pathetic. Want to prove this ludicrous claim? Go into the cease-fire agreement and find the clause were this is made.

SAMs are used against aircraft.
You know, the type aircraft used by Coalition troops patrolling the No Fly Zone?

This is pathetic as well. Iraq was not allowed to challenge the flights in the NFZ (htough the legality of these zones was questionable): that is NOT the same as being banned the ability to defend themselves, specially since large sections of Iraq were NOT under NFZ (ncluding the area in which these wepaons were found). Iraq had SAM instalations around Baghdad and in the Southern NFZ: what do you think the S was bombing all the time before the war? and if you go back to Powells UN presentation, you will find him talking about flights being challenged, but no one in the admi. ever stated that Iraq having SAM's (which they demostrably did) was a violation of anything. Yet you, whom I would gather is not part of this admin., now make this claim?

You Sloww make a ludicrous claim, then challenge others to disprove it? That is Fez level logic as well. You make a far-fetched claim, you back it up if you want anyone but you to believe it.

[Panag]

Originally posted by GePap





Oh gosh, he could seel Ak-47's to anyone as well...surely those were banned by the cease-fire as well! He could even sell granades and RPG's surely those were banned! Heck, any weapons system could be sold...so surely Iraq was banned from having even kitchen knives!

This was pathetic. Want to prove this ludicrous claim? Go into the cease-fire agreement and find the clause were this is made.

SAMs are used against aircraft.
You know, the type aircraft used by Coalition troops patrolling the No Fly Zone?

This is pathetic as well. Iraq was not allowed to challenge the flights in the NFZ (htough the legality of these zones was questionable): that is NOT the same as being banned the ability to defend themselves, specially since large sections of Iraq were NOT under NFZ (ncluding the area in which these wepaons were found). Iraq had SAM instalations around Baghdad and in the Southern NFZ: what do you think the S was bombing all the time before the war? and if you go back to Powells UN presentation, you will find him talking about flights being challenged, but no one in the admi. ever stated that Iraq having SAM's (which they demostrably did) was a violation of anything. Yet you, whom I would gather is not part of this admin., now make this claim?

You Sloww make a ludicrous claim, then challenge others to disprove it? That is Fez level logic as well. You make a far-fetched claim, you back it up if you want anyone but you to believe it.

hi ,

not to many ak's are used to shoot aircraft down , .......

have a nice day

[GePap]

HELLO!! PLANET EARTH TO SLOWW AND PANAG!!

Iraq was allowed systems capable of shooting down aircraft: heckl they were even allowed aircraft themselves. I remmember all those tracers on CNN from the war..what were they from? Oh yes, Anti-Aircraft Artillery...

The NFZ's (established AFTER the cease-fire agreement) only limited the areas were Iraq could operate military aircraft under it's control, and of course the US and UK defended aircraft which the Iraqis challenged. And none of that does anything to back up the ludicrous claim Sloww made and Panag for some strange reason has chosen to support. So again, make a stupid FLL claim, back it up, or shut it down.

[SlowwHand]

GePap is a wanderer.
Wanders the world lost in his own concepts.
Thinking the Hussein's of the world play nice.

I've posted 1441 here 2 or 3 times, and all that is said is,
"Nana nana boo boo. I don't accept it."
Guess what? Hussein didn't and he got his family dusted.
Vanquished don't make the rules.

[mrmitchell]

Easily the worst president ever. He's not even a conservative! That dickhead wouldn't cut spending. What good is cutting taxes without cutting spending? ****ing *******.

but not shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles

I know why they couldn't have them! So they couldn't defend themselves from any invasion! Right?

Do it yourself, Lazyass.

You're the one with the burden of proof

You know, the type aircraft used by Coalition troops patrolling the No Fly Zone?

...or the type aircraft any other nation would use to support an invasion of them, or, actually, the type aircraft WE USED TO BOMB THEM DURING THE WAR.....

You can call me an unpatriotic godless bastard, Sloww, but when you think about it from Iraq's point of view, not allowing SAMs is really a crooked deal. (If Iraq invaded US, we'd want SAMs wouldn't we?)

And why not a few SAMs if they were allowed ballistic missiles? Doesn't sound right to me

If people like you and Slowwhand represent the future of the US (might makes right, any dissent is unpatriotic, other countries have to do what we say) then I would say that I am justifiably worried about a possible future US.

You don't need to bother putting in the "future" part. We've already got a full count of "might makes right" + "dissent is unpatriotic" guys in office.

[TCO]

Originally posted by el freako
Well, that's what worries me TCO.

If people like you and Slowwhand represent the future of the US (might makes right, any dissent is unpatriotic, other countries have to do what we say) then I would say that I am justifiably worried about a possible future US.

a. You don't know me well enough to judge me.

b. spare me. The US has a proud history.

c. Who cares if we drive pickup trucks, tote guns and like capital punishment. We are a lot closer to you than to the Saddams and the like. You need to get over these visceral reactions.

[SlowwHand]

Mitchell, I have the burden of proof, once.
Not until the end of time.
I've provided the whole documentaion, beyond my burden.

[mrmitchell]

GePap is a wanderer.
Wanders the world lost in his own concepts.
Thinking the Hussein's of the world play nice.

I've posted 1441 here 2 or 3 times, and all that is said is,
"Nana nana boo boo. I don't accept it."
Guess what? Hussein didn't and he got his family dusted.
Vanquished don't make the rules.

For the sake of the n00b newly entering the Iraq fray, post it again with the parts proving your point bolded.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Mitchell, I have the burden of proof, once.
Not until the end of time.
I've provided the whole documentaion, beyond my burden.

So, if you have proven once,
that the Iraqis weren´t allowed to have Shouldermounted SAMs,
then just give a link to a Posting where you did it, Sloww

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boshko

How so? It happened:

United States intelligence services infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency that it used to disguise its work, according to U.S. government employees and documents describing the classified operation.
.....
But unbeknownst to UNSCOM, the U.S. signals and sensor technicians who installed and maintained the system were intelligence operatives, and the repeater stations they built had a covert capability. Hidden in their structure were antennas capable of intercepting microwave transmissions, and the U.S. agents placed some of them near important nodes of Iraqi military communications.
......


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...99/unscom2.htm

By red herring, I'm not contesting that it happened. (I don't really know that much about it...just what you say...) What I mean by red herring is that Saddam resited the inspections regardless. He had a long history of playing games, of hidden weapons programs, of agreeing to something and then not deleivering. It was not like Saddam followed all the rules and then all of a sudden stopped over this one thing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
GePap is a wanderer.
Wanders the world lost in his own concepts.
Thinking the Hussein's of the world play nice.

I've posted 1441 here 2 or 3 times, and all that is said is,
"Nana nana boo boo. I don't accept it."
Guess what? Hussein didn't and he got his family dusted.
Vanquished don't make the rules.

Listen up you man-child:

If you want a reasoned debate on Iraq, bring it on, I will hapilly participate. But as of right now, all you do is post things you think back you up, or make ludicrous claims, and always, ALWAYS failt to give what actualy matters which is the reasoned analysis of it. And all you do is a great dis-serive to your cause, just like Fez. So if you want to further your cause, debate with logic, or sit back and let others do it.

There is ONE single pro-war poster here that has made a consistently reasoned arguement, and that is Lazarus, becuase he always simply justified the war on humanitarian reasons.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

For the sake of the n00b newly entering the Iraq fray, post it again with the parts proving your point bolded.

Screw you.
Any 'Noob" just coming into the Iraq fray is just little late.

[Bosh]

TCO: Right, he would have resisted inspections regardless but the US really did hand him a good pretext to do so and claims that the origonal inspectors were expelled is false.