Eat this Saddam lovers

[SlowwHand]

TCO, you can't convince anyone that doesn't understand.
They'd have to have been paying attention for 12 years.
Most of these guys are bankrupt when it comes to paying attention.

[TCO]

No. I remember quite well.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by TCO


Saddam did not cooperate with the inspections. Just like Hitler did not abide by the Versailles treaty when he entered the Rhineland. And in both cases, the dictator was not held accountable until later.

He had good reason not to comply with them, for while they were doing some good they were also being used as a cover for US espionage. And the Hitler allegories are ridiculous, Saddam wasn't a danger to anyone but Iraqis after Gulf War I...

[TCO]

Freako, this was when we were taking casualties in the south from suicide bombers and when there was a lot of discussion about how we were NOT being welcomed by the population.

[Berzerker]

he is a hazard since he has actually used these weapons in the past

Not on the US, not in Gulf War I or II (I expected him to use them the second time around), and when he was using them, the Dems and GOP didn't give a sh!t because it was against the Iranians who were also using them. As for the Kurds, I've heard conflicting reports about who used them there and who was the target. The town was the site of a battle between the Iranians and Iraqis and the Kurds may have been caught between the 2 sides. I can't remember the name of the guy, but he's a conservative republican who claims the Kurds were "colateral damage" so to speak.

[Sandman]

Iraq attempted to comply with inspections, but nothing they could realistically have done would have made a difference. When one wants to invade a country, just make constantly escalating unreasonable demands. It worked before, and it'll work again.

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO


What are the trucks for?

The claim is for creating hydrogen to fill artillery spotter balloons. Iraq bought such systems from the Brits during the Iraq-Iran war.

Feel free. Start with Roland's Stalingrad thread at Counterglow. And note that I had to hunt him down to acknowledge he was wrong. He was more interested in argument-winning or the appearance of it than admitting error.

Thankfully I do not inhabit forums like counterglow. So why don't you start here?

If you ever want a reasoned arguement, feel free to ask for one, I promise I won't demaguoge you like you demaguoge your opponents constantly.

[el freako]

Originally posted by TCO


Saddam did not cooperate with the inspections. Just like Hitler did not abide by the Versailles treaty when he entered the Rhineland. And in both cases, the dictator was not held accountable until later.

And the US went against the international community and the wishes of the UN, just as Italy and Japan did with the League of Nations in the 1930's - in both cases these did irreparable damage to the international balance of power and made large wars of aggression more likely.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boshko

He had good reason not to comply with them, for while they were doing some good they were also being used as a cover for US espionage. And the Hitler allegories are ridiculous, Saddam wasn't a danger to anyone but Iraqis after Gulf War I...

He had agreed to the inspections. The US espionage thing is a red herring son. He had to open up to inspection as part of the conditions of Gulf War 1. And I'll remind you that almost Democrats were against GW1! Check out the vote in the Senate on authorization. Only 7 voted for the war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
TCO, you can't convince anyone that doesn't understand.
They'd have to have been paying attention for 12 years.
Most of these guys are bankrupt when it comes to paying attention.

So Sloww, since you are a paragon of logic..please explain to us why Iraq was allowed ballistic missiles with ranges under 93 miles, but not shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles: I would really like to know. Heck, since you like doing it so much, cut and paste the entire cease-fire agreement on here. Do make sure though to bold the section were they prohibit SAM's though, since reading all of that will be sort of a drag.

[TCO]

Originally posted by el freako



And the US went against the international community and the wishes of the UN, just as Italy and Japan did with the League of Nations in the 1930's - in both cases these did irreparable damage to the international balance of power and made large wars of aggression more likely.

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.

[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.

[Panag]

Originally posted by GePap


So Sloww, since you are a paragon of logic..please explain to us why Iraq was allowed ballistic missiles with ranges under 93 miles, but not shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles: I would really like to know. Heck, since you like doing it so much, cut and paste the entire cease-fire agreement on here. Do make sure though to bold the section were they prohibit SAM's though, since reading all of that will be sort of a drag.

hi ,

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

have a nice day

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by GePap


So Sloww, since you are a paragon of logic..please explain to us why Iraq was allowed ballistic missiles with ranges under 93 miles, but not shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles: I would really like to know. Heck, since you like doing it so much, cut and paste the entire cease-fire agreement on here. Do make sure though to bold the section were they prohibit SAM's though, since reading all of that will be sort of a drag.

Do it yourself, Lazyass.

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

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

I don't think Sloww and TCO could represent the future of anything.