Helenjw
|
posted on April 28, 2004 10:02:15 AM new
And Linda_K insinuates that since melcher did not belive the Bush story of WMD that he looked to Saddam for facts rather than believe his "own government".
http://www.vendio.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=181068&id=181148
"LOL melcher - So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you believe Saddam when he said he has no WoMB as opposed to believing your own government, and the government intelligence of many other countries that Saddam was lying."
Of course, mlecher came to a correct conclusion without relying on the words of Saddam Hussein.
Helen
|
trai
|
posted on April 28, 2004 10:26:46 AM new
It sounds to me like you're under the impression Saddam was an ally to the US. [hint - he wasn't]
Thats open to debate as the U.S, was very chummy with Saddam for a long time. The U.S. did encourage him with the war against Iran,
The supply of weapons and helicopters to Saddam is on record. These same helicopters where used by Saddam via his cousin known as "Chemical Ali" to gas the Kurds.
As they say politics makes strange bedfellows.
The future has taken root in the present.
|
Reamond
|
posted on April 28, 2004 10:28:56 AM new
Now, it is not good for the Christian's health to hustle the Aryan brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles, and he weareth the Christian down;
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, with the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: 'A fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.'
Rudyard Kipling.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38243
|
Linda_K
|
posted on April 28, 2004 11:59:36 AM new
kiara - You're a kick. 
I will repeat, for your benefit alone, I have never said I agree with everything my government has done or is currently doing. Nor have I said I always believe everything they tell us/me. You're putting words in my mouth.
You find one, of the *many* times/subject/issues that I do support my government and use that as your proof to support your statement? funny
----------------
trai - Yes, I'm aware that the US, and many other countries, take sides with each other and then things change....and they don't side/approve of what they're doing at a later date. It doesn't make the US responsible for everything saddam did just because we had a common enemy at one time.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on April 28, 2004 12:03:01 PM new
Cease-fire ?
Special operator: The AC-130U has sophisticated weapons control.
The AC-130 carries some of the most formidable firepower at the Air Force's disposal
AC-130H Spectre and AC-130U Spooky
U.S. Planes Hit Falluja After Najaf Clash Leaves Scores Dead
From xymphora
"The United States is now using AC-130 gunships in its attack on Falluja, firing into urban areas of an inhabited city. This represents yet again a new low in American military conduct since the end of World War II (the new lows keep coming faster and faster, with the United States now having descended completely into subhuman behavior). The AC-130 is an airplane developed to kill every human being that is under it. The Americans are sending a wall of lead down on targets with no possible way to know whether the targets are civilians or insurgents (although it seems to me that everybody who is defending himself, his home, and his family from an illegal attack by an illegal and brutal occupying army must be considered to be a civilian; on the other hand, the Americans define everyone who they kill as a terrorist). Do I hear any uproar from Americans on what is being done in their names? No. Just a deafening silence."
xymphora
|
Linda_K
|
posted on April 28, 2004 12:20:54 PM new
This was my full statement to melcher:
LOL melcher - So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you believe Saddam when he said he has no WoMB as opposed to believing your own government, and the government intelligence of many other countries that Saddam was lying.
In my full quote of Clinton's speach in 1998 after he had deployed troops for ...let's see....no reason...according to you, because there are no WoMD, he said:
"Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
In that same speach clinton also said: "If we had delayed for even a matter of days.....we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons." [b]And this time we gave him months to do so.
Any reasonable person, who reads clinton's own words, can see that even clinton believed he had WoMD and if given time Saddam would 'protect this weapons'.
Choose to believe it or not....it's been stated by both sides of the aisle.
---------------------
And the UN Security Council had also voted 15-0 that Saddam either needed to destroy his weapons or prove he had destroyed them. He didn't. Bush gave him 'one last chance' [after too many 'one last chances'] to do so...he didn't. Then he was put on a 48 hour notice....he still didn't. End of story.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on April 28, 2004 12:31:50 PM new
You agree with this statement from your link helen?
"The United States is now using AC-130 gunships in its attack on Falluja, firing into urban areas of an inhabited city. This represents yet again a new low in American military conduct since the end of World War II (the new lows keep coming faster and faster, with the United States now having descended completely into subhuman behavior).
Is that how you really see your Armed Forces helen? Or are you just trolling again?
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on April 28, 2004 12:47:12 PM new
Linda...I'm not wasting any time rehashing the history of Clinton with you again. Just suffice it to say that you were wrong to believe that what Clinton stated in 1998 still applied five years later, before the Bush Iraq war in 2003
Just before the war began Clinton said that he did not know if there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush led the American people to believe that he was absolutely sure that there were WMD. Clinton who was no longer president at that time did not know.
Helen.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on April 28, 2004 01:08:27 PM new
Bush and his administration are responsible for this debacle, linda. He lied to start the war, alienated all allies, and preemptively and unilaterally invaded a country that was no threat to this country. That is a new low for this country. Now, we are occupying the country and as occupiers we should try to guarantee the safety, security and well-being of the civilians in Iraq. To level the entire city because some Fallujans have tried to kill Marines is outrageously wrong.
Helen
|
Linda_K
|
posted on April 28, 2004 01:13:21 PM new
And in a much more recent interview clinton said that the day he left office he didn't know if those weapons had been destroyed.
But are you going to answer my question helen? Is that how you see our Armed Forces? Do you agree with the 'take' of the article you just posted?
This is how you get away with saying "I never said that"....no you just post the anti-American articles because YOU SUPPORT OUR TROOPS....just not war.
right......
And you wonder why you're seen as being anti-American?
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on April 28, 2004 01:17:50 PM new
Bush and his administration are responsible for this debacle, linda. He lied to start the war, alienated all allies, and preemptively and unilaterally invaded a country that was no threat to this country. That is a new low for this country. Now, we are occupying the country and as occupiers we should try to guarantee the safety, security and well-being of the civilians in Iraq. To level the entire city because some Fallujans have tried to kill Marines is outrageously wrong.
Helen
I haven't heard we've leveled the entire city. You must have a crystal ball.
What this really boils down to is that you don't REALLY support our troops after all then. They're defending themselves from those who are firing on them.
Suppose you'd rather they just die so then you can once again use their deaths to promote your "admit defeat....and run" theory.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on April 28, 2004 01:20:32 PM new
What this really boils down to is that you don't REALLY support our troops after all then. They're defending themselves from those who are firing on them.
Suppose you'd rather they just die so then you can once again use their deaths to promote your "admit defeat....and run" theory.
I said, Bush and his administration are responsible for this debacle, linda. He lied to start the war, alienated all allies, and preemptively and unilaterally invaded a country that was no threat to this country. That is a new low for this country. Now, we are occupying the country and as occupiers we should try to guarantee the safety, security and well-being of the civilians in Iraq. To level the entire city because some Fallujans have tried to kill Marines is outrageously wrong.
Don't try to spin my words to your nasty agenda. I don't blame the troops. I blame GEORGE W, BUSH.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Apr 28, 2004 01:25 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on April 28, 2004 01:31:15 PM new
helen - You can say what you want...it's quite clear you don't feel our troops should be defending themselves from enemy fire.
To level the entire city because some Fallujans have tried to kill Marines is outrageously wrong.
Helen
Our troops are already there helen....they're fighting for their lives.....and to do anything against those who are trying to kill them is "outrageously wrong". according to you.
No twist...no spin...your own words...
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on April 28, 2004 01:39:31 PM new
"helen - You can say what you want...it's quite clear you don't feel our troops should be defending themselves from enemy fire".
There is a lot of false information that is perfectly clear to you, linda.
ubb.ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on Apr 28, 2004 01:51 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on April 28, 2004 01:55:00 PM new
okay...helen....so are you now saying you DO support our troops and agree they should do whatever it takes to kill those trying to kill them????
OR???????
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on April 28, 2004 02:31:30 PM new
Linda...I think that overwhelming aerial bombardment on a town filled with civilians is going beyond defensive actions of an occupying force. That is against the Geneva convention. Yesterday, I was in a small shop where the owner had her TV tuned to the Fallujah battle which was being broadcast in Arrabic...possibly Aljazeerah. Anyway it was a horrific bombardment. The sky was red, filled with fire - unlike the green night vision pictures that we have on our home TV. This was not door to door street fighting but offensive bombardment.
There's no doubt here that I support the troops.
[ edited by Helenjw on Apr 28, 2004 02:32 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on April 28, 2004 02:40:37 PM new
I think that overwhelming aerial bombardment on a town filled with civilians is going beyond defensive actions of an occupying force.
Please point me in the direction of where you're getting your info from. We bombed THREE buildings where we believed they were storing the ammunitions being used against our forces.
Since the 'civilians' you always speak of don't wear a uniform....how do you define which are civilians and which are insurgents firing on our troops?
That is against the Geneva convention.
So...now in addition to believing the Marines should do whatever necessary to stay alive, you believe your government is breaking the Geneva convention? WOW...helen...you sound like kerry more and more.
Yesterday, I was in a small shop today where the owner had her TV tuned to the Fallujah battle which was being broadcast in Arrabic...possibly Aljazeerah.
So now you're willing to accept and believe what Aljazeerah says is going on vs what our own military says is going on. I doubt it is hard for many American's to quickly decide they MIGHT just be a little anti-American.
There's no doubt here that I support the troops.
You do not. You don't support the troops defending themselves, by whatever means necessary, then you don't support the troops. Maybe you support the troops going home...but when fighting for their lives you really should be on their side and not the side of our enemy who are firing on them.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on April 28, 2004 02:43:00 PM new
Helen, you "support the troops" but you don't support what they're doing. That ought to make them feel real good.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
|
Linda_K
|
posted on April 28, 2004 02:43:54 PM new
correction:
So...now in addition to not believing the Marines should do whatever necessary to stay alive, you believe your government is breaking the Geneva convention?
WOW...helen...you sound like kerry more and more.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on April 28, 2004 02:53:37 PM new
Oh, Scat linda, with your silly ideas and false allegations.! You know, nobody is going to want to chat with you if you continue like this.
I only saw the TV picture. No translation of writing or speech was available...unfortunately.
Helen
.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on April 28, 2004 03:21:16 PM new
Scat? Why so no one would question you on just HOW and WHEN you supposedly support our troops when you make such statements against their actions? LOL
You don't think they should even defend themselves against enemy fire while they had agreed to a cease fire that would allow a time for all the willing to turn in their weapons. WE held back, helen, so that there would be fewer deaths. THEY are the one's firing on us....and we're not going to stand their and let them kill our troops.
You also state you think they are violating the Geneva Convention by defending themselves from enemy fire.
helenjw - I think that overwhelming aerial bombardment on a town filled with civilians is going beyond defensive actions of an occupying force. That is against the Geneva convention.
You're a sad excuse for an American, imo.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on April 28, 2004 03:40:15 PM new
Linda...Two thoughts for you to consider.
Everyone here can read. So, your misinterpretaion of my statements will only serve to make you appear foolish and rude.
As for your opinion of me, I consider the source.
Helen
|
kiara
|
posted on April 28, 2004 04:26:14 PM new
Military to provide armored vehicles to defend against bombings
BY STEPHEN J. HEDGES
Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Responding to a request by field commanders, military leaders are increasing the delivery of armored vehicles to Iraq because deadly roadside bombings have not diminished as expected.
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that a request for more heavy armored vehicles - Abrams M1A1 tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles - has been made by commanders in Iraq. The Pentagon is considering sending more tanks and is accelerating production of armored Humvee utility vehicles.
The decision to add armor may suggest that the Pentagon made a deadly miscalculation by reducing heavy armor in Iraq.
Forces now arriving in Iraq as part of a massive troop rotation were ordered to leave many of their heavily armored tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles behind, in the belief that since their mission was peacekeeping instead of fighting, heavy equipment would be unnecessary.
There are currently about 2,500 armored Humvees in Iraq, according to an Army spokeswoman. The new production pace should put 4,300 such vehicles in the country by September. Crews in Iraq are also using modification kits to add armor to Humvees already there.
|
davebraun
|
posted on April 28, 2004 04:57:12 PM new
The best support our troops could get at this point is a complete withdrawal from this theater of operation.
The mindless support these troops under the misguided doctrine of "my country, right or wrong" puts no value on their lives.
They have been sent to invade a sovereign nation under false pretenses.
The lies spread by this administration both prior to and ongoing regarding this conflict are both flagrant and many.
This war has been orchestrated to acheive the political ambition of the Cowardly Cretin of Crawford and his cohorts, hopefully he will return to the private sector this November.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
[ edited by davebraun on Apr 28, 2004 04:58 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on April 28, 2004 06:07:08 PM new
Yes dave, and doing what you and other's suggest would prove bin laden right to all the terrorists in the world, imo.
[i]The Muslim victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan showed him that superpowers are not so superpowerful. And the ignominious American withdrawal from Somalia--following a Bin Laden connected attack--convinced him that the United States is morally weak. The U.S. soldier is "a paper tiger" who crumples after "a few blows."
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on April 28, 2004 06:16:50 PM new
Dave,
I agree with that! I shudder to think about the number of young people who will die or be seriously injured in this conflagration...and for what???
Few will volunteer to risk their lives to go into this battle without a cause or a plan of operation. Delaying withdrawal is just postponing the inevitable while adding to the number killed and wounded.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Apr 28, 2004 06:17 PM ]
|
fred
|
posted on April 28, 2004 09:24:56 PM new
"Since the 'civilians' you always speak of don't wear a uniform....how do you define which are civilians and which are insurgents firing on our troops?"
A L..A. Times (Left News Paper} embedded reporter with the Marine Sniper Platoon said the platoon came under fire from the insurgents. The insurgents were using Women & Children as Shields. The Marines did not return fire. They retreated to a building. A squad was sent to the roof an proceeded to pick of the insurgents as the rest of the platoon under heavy fire extracted the Shields. Marines called for the KC130 (Puff the magic Dragon) which attacked the 3 rail station buildings. ( Fox News).
That is one Hummer of an aircraft. A 105 round can wipe your ass with pin point accuracy.
Old Puff has grew up sense Vietnam.
Fred
|
davebraun
|
posted on April 28, 2004 09:42:58 PM new
Yes Fred our technology allows us to kill with much greater precision than the technology available 35 years ago.
Unfortunately there have been no advances in the mentality of the operators of the machinery used for this destructive purpose.
And Linda do you really believe the fiction that Osama had something to do with Sadam?
The only thing our invasion of Iraq achieved was to form an alliance between various groups who had only on thing in common that my enemies enemy is my friend. Our shortsighted policy has forged a bond between these various groups.
Hopefully the Cowardly Cretin from Crawford will return to the private sector where he belongs.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on April 28, 2004 09:51:01 PM new
Fred, you seem to be one of the only ones that make any kind of sense.
Helen: 'Scat'? No one is going to want to continue to 'chat' with Linda?
What bs, I'll 'chat' with Linda, and any others that make some sense in all this, or is at the least civil.
I have not been following this thread, but all I seem to hear is 'pull out of this war'
YEAH, just like the terrorists and bin Laden want, just like other countries that now feel threatened that they may get it like the US or Spain. So we quietly pick up and leave, and let the son of a bitches win.
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
|
kiara
|
posted on April 28, 2004 10:27:43 PM new
There were bus loads of insurgents coming into Iraq from Syria during the past year because there was no security and I realize that they will use children as human shields as they don't value life and consider it dying for a holy cause.
No, I don't think the US can withdraw now as it would be civil war and a breeding ground for terrorists. Al Queda would consider it a victory for sure.
The US has the trust of some of the Iraqi people and they're looking forward to better times but it's hard to say how things will go. They need more troops on the ground for security throughout the country and then they may make some headway.
[ edited by kiara on Apr 28, 2004 10:28 PM ]
|
