The media is out of hand

[Kerad]

This statement is wrong..

During the first Gulf War his generals and his field commanders had a multitude of chemical weapons.. Saddam gave the order to use them, but the generals realizing they were going to lose, and what would happen to them if they did use them, refused to fire a single round..

We did find all of those chemical weapons after the first war.. artillery shells, bombs.. etc.. Where'd they go??

The majority (if not all) were destroyed IAW the U.N. resolutions.

So, you think that with American troops marching on Baghdad, a decision was made to save the chemical wepons for a more pressing need?

 

[Kerad]

How about this theory... Saddam was approaching this from the aspect that he would lose, escape and come back to form a rebellion and retake the country with the help of Syria, where the WMD were hidden.

Wow...that's quite the plan. Yes...I'm sure that's exactly what he had planned. Either that, or he was planning of having the Death Star completely functional before we reached him....so he'd save his chemical weapons for something else.

 

[vraiblonde]

Wow...that's quite the plan. Yes...I'm sure that's exactly what he had planned. Either that, or he was planning of having the Death Star completely functional before we reached him....so he'd save his chemical weapons for something else.

Then why didn't he let the inspectors finish their job? If Saddam was in the clear and completely in compliance, why did he boot the inspectors out?

 

[vraiblonde]

So, you think that with American troops marching on Baghdad, a decision was made to save the chemical wepons for a more pressing need?

Yeah, and have the whole civilized world join in the fight. Great idea.

I'm not some military expert or anything, but it seems to me he'd want to start small and build up before taking on the big dog. It seems reasonable to assume that that's what Kuwait was all about.

 

[Kerad]

Yeah, and have the whole civilized world join in the fight. Great idea.

I'm not some military expert or anything, but it seems to me he'd want to start small and build up before taking on the big dog. It seems reasonable to assume that that's what Kuwait was all about.

With enemy troops of the United States marching into Baghdad, I doubt that Saddam would be too worried about who else might be marching with them. The end result would be the same. "If you don't use your weapons, you will be crushed by a 10 ton weight. If you do use your weapons, you will be crushed by a 12 ton weight."

If you don't use your weapons to defend your country and capital from enemy forces whose main objective is to get you and take down your government...what do you have them for?

Personally, I doubt Saddam was planning on taking down the U.S. when he invaded Kuwait. He was our buddy, after all. It think it was a simple land/oil grab. Ironically, I think Saddam wanted weapons to use on Iran. Iran was his mortal enemy...not us.

 

[itsbob]

Wow...that's quite the plan. Yes...I'm sure that's exactly what he had planned. Either that, or he was planning of having the Death Star completely functional before we reached him....so he'd save his chemical weapons for something else.

Funny you find this hard to believe, when this is what he did with his AF in Desert Storm.. Flew his entire AF out of country to IRAN.. an enemy of IRAQ.. So he could use them later..

 

[SamSpade]

Personally, I doubt Saddam was planning on taking down the U.S. when he invaded Kuwait. He was our buddy, after all. It think it was a simple land/oil grab. Ironically, I think Saddam wanted weapons to use on Iran. Iran was his mortal enemy...not us.

I think he thought what everyone thought - the United States would do nothing. They'd bellyache just like the United Nations, but they'd do nothing. They also, at the time boasted - supposedly - the fourth largest military in the world (at least, that's what the press claimed). He took Kuwait because he could.

He later would admit that he thought Desert Shield was mostly a bluff - the mother of all battles was an idle threat - but he really didn't think we'd do anything. I do think he figured he could take Saudi very easily - and being a military leader with control of the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina - he'd pretty much be in charge of the Middle East and its oil.

Later, when he took shots at our flyovers in the No Fly zone - he assessed correctly that we would shoot a few missiles and be done with it. This was, after all the same United States that resisted putting troops on the ground in the Balkans but insisted on sticking with bombing campaigns.

And - he wasn't "our friend". We also gave assistance to Iran as well. He was an ally against Iran, but Iran was his enemy as well as the Shia within his own borders. As far as he was concerned, we posed no actual threat.

 

[Kerad]

Funny you find this hard to believe, when this is what he did with his AF in Desert Storm.. Flew his entire AF out of country to IRAN.. an enemy of IRAQ.. So he could use them later..

An air force is only as good as it's pilots. He was smart enough to realize his pilots didn't stand a chance up there, so instead of sacrificing all those planes (and pilots)...he'd stash them somewhere safe. He also knew we would not march into Baghdad (in Desert Storm) and topple his government. He would maintain his power without his air force being destroyed...then (in theory) he'd get his planes back afterwards.

Chemical weapons are a completely different animal. With chems, all you need to do is launch them towards your enemy, and let chemistry take over. Also, this time he knew we were coming all the way to Baghdad specifically to get him.

It's not as if we'd let him go if we didn't find anything.
"Sorry, Mr. Hussein. There seems to have been a mixup somewhere....sorry for the inconvenience. Please accept our apologies, and you and the Mrs. have a good night."

 

[Kerad]

I think he thought what everyone thought - the United States would do nothing. They'd bellyache just like the United Nations, but they'd do nothing. They also, at the time boasted - supposedly - the fourth largest military in the world (at least, that's what the press claimed). He took Kuwait because he could.

He later would admit that he thought Desert Shield was mostly a bluff - the mother of all battles was an idle threat - but he really didn't think we'd do anything. I do think he figured he could take Saudi very easily - and being a military leader with control of the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina - he'd pretty much be in charge of the Middle East and its oil.

Later, when he took shots at our flyovers in the No Fly zone - he assessed correctly that we would shoot a few missiles and be done with it. This was, after all the same United States that resisted putting troops on the ground in the Balkans but insisted on sticking with bombing campaigns.

And - he wasn't "our friend". We also gave assistance to Iran as well. He was an ally against Iran, but Iran was his enemy as well as the Shia within his own borders. As far as he was concerned, we posed no actual threat.

I agree wth you on pretty much everything here. With the addition of noting that our Balkans bombing campaign was quite successful.

 

[SamSpade]

An air force is only as good as it's pilots. He was smart enough to realize his pilots didn't stand a chance up there, so instead of sacrificing all those planes (and pilots)...

But you have dodged the issue - if Iran was their MORTAL enemy - why on earth would he hide half his Air Force there? If you were North Korea, would you "hide" your planes in South Korea? If you were the United States, would you stash your advanced weaponry in the Soviet Union? You would NOT - IF Iran was your *mortal* enemy. I think this was a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They were closer to Iran than to the U.S.

he'd stash them somewhere safe. He also knew we would not march into Baghdad (in Desert Storm) and topple his government. He would maintain his power without his air force being destroyed...then (in theory) he'd get his planes back afterwards.

You're making his point. If he did it once, he'd do it again. Good reason to stash easily transported chemical and biological weapons - use them later. Saddam's threats were that he would make the guerilla campaign a fight we would never win.

Also, this time he knew we were coming all the way to Baghdad specifically to get him.

I still think he again thought we wouldn't go in - not with the bulk of the world against us on the matter. He'd bribed everyone in the UN. He had their vote. It wasn't going to happen, in his mind. And I think he thought a real face to face combat would be fought to a standstill - and Somalia taught him Americans won't stand for a long fight. Send a few body bags, and they will leave. I mean, as far as the Baathists and Iraqis who supported him - he WON the first war. Why wouldn't he win again?

It's not as if we'd let him go if we didn't find anything.
"Sorry, Mr. Hussein. There seems to have been a mixup somewhere....sorry for the inconvenience. Please accept our apologies, and you and the Mrs. have a good night."

And this is where the Bush Lied People Died thing gets me - if there wasn't any - and we knew this going in - how hard would it have been to frame him over it? I mean, you're a cop and you KNOW that Mr. Big doesn't have any drugs in his mansion - and you say he does. Isn't it a foregone conclusion you HAVE to fake it, to justify your actions? Cops have been known to do that NOW - if we had lied going in, why would we have suddenly gotten honest about it?

I think -

1. Intel was bad
2. Saddam lied, people died - Saddam boasted of weapons he didn't have, to keep power.
3. Saddam DID have programs in place - but they weren't advanced. Possibly he was waiting until an effective delivery system was available.
4. He WAS pursuing nuclear weapons - but like Iran, he was more than five years away.
5. People under Saddam lied to protect their skins - falsely reporting on more progress than existed - and destroyed this evidence to save their hides.
6. I think he DID take some WMD's to Syria - but after losing Iraq and being captured he was unable to regain them. If this is true, this could be worse than ever. Worse than Saddam having WMD's is Hezbollah having WMD's.

 

[Kerad]

But you have dodged the issue ...

I haven't dodged ANY of the issues.

I have no idea why Saddam thought Iran would give him back his planes. I remember thinking that was pretty at the time. I'm sure it was probably like what you alluded to. Iran and Iraq were enemies, but in comes America, smashing on through the middle east like the drunken infidels they are. I'm betting Iran sad "Hey, we are enemies, but we belong, they do not. We will watch your planes, and then we will deal with our problems after the devil americans have gone away to sleep it off." Who knows?

My point is the Iraqii warplanes were worthless against our Air Force. Chemical weapons would not be worthless, as you do not need skilled pilots to get them to do damage. He had nothing to gain by launching planes against us during Desert Storm, but nothing to lose by launching chems at us as we're rockin' into Baghdad during Iraqi Freedom.

I have admitted I was suprised the Bushies never planted WMDs, upon discovering they would not find any. Imagine the outrage that would ensue if WMD's were not found. (Ooops...uh...nevermind.) At least they never sunk that low.

I don't think Bush knew for sure that Iraq wouldn't have WMD's. I think he had a hunch they had some, somewhere....he just couldn't prove it. He may have decided that once the war was over in six months and there was a Statue of Liberty in downtown Baghdad, people would forgive the fact that none were found. Happiness follows success, the end justifies the means, etc...

 

[forestal]

Well, how many did Iran give back to him after the first war,,,,none.

Probably learned his lesson on that tactic real quick.

Funny you find this hard to believe, when this is what he did with his AF in Desert Storm.. Flew his entire AF out of country to IRAN.. an enemy of IRAQ.. So he could use them later..

 

[forestal]

Hey, at least they're not dead, like some other poor schmuck.

Our military is very eager to cover up friendly fire incidents. Just look how disgracefully they treated the Pat Tillman incident.

The second theme to emerge from Tillman’s death is that his country probably didn’t deserve him. At every turn, the U.S. military has exploited, desecrated, and, ultimately, turned its back on Tillman’s heroism. The Pentagon has since closed its doors to Tillman’s family, sharing information about his death only when compelled to do so by members of the media, or by the Tillman family’s newfound allies in Congress.​

SO what's your point?

Have you ever been in a situation those pilots were in? Can you tell the difference between a soviet IFV and a British IFV at night, from say 3 miles away?

I think the US was right in trying to protect these pilots, they are suffereing enough knowing they made a mistake, why put them through the media wringer, and let dickheads like you have their way with them??

There was no intent on the pilots part to kill 'friendly', it's war, mistakes happen, luckily today, not as often as say in WWII.

 

[forestal]

Yeh, and they had WMDs, and we knew just where they were, and they had mobile bio weapons labs, and we had pictures, and Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger, and, and, you and Bush are full of crap.

Doesnt anyone remember when we first got into the outskirts of Baghdad, the reports of the US Military finding Gas Masks, CB Suits etc in the holdouts of the Iraqi Military?

Link



The Iraqis knew, of course, that coalition forces did not have chemical weapons; so the only reason for this gear is to protect against their own weapons.

 

[SouthernMdRocks]

An air force is only as good as it's pilots. He was smart enough to realize his pilots didn't stand a chance up there, so instead of sacrificing all those planes (and pilots)...he'd stash them somewhere safe. He also knew we would not march into Baghdad (in Desert Storm) and topple his government. He would maintain his power without his air force being destroyed...then (in theory) he'd get his planes back afterwards.

Chemical weapons are a completely different animal. With chems, all you need to do is launch them towards your enemy, and let chemistry take over. Also, this time he knew we were coming all the way to Baghdad specifically to get him.

It's not as if we'd let him go if we didn't find anything.
"Sorry, Mr. Hussein. There seems to have been a mixup somewhere....sorry for the inconvenience. Please accept our apologies, and you and the Mrs. have a good night."

He had moved his weapons out prior to our coming into Bagdad, he just didn't have the time or capability of getting them back before the invasion...

 

[BadGirl]

Hey, at least they're not dead, like some other poor schmuck.

Our military is very eager to cover up friendly fire incidents. Just look how disgracefully they treated the Pat Tillman incident.

The second theme to emerge from Tillman’s death is that his country probably didn’t deserve him. At every turn, the U.S. military has exploited, desecrated, and, ultimately, turned its back on Tillman’s heroism. The Pentagon has since closed its doors to Tillman’s family, sharing information about his death only when compelled to do so by members of the media, or by the Tillman family’s newfound allies in Congress.​

Listen ####bag, you have no idea what you are talking about.. you've never been in any of these situations so you, apparently, can't talk intelligently about any of it. Tillman's family already knows what happened, the Army has admitted to it being fratricide. What else do they want?



Fratricide happens, you saying his country didn't deserve his service bull####..

I think all of the prima dona's that play professional sports making obscene amounts of money should be required to do SOMEthing for their country, other then selling shoes, or Big Macs. Tillman was more of a man then you are any of them will ever be. He was a true patriot that loved his country and made the ultimate sacrifice while you sit here and bad mouth hthe country he served.

Matter of fact YOU should get off of your lazy ass and head down to the local recruiting station, you know MAYBE you can make a difference, you're not going to do it from where you are currently sitting.

The Tillmans are doing more to discredit his life and his service by trying to blame someone on his death, the truth is out there, it's been told. SOrry he had to give his life, but so have many others that don't get any special treatment.

 

[Pete]

Listen ####bag, you have no idea what you are talking about.. you've never been in any of these situations so you, apparently, can't talk intelligently about any of it. Tillman's family already knows what happened, the Army has admitted to it being fratricide. What else do they want?

Fratricide happens, you saying his country didn't deserve his service bull####..

I think all of the prima dona's that play professional sports making obscene amounts of money should be required to do SOMEthing for their country, other then selling shoes, or Big Macs. Tillman was more of a man they you are any of them will ever be. He was a true patriot that loved his country and made the ultimate sacrifice while you sit here and bad mouth hthe country he served.

Matter of fact YOU should get off of your lazy ass and head down to the local recruiting station, you know MAYBE you can make a difference, you're not going to do it from where you are currently sitting.

Actually I disagree. Not about the Tilman part, but about the part where you urge Forestool to enlist. the military does not need his kind.

 

[scottrobts]

I think he thought what everyone thought - the United States would do nothing. They'd bellyache just like the United Nations, but they'd do nothing. They also, at the time boasted - supposedly - the fourth largest military in the world (at least, that's what the press claimed). He took Kuwait because he could.

He later would admit that he thought Desert Shield was mostly a bluff - the mother of all battles was an idle threat - but he really didn't think we'd do anything. I do think he figured he could take Saudi very easily - and being a military leader with control of the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina - he'd pretty much be in charge of the Middle East and its oil.

Later, when he took shots at our flyovers in the No Fly zone - he assessed correctly that we would shoot a few missiles and be done with it. This was, after all the same United States that resisted putting troops on the ground in the Balkans but insisted on sticking with bombing campaigns.

And - he wasn't "our friend". We also gave assistance to Iran as well. He was an ally against Iran, but Iran was his enemy as well as the Shia within his own borders. As far as he was concerned, we posed no actual threat.

the only assistance we gave Iran during the Iran/Iraq war was selling them spare parts ILLEGALLY so that we coud use the profits to help the Contras, ILLEGALLY. Iraq shot two missiles at our frigate and we ended up destroying most of the Iranina naval assets they had in the Persian Gulf at the time.

 

[scottrobts]

Pat Tilman was a great man who did what he thought was right and backed up his words with actions. but the Army really dropepd the ball on his death, there have bene several articles about how it was handled, how it was covered up, how the cover up was covered up, how they botched everything in the investigation. No, dont argue about Tilman being a great man, and don't argue about the military screwing the pooch when it came to his death. Friendly-Fire is one of the fortunes of war, cover-ups are not, and never should be.

 

[forestal]

That time of the month?

I didn't write the article, I just linked to it. Did you know that Pat Tillman thought the Iraq war was wrong? Bet you didn't

You are putting words in my mouth that I haven't spoken...and you haven't kept up with current events, otherwise you would know that Tillman's family is very upset with the military over the way they handled the investigation.

Mostly I bad mouth our country's leaders, because they have done such a poor job. You need to realize that patriotism is more than just allegiance to whatever moronic windbad is in the White House.

As for serving in the military..well I can't currently oblige you. I don't feel like committing suicide and paying with my life for president Chimp's mistakes. If you feel so gung-ho about military service, why don't you join up, or maybe you want to stay home and bake cookies.

You're like all the other chicken hawks, professing that other people go risk their lives for your mistakes.

Listen ####bag, you have no idea what you are talking about.. you've never been in any of these situations so you, apparently, can't talk intelligently about any of it. Tillman's family already knows what happened, the Army has admitted to it being fratricide. What else do they want?



Fratricide happens, you saying his country didn't deserve his service bull####..

I think all of the prima dona's that play professional sports making obscene amounts of money should be required to do SOMEthing for their country, other then selling shoes, or Big Macs. Tillman was more of a man then you are any of them will ever be. He was a true patriot that loved his country and made the ultimate sacrifice while you sit here and bad mouth hthe country he served.

Matter of fact YOU should get off of your lazy ass and head down to the local recruiting station, you know MAYBE you can make a difference, you're not going to do it from where you are currently sitting.

The Tillmans are doing more to discredit his life and his service by trying to blame someone on his death, the truth is out there, it's been told. SOrry he had to give his life, but so have many others that don't get any special treatment.