Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire "What's the difference?"

Boondock,
Well said sir. If the one opinion, one voice folks had their way we would have the most intellectually repressive government on earth. There is an old adage that states, "For a democracy to exist, there must be an opposing view." The conservative/liberal arguement is symbiotic. For a nation to grow it needs leaders with liberal views, to stop growth from taking place too rapidly and destroying a country's culture it also needs leaders with conservative views.

I'm not sure where the RINO's and Neo-Con's fit into this equation.

The statement above is by far the most informed.

It's true however that not finding WMD's is a present political problem. However the fallout from the war is quite positive in total.

First we are fighting over there and not here. Many of the wako's that might kill us here are going to Iraq and our army is doing the hard work.

Second the domino's are starting to fall. The new's on Lybia is obvious as to why Kadafi does not want to look like Saddam.

That whole area including Israel has been a festering mess for decades. It finally hit the fan on 911 and now the rollover on your back types have to step aside.

Haggis, you are entitled to your wrong opinion. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Seriously, I don't agree with you on most points, but I do on this one. Whatever you feel like saying, I s'pose it's your right to do so.

I think it is you who needs to check up on your history before you go asking me what I am babbling about. Obviously, you don't realize that when the 5000 Kurds were gassed by Hussein, it was done while U.S. fighters were overhead. They asked for permission to intervene in the situation and were denied permission by Washington. I'm sure if you look around, you can probably find the videos of the attack on the Kurds shot by our own fighters.

As for the use of helicopters, after the Gulf war, the U.S. restricted any flights by any Iraqi troops. The Iraqi generals asked Schwarzkopf and Powell to allow the use of helicopters for humanitarian relief purposes. The request was granted, and the Iraqi's used the copters to chase down the fleeing Kurds. They were caught at the border and were gassed. If the request to use the helicopters had been denied, which had been recommended by the generals advisors, the masacre would not have happened.

So, now maybe you should break out your history book so you can have the facts at your command before you go name calling and berating somebody.

Well said, Savage99. I know that we did the right thing, but the political side of it is giving me a headache.

Here's a little history for those who missed it (or forgot).

(excerpt from)
STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS

January 28, 2003

"...........Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power. In the ruins of two towers, at the western wall of the Pentagon, on a field in Pennsylvania, this Nation made a pledge, and we renew that pledge tonight: Whatever the duration of this struggle, and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men � free people will set the course of history.
Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror ... the gravest danger facing America and the world ... is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to their terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.
This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations ... built armies and arsenals ... and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this Nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility.
America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter, and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We are strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We are working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.
In all of these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process � it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this Nation does not depend on the decisions of others. Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.
Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty, human rights, and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny � and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.
On the Korean peninsula, an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and starvation. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that the regime was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed. America is working with the countries of the region � South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia � to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship. The North Korean regime will find respect in the world, and revival for its people, only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions.
Our Nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean peninsula, and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression ... with ties to terrorism ... with great potential wealth ... will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons � not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead his utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world.
The 108 UN weapons inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons ... lay those weapons out for the world to see ... and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax � enough doses to kill several million people. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin � enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors � sanitizing inspection sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. And intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with UN inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction � but why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East, and create deadly havoc in the region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September 11, 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans � this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
This dictator, who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons, has already used them on whole villages � leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained � by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.
If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country � your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, our friends, and our allies. The United States will ask the UN Security Council to convene on February 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraq's illegal weapons programs; its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors; and its links to terrorist groups. We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him......."


There seems to be much more here than "we will invade Iraq because Saddam has WMD". This was clearly not the one and only hook that GW hung his hat on - but it is the one and only issue that the liberal press and the Democrat party harps on, because it is the ONLY issue that they can exploit. They even go as far as to accuse GWB of changing his "excuse" when the "lack of" WMDs is mentioned - even though all those other reasons were put forth IN THE SAME SPEACH that started this whole issue. There is no "bait and switch" here. There is no deception (except by Saddam).

It has now been proven that Saddam at least was working toward building and/or aquiring the means for WMD. IF these weapons do not actually exist, it only proves that we were not too late. I'll bet our troops are very glad of that, eh? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

BTW, what do you suppose was in all those trucks that fled across the border into Syria at the start of the war? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

-FreeMe

...So the bottom line is that the only reason that proving the existence of WMD is even an issue - is that the Dems and the media have made it so. To the rest of us it's...well..."what's the difference?" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

-FreeMe

FreeMe, Like I said I know we did the right thing. And like I said, the political side is giving me a headache. The press and the International Community is attempting to hang GW for this WMD thing. That's what's giving me a headache. Those folks will never understand that we did the right thing, morally and legally. I doubt they want to understand.
Thank you for posting that speech. It was very refreshing.

OK, where did he use this gas, when, what delivery systems did he use? Other then babbleing nonsense you dont offer any proof of this supposed, post Gulf war, gas attack on the kurds. What video? You mean the video shot, of all the dead woman and kids, after the Anfal campaign in 1988?

Youv already insulted your President wny not insult all those brave Allied pilots who prevented Saddam from attacking the kurds post Gulf war. Where is your proof of the gas attacks from the helicopters? So now Bush is responsable for the Iraqis useing helicopters to murder innocents?

Heres a history lesson for you son. As the Gulf war was winding down America came under intense pressure from its allies,most of all the moderate Arab states, not to invade Iraq and go after Saddam. The International community "UN" only authorized the use of force to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait, thats it! The Gulf Nations were, and are, deathly afraid of Iran and feared if Saddam was overthrown Iraq would fragment and the Iranians would move in and fill the power vacuum. Everyone in the American chain of command knew it was a mistake, but to invade Iraq would have been a breach of the UN mandate and would have caused the alliance to disintagrate. If America went in alone we would have been isolated and demonized by the world community.

In Hindsight it was a mistake, we should have gone anyway. But I hardly see how the decision to not invade equates into culpability by an American President for Saddams war crimes. You sure a CIA spy didnt whisper this into your ear as he overflew your house in a SR-71?

So what? Cause we alloed Iraq to use helicopters we should bear the guilt for their monstrous war crimes?

heres a little history lesson for you to read. I look foward to reading your accounts of these gas attacks you are blathering about. I cant wait to see the video...............10

""""""""""History with Hussein

Minority Kurds for decades have been considered "saboteurs" and "traitors," and fought Baghdad wherever possible. "No one knows Saddam Hussein like the Kurds," says Jawhar Namiq, a Kurdish leader. "We said Saddam was a dictator, a murderer, and we paid a very big price for that."

The Anfal campaign

Then came the Anfal campaign and the gassing of Halabja on March 16, 1988. Western and Kurdish health officials say that the fallout continues, in the form of increased rates of birth defects, cancers, respiratory problems, and infertility.

"That was the only time that I felt the Kurdish people could perish," says Sami Abdurahman, a senior leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, one of two rival Kurdish groups who rule northern Iraq, which is protected by US air patrols. "This will never go from the memory of the Kurdish people, and of course it says everything about this regime."

That point was driven home before the Gulf War, when Hussein's right-hand man Izzat Ibrahim Duri traveled to the north to issue this warning: "If you have forgotten Halabja, I would like to remind you that we are ready to repeat that operation."

Expecting just that when a 1991 Kurdish uprising failed, 1.5 million Kurds left everything behind and fled northern Iraq. Today, those who crossed the border say it was the legacy of this town that drove their flight.

Halabja was targeted the day after Iranian forces occupied the town, toward the end of the Iran-Iraq war. Kurdish rebels had fought with Iran, against Baghdad troops.

Qassem Hussein Mohamed, a 20-year veteran of Iraqi military intelligence, says he was on a hilltop overlooking Halabja that spring day in 1988.

Recently captured and interviewed in a Kurdish prison, Mr. Mohamed says he overheard two senior Iraqi military leaders give the order over a radio three times: "Gas. Gas. Gas."

That didn't surprise Mohamed. He says Iraqi troops had orders to kill Kurdish men from the all-powerful Iraqi governor of the north at the time � Ali Hassan al-Majid, the cousin of Hussein who is infamously known to Kurds as "Ali Chemical." Doctors were used to help determine men's ages � and therefore, who would live or die.

"They said many times they have different kinds of chemicals," says Mohamed, of the Halabja attack. "They gave the order for all Iraqi troops to wear a mask and [chemical] gear for 12 hours."

Survivors stories

The case of Halabja is full of the same emotive human tremors that emerge when survivors speak of the destruction of Koreme village. Tears flow when Younis Sharif Mohamed tells of hiding in his basement with 13 other members of his family.

The regular shelling lasted for several hours. "Then something new happened," Mr. Mohamed says. "The sound of the bombs was different � a flat, damp-sounding pop ... pop. We noticed a darkening of the sun, and then three special smells like apple, onion, and cucumber. After a moment, people began to scream."

Mohamed was out of the basement first, with his mother close behind. But he soon collapsed. When he came to, his eyes were in extreme pain. Ten other family members lay dead where they fell.

"I called out their names, but nobody answered me," Mohamed says. He realized it was pointless taking the bodies of his family to the local mosque for burial, since there was no one left alive who could bury them. He says he expects Hussein to unleash the same, fearsome destruction in any new war.

"Nothing has changed: It is the same regime, and the same power," Mohamed says. "Even if they don't do anything, Baghdad only has to say: 'We will go back to Kurdistan,' and the people will flee."""""""""""""""

Oh, you should see the rest of it!

http://www.c-span.org/executive/tra...mp;amp;code=bush_admin&year=2003

-FreeMe

10point, don't you know that, by default, America is responsible for the world's ills?
America gives the largest amount of foreign aid. Mh, people are still pissed at the great satan, maybe we ain't shoveling enough cash over!

Big Stick, Edzachery! Flinch

I am well aware of the gassing of the Kurds after the war with Iran. Hussein also went after the Kurds after the Gulf war when the Kurds thought that the U.S. was going to take out Hussein and they were positioning themselves for the ensuing power struggle. My point is, it is hard to justify the war on the basis of genocide, when we stood by and did nothing to stop it. If you will remember, the Reagan administration backed Hussein early in the war with Iraq. Chill out a little son.

Definition of a "moderate Arab"-----------One that is out of ammo. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

So - it's wrong not to stop Saddam from using WMD, and it's also wrong to stop Saddam from realizing his goal to have and use more WMD?



And so - since our crystal ball was broken - we should not act on the catastrophic results of our "mistake"? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

"All that is required for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing."

-FreeMe

Was there some point in time where it was too late to look back and correct the mistake? So maybe we did not do anything to take Hussein down after Desert Storm, and he gassed Kurds. Are we responsible? No, since we did not gas the Kurds.
The United Nations did not want anybody taking down Hussein.
You complain that we did not.
This just goes to prove that you cannot please everybody.
Which is it, with the UN or against the UN?

Im still waiting to be educated here RickyG. What about this attack? Maybe you can straighten me out on other things as well. You,you,you,you,you Historian you!

""""""""""""'I think it is you who needs to check up on your history before you go asking me what I am babbling about. Obviously, you don't realize that when the 5000 Kurds were gassed by Hussein, it was done while U.S. fighters were overhead. They asked for permission to intervene in the situation and were denied permission by Washington. I'm sure if you look around, you can probably find the videos of the attack on the Kurds shot by our own fighters.

As for the use of helicopters, after the Gulf war, the U.S. restricted any flights by any Iraqi troops. The Iraqi generals asked Schwarzkopf and Powell to allow the use of helicopters for humanitarian relief purposes. The request was granted, and the Iraqi's used the copters to chase down the fleeing Kurds. They were caught at the border and were gassed. If the request to use the helicopters had been denied, which had been recommended by the generals advisors, the masacre would not have happened.

So, now maybe you should break out your history book so you can have the facts at your command before you go name calling and berating somebody. """"""""""""""

Man, you really gotta get a life. RickyG

In January the fifth anniversary of the Gulf War was commemorated in TV series and newspaper articles, as though this �successful operation� was an emblem of post-Cold War Western power. This month, however, sees a rather different fifth anniversary. The Kurdish refugee crisis in the aftermath of the Gulf represented the other side of this success - a new world disorder in which Western statesmen covered themselves in ignominy before television embarrassed them into limited face- (and life-) saving measures.

The general failure to remember the Kurdish anniversary reflects how we represented the Iraqi wars at the time. Virtually everyone accepted that �the Gulf� was �the war� and that the main conflict was between Saddam Hussein�s regime and its Western adversaries. Even opponents of George Bush�s war took his definition of the situation at face value. And yet Saddam�s invasion of Kuwait grew out of the crisis of the Iraqi state resulting from his earlier wars - the genocidal campaign against the Kurds as well as the war with Iran - for which British firms were arming him with the Tories� connivance. And the 1991 wars did not stop with Bush�s ceasefire on 28 February.

On the contrary, that was when the bloodiest wars started. The Shia of southern Iraq, followed by the Kurds in the north, rebelled. Although they fought heroically with inferior weapons, they were crushed amidst appalling carnage by the Republican Guard - which Bush�s ceasefire had allowed to escape. The plight of Kurdish refugees on the mountainsides, where the West�s Turkish allies confined them, was only one part of the terrible human disaster which the defeat of the insurrections brought to the people of Iraq.

Written by Martin Shaw March 1996

What's the moral of the sad story? Don't try to please the UN, but do what's right.
Why in the world would you hold America responsible for this?
A more appropriate scapegoat would be the UN, because they have allowed all of it to happen. Think about it.