Page 3 of 5 First 12345 Last
  1. #23
    YankeeMary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    13,022
    Thanks
    1,913
    Thanked 3,164 Times in 1,221 Posts

    Re: 'Close Guantanamo'?

    Quote Originally Posted by cleaningla
    That's what gets me. 60 million people voted for Bush, you'd think they could come up with at least a million young fighting age men to fight this war. Where are they. Sorry, but I think the republicans need to start putting up or shutting up.

    If you don't have any sons to put on the sacraficial altar, that's fine, just don't be so quick to volunteer mine through a draft, unless you have a couple of your own to send as well.
    I agree 100%.
    Janelle do not be so quick to offer my sons to Bush's war...if you think men should "belly up" why don't you have your dh go??? Older men can kill and be killed as well as young men.
    I will be the first to loudly and proudly admit that if (and I am sure it will be) the war is still going on in 3 years and if they have to instate the draft, you better believe this Momma will sell, borrow, beg or steal to HIDE my son!!! Thats just the way it is. If this war was about freedom of our wonderful country then I would feel differently. But there is absolutly no way I would ever sacrafice my son or sons for a war that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. I am sure that many on here will gladly jump all over me and even call me UnAmerican and thats fine by me, I say thats fine, hand them your son. I love my son(s) with all my heart and would do whatever I could do within my power to keep them safe and more importantly ALIVE!!! Death is forever and my sons lives are way more important then oil and money. And for the ones that will say if I am so unAmerican move to Canada or elsewhere, well I would but well the money just isn't there to up and move and who can we thank for that???
    The more you complain, the longer God makes you live.

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement 'Close Guantanamo'?
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    not the middle of nowhere but I can see it from here.
    Posts
    3,852
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 164 Times in 90 Posts

    Re: 'Close Guantanamo'?

    Gee thanks Janelle, it is so nice to know what I would have said back then, had I been alive. Could you also look into your crystal ball and give the lottery numbers for Va.

    As I said I supported our going after Bin Laden after the 911 atacks but No I do not support our going against international law (which btw way I do not believe we broke international laws after Pearl Harbor) and going into Iraq, was breaking international laws, when Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 911. Also Janelle you forgot to tell us why our leader's children are supposedly exempt from bellying up and totally excused for their not doing so and everyone else children is supposed to.
    Ignorance is bliss but the question is can we afford it?

  4. #25
    janelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    20,772
    Thanks
    1,737
    Thanked 2,527 Times in 1,527 Posts

    Re: 'Close Guantanamo'?

    When you harbor terrorists you are going to be in a crossfire. Iraq harbors them so you go where the enemy is. The like to hide among children and old people like in hospitals and schools. What would you have our military do? They try to flush them out. The do not want to kill innocent people.

    Since President Bush in on the front lines so to speak. Asassination is not unheard of so I think his daughters should stay put right here. If they went and were kidnapped the terrorists would have a holiday. They are in enough danger right here.

    And if we do not take out terrorists now you can bet all our men will be called up when they get their hands on nuclear weapons and we are all in danger of being wiped out by them. You may be seeing your sons and all the men you know going off to war. It's happened before.

  5. #26
    YNKYH8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    RedSox Nation
    Posts
    3,813
    Thanks
    266
    Thanked 903 Times in 403 Posts

    Re: 'Close Guantanamo'?

    Quote Originally Posted by janelle
    When you harbor terrorists you are going to be in a crossfire. Iraq harbors them so you go where the enemy is. The like to hide among children and old people like in hospitals and schools. What would you have our military do? They try to flush them out. The do not want to kill innocent people.
    But Iraq wasn't harboring terrorists before the war. Saddam was against Al Quida. There there now, obviously, but one thing that Saddam did while in power was the prevention of of foregin fighters in hie country, and stop the influence of Iran.
    Looking for Sympathy? It's in the Dictionary between Sh!t and Syphilis.

  6. #27
    YNKYH8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    RedSox Nation
    Posts
    3,813
    Thanks
    266
    Thanked 903 Times in 403 Posts

    Re: 'Close Guantanamo'?

    Quote Originally Posted by janelle
    But we do not have a draft. If the Dems had their way we would.
    No we don't want a draft, why the hell would we. It is just not particularly fair that the leaders of this country don't even have a son or daughter who serves.
    Looking for Sympathy? It's in the Dictionary between Sh!t and Syphilis.

  7. #28
    YNKYH8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    RedSox Nation
    Posts
    3,813
    Thanks
    266
    Thanked 903 Times in 403 Posts

    Re: 'Close Guantanamo'?

    Quote Originally Posted by janelle
    But we do not have a draft. If the Dems had their way we would.

    And Mesue if it was 60 years ago you would be substituting Pearl Harbor for 9/11. You would be saying the same thing about that war.

    I have two SSs and one went in the Army right out of high school. He was in Bosnia but he can't tell us what he did there or if he was in any fighting. He was in danger and served his time. He got out after his four years were up so he missed Iraq but my nephews were in the Desert Storm war. So yes I have relatives who served and were in action.

    I thought we had a million fighting age men in the service but not everyone is in Iraq. We also have women in there and they have to still take up the slack. We have people joining everyday. They want to defend out country and keep it free.

    And Adam you are not going to get the president or anyone in government in sensitive areas to tell the public their plans. How better to give the enemy the plans so they will kill more of our soldiers. Those things do not happen in a war. I know Geraldo wants to get on TV and tell the world the Army's plans of attack but he is an idiiot.
    There is one thing you’ve forgotten. We are still not fighting the Saudis. Iraq has worse boarder protection then we do. But then again we gain more from Saudi Arabia then Mexico.
    When you get down to brass tacks; we shouldn’t be in Iraq (there was no just cause), we can’t fight this war on terror (because we’re in over our head) and we need a fresh approach towards Al Quida.
    There will be no draft, people will be continually bummed about the war, and recruitment will continue to sink. Then what? We are to ignorant and self centered to understand the Muslim cause. The Al Qudia terror network is in EVERY country. All we can do is clean up the mess.

    I’m not saying give up; just that my daughter will be reading about bombings; to her kids. Do we have any fresh ideas, what will work what is it going to take?
    And no we don't have a million fighting men more like 300,000 to 350,000.
    Looking for Sympathy? It's in the Dictionary between Sh!t and Syphilis.

  8. #29
    YNKYH8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    RedSox Nation
    Posts
    3,813
    Thanks
    266
    Thanked 903 Times in 403 Posts

    Re: 'Close Guantanamo'?

    Have we lost the war in Iraq?

    A simple question based on what we know now. So far, Bush has not gotten one thing right in Iraq. There were no WMDs. There was no link to 9/11. There was no Al Quada/Iraq link before we invaded. Most Iraqis don't want us there (polls show they feel better off now, but still want us out) thereby invalidating the "happy Iraqis greeting their liberators" mantra, and Iraq couldn't fund a 4th of July festival in Podunk, USA - let alone the cost of this war.

    I could go on and on, but you get the point.

    Anyhow, my belief is that the torture pictures have put a fork in this effort no matter how you feel about the war. Bush's last argument to justify the war (after so many, it's tough to keep up) was Saddam wasn't there to rape, murder, and torture his people any longer because it appears, we took his place.

    Obviously, these actions do not represent America or our armed forces. But in the world's eyes, it does. And from what we are hearing now, this will get much, much worse. We apparently have video of rapes and murders ready to come out (at least according to Lindsay Grahm and Donald Rumsfeld) that will take this whole torture scandal to new lows.

    As bad as this is, this is only the beginning.

    We could find a lot of good we are doing in Iraq. No question about that. But by the same token, we could find a lot of good Saddam did while he was in power. Most of the good pales when compared with horrible actions by oppressors. And it appears we became oppressors on top of invaders and occupiers with this latest problem.

    Now, all our enemies are using this scandal to recruit even more support. Both Osama Bin Laden and Al Sadr are using these acts to make their positions stronger. We may say that taking them out will negate that affect, but that's the same thing they said when we took Saddam and his two sons out (wrong again). Someone else will always be there to take their place.

    I don't see any way out. It's time to declare "mission accomplished" for real and declare victory because Iraq is disarmed. If they ask for help, contribute with the rest of the UN to restore order. This mess is unfathomable. The damage to our country is immeasurable. We have become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    Bring our troops home and put those resources into protecting our homeland. The war is over and we lost.
    Looking for Sympathy? It's in the Dictionary between Sh!t and Syphilis.

  9. #30
    YNKYH8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    RedSox Nation
    Posts
    3,813
    Thanks
    266
    Thanked 903 Times in 403 Posts

    Re: 'Close Guantanamo'?

    The Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) was one of a series of crises during an era of upheaval in the Middle East: revolution in Iran, occupation of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by militant students, invasion of the Great Mosque in Mecca by anti-royalist Islamicists, the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan, and internecine fighting among Syrians, Israelis, and Palestinians in Lebanon. The war followed months of rising tension between the Iranian Islamic republic and secular nationalist Iraq. In mid-September 1980 Iraq attacked, in the mistaken belief that Iranian political disarray would guarantee a quick victory.

    The international community responded with U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire and for all member states to refrain from actions contributing in any way to the conflict's continuation. The Soviets, opposing the war, cut off arms exports to Iran and to Iraq, its ally under a 1972 treaty (arms deliveries resumed in 1982). The U.S. had already ended, when the shah fell, previously massive military sales to Iran. In 1980 the U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Iran because of the Tehran embassy hostage crisis; Iraq had broken off ties with the U.S. during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

    The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.

    Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)

    Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

    The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

    One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.

    By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

    The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].
    Looking for Sympathy? It's in the Dictionary between Sh!t and Syphilis.

  10. #31
    YNKYH8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    RedSox Nation
    Posts
    3,813
    Thanks
    266
    Thanked 903 Times in 403 Posts

    Re: 'Close Guantanamo'?

    What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

    Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].

    Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].

    Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns [Document 32]. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person" [Document 36 and Document 37].
    Looking for Sympathy? It's in the Dictionary between Sh!t and Syphilis.

  11. #32
    YNKYH8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    RedSox Nation
    Posts
    3,813
    Thanks
    266
    Thanked 903 Times in 403 Posts

    Re: 'Close Guantanamo'?

    Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons" [Document 47]. Briefings for Rumsfeld's meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because "bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later" [Document 48]. Rumsfeld was to discuss with Iraqi officials the Reagan administration's hope that it could obtain Export-Import Bank credits for Iraq, the Aqaba pipeline, and its vigorous efforts to cut off arms exports to Iran. According to an affidavit prepared by one of Rumsfeld's companions during his Mideast travels, former NSC staff member Howard Teicher, Rumsfeld also conveyed to Iraq an offer from Israel to provide assistance, which was rejected [Document 61].

    Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis. In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" [Document 55]. The purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. In December 1982, Bell Textron's Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters. An allied government, South Korea, informed the State Department that it had received a similar request in June 1983 (when a congressional aide asked in March 1983 whether heavy trucks recently sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official replied "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked.") [Document 44]

    During the spring of 1984 the U.S. reconsidered policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program, and its "preliminary results favor[ed] expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities" [Document 57]. Several months later, a Defense Intelligence Agency analysis said that even after the war ended, Iraq was likely to "continue to develop its formidable conventional and chemical capability, and probably pursue nuclear weapons" [Document 58]. (Iraq is situated in a dangerous neighborhood, and Israel had stockpiled a large nuclear weapons arsenal without international censure. Nuclear nonproliferation was not a high priority of the Reagan administration - throughout the 1980s it downplayed Pakistan's nuclear program, though its intelligence indicated that a weapons capability was being pursued, in order to avert congressionally mandated sanctions. Sanctions would have impeded the administration's massive military assistance to Pakistan provided in return for its support of the mujahideen fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.)
    In February 1984, Iraq's military, expecting a major Iranian attack, issued a warning that "the invaders should know that for every harmful insect there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it whatever the number and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide" [Document 41]. On March 3, the State Department intervened to prevent a U.S. company from shipping 22,000 pounds of phosphorous fluoride, a chemical weapons precursor, to
    Looking for Sympathy? It's in the Dictionary between Sh!t and Syphilis.

  12. #33
    YNKYH8R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    RedSox Nation
    Posts
    3,813
    Thanks
    266
    Thanked 903 Times in 403 Posts

    Re: 'Close Guantanamo'?

    Iraq. Washington instructed the U.S. interests section to protest to the Iraqi government, and to inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that "we anticipate making a public condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the near future," and that "we are adamantly opposed to Iraq's attempting to acquire the raw materials, equipment, or expertise to manufacture chemical weapons from the United States. When we become aware of attempts to do so, we will act to prevent their export to Iraq" [Document 42].

    The public condemnation was issued on March 5. It said, "While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims" [Document 43].

    Later in the month, the State Department briefed the press on its decision to strengthen controls on the export of chemical weapons precursors to Iran and Iraq, in response to intelligence and media reports that precursors supplied to Iraq originated in Western countries. When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq" [Document 52].

    Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution. If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue. Iraq's ambassador met with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, and asked for "restraint" in responding to the issue - as did the representatives of both France and Britain.

    A senior U.N. official who had participated in a fact-finding mission to investigate Iran's complaint commented "Iranians may well decide to manufacture and use chemical weapons themselves if [the] international community does not condemn Iraq. He said Iranian assembly speaker Rafsanjani [had] made public statements to this effect" [Document 50].
    Iraqi interests section head Nizar Hamdoon met with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State James Placke on March 29. Hamdoon said that Iraq strongly preferred a Security Council presidential statement to a resolution, and wanted the response to refer to former resolutions on the war, progress toward ending the conflict, but to not identify any specific country as responsible for chemical weapons use. Placke said the U.S. could accept Iraqi proposals if the Security Council went along. He asked for the Iraqi government's help "in avoiding . . . embarrassing situation[s]" but also noted that the U.S. did "not want this issue to dominate our bilateral relationship" [Document 54].

    On March 30, 1984, the Security Council issued a presidential statement condemning the use of chemical weapons, without naming Iraq as the offending party. A State
    Looking for Sympathy? It's in the Dictionary between Sh!t and Syphilis.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in