Man, this broad is really wound up tight. She's all over the map when it comes to her arguments and refuses to answer my direct questions. Other than correcting some of her spelling mistakes, I have posted her comments in full. She just likes to complain a lot I guess. Reminds me of the old saying: Those that can, do. Those who cannot, complain.
Oh, and "I don't care what the rest of the world thinks" What are you, insane? What the fuck does THAT mean? Do you really think we are going to succeed in the 21st century with that as a policy? Get real.
And Afghanistan? What about it? Started out fine, now it's turned into essentially a holding action because we don't have nearly enough troops or allies there to make a sustained difference. THEY'RE IN IRAQ. We are, in a word, backsliding. We NEED allies. In case you didn't notice, the First Gulf War, featuring an apparent hero of yours, Stormin' Norman (pretty grandiose nickname for what he actually accomplished from his decidedly NON front line position in Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or wherever he actually spent those two weeks the grunts were doing the actual fighting), was a real coalition, including Arab nations, to apply overwhelming force and get the job done. Allies are where it's at my friend. Check out ANY successful prosecution of ANY war. Your unilateralist speaks to a deep ignorance of military history. George Bush and his supporters (you) have unilateralized us right into the shitter. It will take YEARS to get us out of the hole YOU and the rest of the right-wing, neo-conservative, clod-heads have gotten us in.
January 28, 2008 5:02 PM
Travis said... Well releasing Saddam would have been the "right thing to do" according to your logic. If the war was an illegal one, then Saddam should have rightfully been released. Oh wait, you KNEW he was a bad guy AND a threat to our nation, yet you want to have it both ways. You wanted Saddam gone, but you didn't have the backbone to do anything about it.
I find it pretty pathetic though that you want to have it both ways.
That's something children try to do.
Take a look at public opinion polls around WWII, you'll see that there were divisions in the publics perception of the war then as much as we are experiencing today, but will far greater casualties. 4,000 dead soldiers is 4,000 too many, but far and away is it much safer because of the state of the art gear and tactics that our men and women now enjoy.
Norman wanted to go after Saddam, but was overruled by George Bush Sr., a mistake on George's part in my opinion.
We can argue back and forth all day long if you'd like, I have the time.
January 28, 2008 9:56 PM
Travis said... You don't understand "I don't care what the rest of the world thinks"? Really?
So far, you've been articulate, if not a little overzealous with your arguments, so I at least assumed that you could understand what I meant when I said it.
Do you honestly think that your liberal Presidential candidate saviors are going to "undo the damage" that you speak of? I make no bones about it, America and Americans comes first in my book. If some country gets all pissy that we don't offer help in the amount and way that they like, fuck them. Let them ask China for help, their economy is robust and they can stand to start parting with their funds.
Oh wait, that's right, China doesn't give two shits about anyone else, but themselves. But yet, we're the pariah's of the world because we're tired of dealing out billions in aid and getting spit in our faces for our troubles.
And I'm talking about public opinion, not a military action. But if you'd like to argue that one, we can.
As an FYI, the Iraqi army was the fourth largest in the world when we went up against them. The US, Russia, China, then Iraq. So don't think that we just whipped up on a couple of guys in a jeep, these were tough opponents and they got their asses handed to them.
As for the coalition forces? Not to take anything away from them, but the largest group besides us was the Saudi's, and they had around 50,000 men in there. We had over 500,000. Seems kinda low on their end for them to defend their homeland.
Also, if Musharraf isn't going to allow our soldiers into Pakistan, AND he's not hunting Bin Laden, then what do you suggest? I mean, obviously, according to your argument, we've taken our eye of Afghanistan and Bin Laden, so, oh wise one, what ever do we do?
You're in charge now, let's hear your grandiose plan to get Bin Laden, restore America's reputation, and rid the world of bad people?
Travis
January 28, 2008 10:14 PM
MrsWakely said... The release Saddam thing is boring. It's like you're arguing that if you break into a store and come upon some guy raping a child, logic dictates to those opposed to the breaking into the store, that the guy should be allowed to continue raping the child. You're ascribing to me one of those arguments that I have no interest in. It's on a long list of the Bush defenders warped logic: "So... you're saying the world is NOT better off with Saddam gone?" Try to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time. 1. Invasion? Wrong. 2. Saddam? Bad. "Saddam bad" doesn't therefore justify "invasion wrong." By that logic - hey let's invade North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Burma! Let's go get those bad guys! They're practically everywhere!
To compare public sentiment in WWII as somehow comparable to now is simply misinformed. The American public NEVER had a nearly 70% disapproval rating during WWII. Get your facts straight.
Norman wanted to go after Saddam and invade Baghdad? Another mark against him as far as I'm concerned. That was as stupid an idea in '91 as it was in '03. Bush 1 was right. Also, the agreement we had with our allies, especially our Arab allies at the time, explicitly stated we NOT do that. Just expel Saddam from Kuwait. That was the deal. Had we unilaterally gone to Baghdad, we'd have found ourselves in the same mess we're in now. I refer you to Vice President Cheney's comments on the matter at the time. He subsequently lost his mind.
MAYBE the 5th largest army at the time. I know that was the statistic. But, a Girl Scout troop nonetheless. 2 weeks pal. Speaks for itself.
Immediately after 9/11, I would have supported going into Pakistan if necessary, and I'm fairly sure the entire world would have supported, if not at least tolerated, that action. Problem is - YOUR BOY FUCKED IT UP. We had him in Afghanistan! And YOUR BOY BLEW IT. Why? Why did your boy blow it? Answer me that question. The call comes in and they tell the President "we have Bin Laden surrounded. We just need some more troops." You'd think he say "get them there immediately." Capture or kill Bin Laden and his guys - payback for 9/11, respected in the entire world, message of strength through force when attacked, game over, right? Sure we stay on the offense, we keep at it, we hunt the others when they pop up, but we have the respect and cooperation of the world. INSTEAD? Bush says "Nope. We need those troops for IRAQ. Iraq will make Afghanistan look like a playground fight." WHAT? Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the guy who attacked us, Saddam in Iraq, all the President's top terrorism experts, Richard Clarke, etc., are saying, "uh, no Mr. President, there's really no reason to believe Iraq did this," but Bush ignores them and INVADES THE WRONG COUNTRY AND LETS BIN LADIN GET AWAY. And you defend this guy? How fucking dumb are you?!
January 29, 2008 9:13 AM
Travis said... The topic of releasing Saddam is "boring"? What kind of fucked up logic do you have in your head? Were you dropped on it as a child? If the war is "illegal", which it was according to you, then ALL spoils from that war need to be put back into it's place before we invaded, INCLUDING RELEASING SADDAM. But you don't want that. You want to claim that the topic is "boring" for some unknown reason.
Let's not forget that Bush had warned Saddam and given him 48 hours to leave the country, or we were coming in. We gave him plenty of chances, and Saddam gambled that he would get one more. He lost.
Now, you and I can bicker about the size of Iraq's army all day long, but the facts are that the Iraqi army was decimated because of good planning and almost perfect execution.
I bring up WWII public sentiment simply because you brought up the past as well. America didn't want to even get involved in WWII until Japan attacked us. But that's the past, let's focus on the issue at hand shall we?
But yet, you STILL haven't answered my questions. You're saying that Bush fucked up a chance to get Bin Laden. Ok, fair enough. However, I'm asking YOU what YOU would do right now to get him.
But yet, you don't offer a solution, you only complain about Bush, which seems so stereotypical for a liberal. Complain, yet do nothing.
I've said before, and I'll say it here, since you obviously won't even bother to do the most elementary research on me and my opinions.
If Musharraf says he isn't hunting Bin Laden and won't allow the US to go in to look for him, either covertly or overtly, then that makes him a fair game. He's either sympathizing with Bin Laden, or too scared to do anything about it.
But let's focus on Iraq, the main reason you've been writing to me all this time.
With Saddam as a threat, or appearing to be a threat, his vast resources allows him to make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. Bush, right or wrong, decided that wasn't a risk he was willing to take. He decided, with just about every other politician agreeing, that Saddam was a threat, he had WMD's, and he needed to go.
Yet, you even agree with me on every level of his being a threat. The acts of war, the older WMD's that he had, attempted assassination of a President, you agree that they all happened.
Yet, you do nothing about them.
Yet another example of you complaining about something, yet wanting to do nothing about it.
You also never answered my question about how much does it take to get you riled up enough to want to fight back? How many men need to die before you'll give the order to shoot back?
Do you even read my posts, or do you skim them for key words and then make your arguments? Do you have a Bush voodoo doll that you keep next to your MacBook and wait for Conservative blogs to mention anything even remotely positive about Bush then get your head spinning around?
Is that what happens?
Wars have been started by a single person or single ship firing on another person or ship. We were getting fired upon CONSTANTLY. I think we've shown enough restraint when it came to Saddam, and when he was up to his old shenanigans again, I find it refreshing for a politician to finally stand up and say "That's it, you're done".
January 29, 2008 9:41 AM
2 comments:
Find in any of my posts where I said the war was "Illegal." Copy and paste it. I dare you. I'd just go with "mind-bogglingly stupid." We were "constantly" being fired upon? Really? Find me one published, credible news report that says, we were being "constanly being fired upon." Those words. I dare you. And even if you can (you won't), try then to make the case that it had anything to do with 9/11. We invaded Iraq in response to 9/11, remember? Not because we were "constantly being fired upon" (we weren't) in the no-fly zone over Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Sadam had "vast resources?" Really? Name them. Find one credible news report, copy and paste it, that says "Saddam Hussein had vast resources with which to attack the United States, or, to give to Al Queda to attack the United States, and he intended to do one or both." I dare you. Don't forget - Saddam hated Bin Ladin and Al Queda - Piro, his chief interrogator acknowledged that the other night.
You don't seem to grasp the logic of the argument that, it's not NEARLY good enough to say "All you do is complain! Even if I concede that invading the wrong country in response to 9/11 was a bad idea (you don't) what do we do now!"
Now? I'd say YOUR BOY has put us so far in the hole, we have no remotely good options. We certainly can't continue to let you neo-con, right-wing sieve-heads make the adult decisions - look where that's gotten us. Your days are OVER pal -back in the attic with Bill Kristol and all the other crazies.
I'd say - irreperable damage has been done. We need to get out of Iraq, as quickly and as carefully as possible. I don't believe one more American troop should die (5 yesterday - thanks pal. YOUR BOY'S war - not mine) to continue a disasterous policy, launched by a bunch of idealogically driven wing-nuts, who completely blew it. Your boy shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place, we're stuck in a cluster-fuck you support, and you ask ME what to do?
O.K.
Elect Obama. Withdraw as quickly and carefully as possible. Go after Bin Ladin (remember him?), wherever it leads. If that means Pakistan - go there. We COULD have done that with the world's, probably even Pakistan's - support, after 9/11. Now? The world HATES us. HATES us. Why? YOU. That's why. You and your ilk. The rest of us suffer the consequences of morons like you who voted for Bush twice, supported invading a country that had nothing to do with the attack on us that prompted the war in the first place, had NO WMD (please, stop with the "old WMD" thing. It just makes you look dumber. I'm sure we can find some old Japanese weapons buried under the volcanic rock on Iwo Jima. Should we invade Japan?)
YOUR BOY is handing off the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of the nation to the next President. It is incumbent upon YOU, his supporters to acknowledge your mistakes (oh, the list...) and ask forgiveness of your fellow citizens and the wider world, and spend the rest of your life trying to make up for screwing up this country so badly we may not get out of this mess for 50 years. Ironically, electing Barack Hussein Obama would be the strongest message to the Muslim world about what democracy REALLY means. It would send, by far, the most positive message to the rest of the world, that the American people finally get it, that the smart people are back in charge, and that we're going to begin the process of owning up to what we've done, holding those responsible who perpetrated the mistakes, and begin to get it right. . It means people of good will can once again move forward, acknowledging their obvious mistakes (that means you sieve-head) and try to start making INTELLIGENT decisions to try to BEGIN to get us out of this mess.
Okie dokey, I'll be happy to fill your requirements:
"you shouldn't present the public with a series of half-truths and outright lies justifying war in the first place."
So, where exactly is there a "gathering threat" severe enough to INVADE THE WRONG COUNTRY?
Do you REALLY think, that if George the Brain-Dead had gone to Congress and asked for an authorization for war because of those things, that he would have received one?
Well if he didn't go to Congress for an authorization for war, like you say, then that would imply that it was "illegal" right?
As for the "constantly being fired upon? Oh, how much evidence I have for you, you historical revisionist. Is CNN a "credible news source"? Let's take a look:
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/11/18/otsc.starr.iraq/index.html
Wolf, that is the essential question that is facing the Bush administration, because it's becoming increasingly clear day-by-day that the Iraqis have absolutely no intention, according to administration officials, of stopping this shooting war with the United States over the no-fly zones.
Since last Friday, there have been four incidents over both the northern and southern no-fly zones -- and as you mentioned, the latest one was earlier today with U.S. aircraft engaging targets in the northern no-fly zone.
Four instances in only a few days time! That sounds like "constantly" to me. But I'll give you more:
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraqaction.cfm
Jan. 26, 2003 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target five cable repeater sites that could be used for communications in targeting coalition aircraft. The cable repeater sites were located between Al Kut, approximately 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, and An Nasiriyah, approximately 170 miles southeast of Baghdad. The strikes occurred at approximately 7:00 a.m. EST , and were mounted after Iraqi military aircraft violated the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)
Jan. 25, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British participation, used precision-guided weapons to target an anti-air artillery site near Tallil, approximately 170 miles southeast of Baghdad . The strikes occurred at approximately 6:20 a.m. EST. The coalition executed the strike after Iraqi air defense forces fired anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles at coalition aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)
Jan. 24, 2003 : Coalition forces dropped leaflets at approximately 07:15 a.m. EST over communication facilities near An Najaf , approximately 85 miles east southeast of Baghdad , and Umm Qasr and Al Zubayr, both located on the Al Faw Peninsula, approximately 290 miles southeast of Baghdad . A total of 360,000 leaflets were dropped.
The same day, U.S. aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi air defense command and control communication facility, about 5 miles southeast of Al Haswah. The facility was targeted because its presence was a hostile threat to coalition aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly Zone. (CENTCOM)
Jan. 23, 2003 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . Coalition forces dropped leaflets at approximately 12:30 p.m. EST over a communication facility near Al Amarah, approximately 165 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 240,000 leaflets. The leaflets urged Iraqi military not to repair previously bombed communication equipment and facilities that aid in tracking and engaging aircraft enforcing the No-fly zone. This was the sixth leaflet drop over southern Iraq by coalition aircraft in 2003. (CENTCOM)
Jan. 19, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target eight unmanned cable repeater sites that are part of Iraq’s military air defense command and control system. The sites were located between Al Kut, and An Nasiriyah, approximately 170 miles southeast of Baghdad . The strikes occurred at approximately 7:10 a.m. EST. The coalition executed the strike after Iraqi air defense forces fired anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles at aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly zone. The same day other aircraft dropped a total of 360,000 leaflets at approximately 7:16 a.m. EST over Ar Rumaythah, Qawam Al Hamazah, Ash Shahtra, Ar Riffa, Qal’ at Sukkar and Al Majar. The six cities are all located approximately 130 to 225 miles southeast of Baghdad . (CENTCOM)
Jan. 18, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, aircraft dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . The leaflets were dropped at approximately 3:45 a.m. EST over Al Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 180,000 leaflets. The leaflets referred Iraqis to radio frequencies where coalition forces are broadcasting information about UN Security Council Resolution 1441, UN weapons inspectors in Iraq , Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s reign and other topics. (CENTCOM)
Jan. 17, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target two cable repeater sites that are part of Iraq’s military air defense command and control system. The sites were located between Al Kut, approximately 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, and An Nasiriyah, approximately 170 miles southeast of Baghdad. The strikes occurred at approximately 1:15 p.m. EST. The coalition executed the strike after Iraqi air defense forces fired anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles at coalition aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)
Jan. 13, 2003 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . Coalition forces dropped the leaflets at approximately 7:10 a.m. EST over An Najaf , about 85 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 240,000 leaflets over the location. This was the fourteenth leaflet drop over southern Iraq by Coalition aircraft in three months. (CENTCOM)
Jan. 13, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, aircraft used precision-guided weapons to strike an Iraqi anti-ship missile launcher near Basrah, approximately 300 miles southeast of Baghdad, at approximately 4:10 a.m. EST. The anti-ship missile launcher was targeted because it was threatening coalition ships operating in the North Arabian Gulf . (CENTCOM)
Jan. 10, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi military air defense command and control site at Tallil, approximately 170 miles southeast of Baghdad, and four cable repeater sites. The strikes occurred at approximately 7:15 a.m. EST. The coalition mounted the attack after Iraqi air defense forces fired anti-aircraft artillery at coalition aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)
Jan. 8, 2003 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to attack two Iraqi air defense cable repeater sites in the southern No-fly zone at about 5 a.m. EST. The attack occurred after Iraqi air defense forces fired anti-aircraft artillery at coalition aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly zone, as well as in response to Iraqi military aircraft violating the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)
Jan. 6, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target two Iraqi military mobile radars. The radars were located near Al Amarah, approximately 165 miles southeast of Baghdad . The strikes occurred at approximately 3:30 p.m. EST. and came after Iraqi forces moved the radars into the Southern No-Fly Zone. (CENTCOM)
Jan. 5, 2003 : The Boston Globe reports that about 100 U.S. Special Forces personnel and 50 CIA officers have been operating throughout Iraq for four months, adding weight to earlier stories reporting a U.S. covert presence.
Jan. 4, 2003: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped informational leaflets over the southern Iraqi towns of Al Amarah, about 165 miles southeast of Baghdad, and As Samawah, about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad. The drop, totaling 240,000 leaflets, occurred at approximately 6:15 a.m. EST. The same day, precision-guided weapons were used to target three Iraqi military air defense cable repeater sites after Iraqi air defense forces fired multiple anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles at coalition aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly Zone. (CENTCOM)
Jan. 2, 2003 : For the twelfth time in three months, U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . Coalition forces dropped leaflets at approximately 5:15 a.m. EST over Basrah and An Nasiriyah. Basrah is approximately 245 miles southeast of Baghdad , and An Nasiriyah is approximately 170 miles southeast of Baghdad . The aircraft dropped a total of 480,000 leaflets, directing Iraqis to radio frequencies where coalition forces are broadcasting information, over both locations. The same day, aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target four Iraqi air defense cable repeaters after Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery fired at coalition aircraft in the Southern No-Fly Zone. (CENTCOM)
Jan. 1, 2003 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi military air defense radar. The site was located near Al Qurnah, approximately 130 miles southeast of Baghdad . The strike occurred at approximately 1:15 a.m. EST. The U.S. Central Command said the radar was targeted after it was moved into the no-fly zone, thus becoming a threat to U.S. and British aircraft enforcing the zone. (CENTCOM)
Dec. 30, 2002: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target Iraqi military air defense communications facilities and a mobile air defense radar. The coalition struck the communications facilities at approximately 2:30 p.m. EST ; they struck the mobile radar at approximately 3:40 p.m. EST. The communications facilities were targeted after Iraq earlier flew military aircraft into the Southern No-Fly zone. The mobile radar was attacked after Iraqi forces moved it into the Southern No-Fly Zone, as its presence was a direct threat to coalition aircraft and crews. (CENTCOM)
Dec. 29, 2002: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target two Iraqi military radar sites. The sites were located near Ad Diwaniyah, approximately 75 miles south of Baghdad . The strikes occurred at approximately 7:40 a.m. EST. The Coalition mounted the strike after Iraqi forces moved the systems into the Southern No-Fly zone. Its presence was a threat to coalition aircraft. (CENTCOM)
Dec. 28, 2002: Coalition aircraft dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped leaflets at approximately 8:00 a.m. EST over Al Majar and Qal at Sukkar. Al Majar is approximately 200 miles southeast of Baghdad , and Qal at Sukkar is approximately 130 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 120,000 leaflets over both locations. (CENTCOM)
Dec. 27, 2002: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi military air defense command and control system near Al Kut that supported highly mobile surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems. The strike occurred at approximately 2:00 p.m. EST. The coalition executed the strike after Iraqi forces moved the system, a threat to coalition aircraft, into the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)
Dec. 27, 2002: For the tenth time in three months, U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . Coalition forces dropped leaflets at approximately 6:30 a.m. EST south of Ad Diwaniyah, approximately 75 south of Baghdad , Ar Rumaytha, approximately 200 miles southeast of Baghdad and Qawam Al Hamzah, approximately 240 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 240,000 leaflets over the three locations. (CENTCOM)
Dec. 26, 2002 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, use precision-guided weapons to target Iraqi military command and control communication facilities. The facilities were located near Tallil, approximately 175 miles southeast of Baghdad . The strikes occurred at approximately 12:00 a.m. EST. The coalition launched the attack after Iraqi military aircraft violated the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)
Dec. 23, 2002: At approximately 7:30 a.m. (EST), a U.S. RQ-1A Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) reconnaissance aircraft was reported missing in Southern Iraq after being fired upon by Iraqi military aircraft. The Predator was assumed destroyed. (CENTCOM)
Dec. 23, 2002: For the ninth time in three months, U.S. aircraft dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . Coalition forces dropped leaflets at approximately 4:30 a.m. EST over Ash Shahtra and Ar Rifa, approximately 140 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 120,000 leaflets over both locations. (CENTCOM)
Dec. 21, 2002 : U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped informational leaflets over southern Iraq . Coalition forces dropped leaflets over Al Amarah at approximately 4:30 a.m. EST and over As Samawah at approximately 5 a.m. EST. Al Amarah is approximately 165 miles southeast of Baghdad , and As Samawah is approximately 130 miles southeast of Baghdad . The coalition dropped a total of 240,000 leaflets over both locations. (CENTCOM)
Dec. 20, 2002: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target two Iraqi air defense communication facilities. The sites were located near An Nasiriyah and Al Basrah in southern Iraq . The strikes occurred at approximately 2:30 a.m. EST. The coalition forces executed the strike after Iraqi military aircraft flew into the Southern No-Fly zone. (CENTCOM)
Dec. 18, 2002: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi military air defense radar site. The site was located south of Al Kut, approximately 100 miles southeast of Baghdad , and it was struck at approximately 4:30 a.m. EST. The coalition executed the strike after Iraqi forces moved the radar system into the Southern No-Fly Zone. (CENTCOM)
Dec. 16, 2002: U.S. aircraft, with possible British involvement, dropped 480,000 leaflets at about 4 a.m. EST over southern Iraq . Leaflets containing six separate messages were dropped at six locations, including near communications facilities that were damaged or destroyed by coalition aircraft flying Operation Southern Watch missions on Dec. 14. Leaflets dropped at those locations warned Iraqi forces that the coalition has targeted fiber optic cables for destruction and that repairing the facilities would place Iraqi military lives at risk.
Other leaflets:
• referred Iraqis to radio frequencies where they could hear broadcasts by coalition forces providing information;
• warned Iraqi air defenses that targeting coalition aircraft or tracking them with radar could result in coalition air strikes;
• stated that coalition aircraft enforce the no-fly zones to protect the Iraqi people, and that threatening coalition aircraft may result in air strikes.
This was the seventh leaflet drop over southern Iraq over the October-December period. ( U.S. CENTCOM)
Dec. 16: In response to Iraqi SAM artillery fire against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi communication site located south of Al Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad. (U.S. CENTCOM)
Dec. 15: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi mobile radar and cable repeater sites located near An Nasiriyah, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, and Al Basra, about 245 miles southeast of Baghdad, after Iraqi forces moved the mobile radar south of the 33rd parallel in violation of the southern no-fly zone and targeted coalition aircraft with SAM artillery fire. (U.S. CENTCOM)
Dec. 14: In response to violation of the southern no-fly zone by Iraqi military aircraft, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target multiple Iraqi military air defense communications facilities located near Al Kut; Aal’at Sukkar, about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad; and Al Amarah, about 165 miles southeast of Baghdad. (U.S. CENTCOM)
Dec. 10: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target a mobile surface-to-air missile (SAM) system located south of Al Amarah after Iraqi forces moved the SAM system south of the 33rd parallel in violation of the established southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM)
Dec. 7: The Iraqi government delivered a declaration approximately 12,000 pages long to the United Nations today in compliance with the Dec.18 deadline set by the UN Resolution 1441. According to Iraqi officials, the documents contain full and complete details about Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear programs while maintaining that the country harbors no weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In so doing, Iraq has passed up a final opportunity to acknowledge any WMD it may have, and so, protect itself against evidence UN inspectors may uncover. The declaration mainly focuses on accounting for civilian facilities and equipment that could be used to make weapons. (The Washington Post)
Dec. 2: In what looks like further preparation for a possible war with Iraq, the United States is installing a command center at As Sayliyah base in Qatar for the official purpose of conducting a major military exercise called Internal Look in December. The exercise will involve the same command and control procedures that would be used in a war with Iraq. This will mark the first time the U.S. military has conducted a war game of this type outside of the United States. The As Sayliyah base covers 262 acres and cost more than $100 million to build. It can store hundreds of M1 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles and other armored vehicles and is capable of housing enough armored equipment for a heavy Army brigade. The base currently houses about 300 American troops. Many weapons continue to be shipped from As Sayliyah to Kuwait. Given the base’s existing capabilities, the new command center at As Sayliyah may lead to the establishment of a future U.S. military headquarters there. (The New York Times)
Dec. 1: In response to Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery fire against coalition aircraft in the northern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target Iraqi air defense facilities located between Tallil, about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad, and Al Basrah, about 240 miles southeast of Baghdad. Thirteen coalition aircraft dropped 23 precision-guided weapons, marking one the biggest coalition strikes this year. This also marks the first time that U.S. military officials cited an incident in the north as the reason for a military response in the south since the no-fly zones were established 10 years ago, signaling an escalation in the U.S. response to Iraq and increasing pressure for Iraq to disarm. This incident also reflects that the U.S. military can more freely carry out retaliatory attacks in the southern no-fly zone than in the northern no-fly zone due to Turkey’s close involvement with operations in the north. Turkey is more sensitive about which targets get hit by coalition aircraft than are the countries that facilitate coalition operations in the south. An Iraqi military spokesman claims that the coalition warplanes targeted a state-run Southern Oil Company on the outskirts of Al Basrah, and that four people were killed and 27 were injured in the attack. He also said that coalition aircraft attacked two other civilian targets in the south and that Iraqi defenses had fired in response. An oil company official identified the casualties as company employers and passers-by. (U.S. CENTCOM, The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Washington Post)
Nov. 23: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target a mobile radar system located south of Al Amarah after Iraq moved the mobile radar south of the 33rd parallel in violation of the established southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM)
Nov. 22: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target unmanned communications facilities south of Al Amarah, about 165 miles south of Baghdad, after an Iraqi military jet violated the southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM)
Nov. 21: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an Iraqi air defense radar site near Ash Shuaybah, about 245 miles southeast of Baghdad, after Iraq moved the radar south of the 33rd parallel in violation of the established southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM)
In response to the movement of an air defense radar site south of the 33rd parallel by Iraq in violation of the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target the radar site near Tallil. (U.S. CENTCOM)
Nov. 20: In response to Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target three unmanned air defense communications facilities located between Al Basrah, about 245 miles southeast of Baghdad, and Al Kut. (U.S. CENTCOM)
Nov. 18: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target two air defense communications facilities and one air defense radar facility. The radar facility and one communication facility were located near Al Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad. The other air defense facility was located near Tallil, about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad. (U.S. CENTCOM)
Several hundred Marines based in Camp Pendleton were dispatched to the Middle East to join the central command area of operations. The units included many battle planners and senior staff officers. Some of the troops will participate in military exercises in Kuwait to test the military's capability to assemble and deploy forces over long distances. According to Camp Pendleton Capt. David Romley, "Units from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force are departing to support Operation Enduring Freedom." Another several hundred Marines left San Diego for the Gulf region around the same time. (Orange County Register)
Nov. 17: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an air defense system northeast of Mosul in response to Iraqi fire targeting coalition aircraft monitoring the northern no-fly zone. According to an Iraqi military spokesman, coalition aircraft bombed civilian targets near Mosul. (The Washington Post)
Nov. 15: In response Iraqi antiaircraft artillery fire and surface-to-air missiles targeting coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an air defense communications facility near An Najaf, about 85 miles southeast of Baghdad. This marks the first exchange of fire between Iraqi and coalition forces since UN Resolution 1441; although the Bush administration says that the incident puts Iraq in 'material breach' of the resolution, it is improbable that it will trigger a U.S.-led attack on Iraq. (U.S. CENTCOM, Los Angeles Times)
Nov. 13: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein announces that Iraq will "deal with" UN Resolution 1441, according to which he will have to allow UN inspectors to search for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and production facilities for such weapons. (Los Angeles Times, CBSNews.com)
Nov. 10: Coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target two SAM sites near Tallil that were relocated into the southern no-fly zone by Iraq in violation of UN resolutions the sites were perceived as a threat for aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone. (U.S. CENTCOM)
Nov 8: The UN Security Council unanimously passes the tough Resolution 1441 on Iraq calling for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to disband all Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs or face 'serious consequences'. Through the new resolution, inspectors have the authority to demand "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to all sites, including presidential palaces. (The Washington Post)
Nov. 7: In response to hostile fire from Iraqi SAMs and anti-aircraft artillery against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone, coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target an air defense operations facility and integrated operations center near Al Kut. (U.S. CENTCOM)
That REALLY sounds like "constantly" to me. But I'll be fair, and give you more. I'll give you the word for word comments from a pilot who flew missions in the "No Fly Zone":
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021001-dod03c.htm
Q: Now, how many times -- and this is the thing. I can -- I couldn't tell you how many times we have heard, because it happens -- it seems to have happened sporadically ever since the end of the Gulf War -- that the Iraqis either fired upon you guys, or they were violating the no-fly zone. How many personal experiences have you had, if any, of this activity?
Petruka: I've been fired at a number of times. I would say only one really serious engagement that I recall. That was the end of 1998. That's where things really started to change in the no-fly zone, and it's been a lot hotter and a lot heavier ever since then. Guys that are flying in the no-fly zones today can expect to see fire every day.
Q: So it is -- what you're telling me is that in recent years, the incidences of being fired upon, or fighter engagements, has been increasing in the no-fly zones in Iraq?
Petruka: Absolutely.
That's right, he said that being fired upon was INCREASING.
And No, we didn't invade Iraq in response to 9/11. You're being a historical revisionist AGAIN. God, how many times do you do that?
You want to talk about Saddam's VAST resources? Ok, how's this: Saddam had around $1.8 billion dollars diverted from the oil for food program:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/27/oil.food.report/index.html
I put in the "credible news source" so you didn't have yet another thing to nit pick about.
However, some estimates put the dollar amount higher. But, let's go with the $1.8 billion for a "best case scenario" shall we?
9/11 was put together for around $500,000 of Bin Laden's money. What do you suppose Saddam could do with 3,600 times more money? Or how about his army? There were thousands of people still in Saddam's army after the first Gulf War. You're telling me that with an army and $1.8 billion dollars that Saddam can't do any damage? You're telling me that's not "vast" resources available to him?
How rich are you? If that's not "vast", what is to you?
So far, I've completely debunked your "I dare you" challenges and yet, all you STILL do is complain
Saddam has an army, $1.8 billion in cash, and is constantly, CONSTANTLY firing upon our jets AND providing funds for suicide bombers.
You act like a "know it all", so yes, I'm going to call you out on your line of bullshit.
You then turn to calling names, "sieve heads" to be exact, and everyone knows that the first signs of losing an argument is calling names.
"our days are OVER pal -back in the attic with Bill Kristol and all the other crazies."
You know, I seem to remember people all over the Internet saying the EXACT SAME THING when Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections. Tell me again what they've "accomplished"? Oh wait, that's right, NOTHING.
But, I'll be fair, I'll listen to your ideas about Bin Laden. Let's see what you have here:
Elect Obama. Withdraw as quickly and carefully as possible. Go after Bin Ladin (remember him?), wherever it leads. If that means Pakistan - go there.
So, what do you do when Musharraf says "No"? You're invading a "sovereign" country. Don't you think that Muslims might be upset and see you as "occupiers"? Or have you not thought of that?
What do you do about "allies" like Canada who want to withdraw their soldiers from Afghanistan because it's no longer popular in their country? I thought you said we need "allies" when doing a military action.
Let's see what else we have here:
It is incumbent upon YOU, his supporters to acknowledge your mistakes (oh, the list...) and ask forgiveness of your fellow citizens and the wider world, and spend the rest of your life trying to make up for screwing up this country so badly we may not get out of this mess for 50 years.
Let me explain something, I will NEVER apologize for removing a dictator who had multiple "rape rooms", electrocuted people for the fun of it, eradicated an entire generation of people from a small village simply because one person tried to assassinate him from there, or the laundry list of other things Saddam was responsible for.
If you want an apology for that, you are the worst kind of person, the kind that will turn a blind eye to a growing threat to not only your own people, but watch as the genocide goes unabated.
Aren't liberals wanting us to do something about Darfur and the genocide that's going on there?
But, they're not a threat right? So we should leave them alone right?
So what else do you have to say for yourself:
It would send, by far, the most positive message to the rest of the world, that the American people finally get it, that the smart people are back in charge, and that we're going to begin the process of owning up to what we've done, holding those responsible who perpetrated the mistakes, and begin to get it right.
So the "smart people" will be back in charge eh? You mean the type that just puts together pretty speeches and does nothing about the threats against this nation and others like Bill Clinton did with Osama?
Is that the kind of "smart people" that will be in charge? The kind that will gladly allow our warships to be bombed, our embassies to be destroyed, thousands injured, and hundreds dead, including Americans, and the response will be.....nothing.
Are those the "smart people" you speak of?
Or are you talking about Obama, who wants to infringe on the Constitutional rights of Americans by banning semi-automatic weapons? The same Obama who has not been at his post when key legislation was being voted upon?
Is that your leader you want in charge? Someone who's going to give pretty speeches and do nothing about anything, just like Bill Clinton?
I have lost a little bit of respect for you there. At least up until this point, I saw you as a worthy political opponent, but when you want to elect someone who doesn't mind infringing on the Constitutional rights of others, you lose a significant amount of credibility.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
* Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
* Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Travis
Post a Comment