Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/27/2002 5:57:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 6:03:02 AM EDT
I'm hearing it could be anytime after the Arab meeting that just started. Don't know if this is wise, but I see it coming...
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 6:05:12 AM EDT
Only if they make a move toward Israel.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 6:19:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AR_Rifle: Only if they make a move toward Israel.
View Quote
You know, I'm 42 now, and every US president I can remember has held some sort of "Middle East Peace Summit". Of course the results speak for themselves. Can someone please explain to me why. These people have hated and fought for centuries. Who are WE to try and stop them? I say, let 'em fight it out once and for all. The more of each other they kill now, the less we'll have to kill later. And, make no mistake, we WILL have to kill many before all this is over. And don't try to tell me "it's the oil, stupid". The oil will still be there.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 6:32:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 6:53:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jakesdadjake:
Originally Posted By AR_Rifle: Only if they make a move toward Israel.
View Quote
You know, I'm 42 now, and every US president I can remember has held some sort of "Middle East Peace Summit". Of course the results speak for themselves. Can someone please explain to me why. These people have hated and fought for centuries. Who are WE to try and stop them? I say, let 'em fight it out once and for all. The more of each other they kill now, the less we'll have to kill later. And, make no mistake, we WILL have to kill many before all this is over. And don't try to tell me "it's the oil, stupid". The oil will still be there.
View Quote
At 42, I am amaze that you don't have much in the head. How many more 9/11 need to happen before you wake up. It's not the oil stupid, it's war....War on terrorism. Are you going to seat on your @ss and let Sadam built his weapon of mass destruction and do nothing?....LOL! I have a nice breakfast this morning thank you....and how is your donut?...
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 7:00:28 AM EDT
Where's rodney king when you need him ?
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 7:03:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2002 7:04:37 AM EDT by rogerb]
By the way , I believe it is an oil thing, we were hit because of our middle east policy (s), our support for israel, etc. they all based on our need for OIL. Remember Saddam attacked Kuwait because of disputed oil reserves.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 7:05:25 AM EDT
I have a buddy in the Army, in a mech infantry outfit; apparently he's "on call for Iraq" now. Make of that what you will.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 7:07:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AR_Rifle:
Originally Posted By jakesdadjake:
Originally Posted By AR_Rifle: Only if they make a move toward Israel.
View Quote
You know, I'm 42 now, and every US president I can remember has held some sort of "Middle East Peace Summit". Of course the results speak for themselves. Can someone please explain to me why. These people have hated and fought for centuries. Who are WE to try and stop them? I say, let 'em fight it out once and for all. The more of each other they kill now, the less we'll have to kill later. And, make no mistake, we WILL have to kill many before all this is over. And don't try to tell me "it's the oil, stupid". The oil will still be there.
View Quote
At 42, I am amaze that you don't have much in the head. How many more 9/11 need to happen before you wake up. It's not the oil stupid, it's war....War on terrorism. Are you going to seat on your @ss and let Sadam built his weapon of mass destruction and do nothing?....LOL! I have a nice breakfast this morning thank you....and how is your donut?...
View Quote
AR_Rifle, I think you need to go back and actually READ what jakesdadjake wrote. After you read it, you might reconsider your post, since it makes you look more than just a little foolish. TheRedGoat
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 7:20:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AR_Rifle:
Originally Posted By jakesdadjake:
Originally Posted By AR_Rifle: Only if they make a move toward Israel.
View Quote
At 42, I am amaze that you don't have much in the head. How many more 9/11 need to happen before you wake up. It's not the oil stupid, it's war....War on terrorism. Are you going to seat on your @ss and let Sadam built his weapon of mass destruction and do nothing?....LOL! I'm surprised you can't comprehend what you read. Too busy worrying about Israel? I didn't say anything about allowing Saddam to continue. I believe just the opposite. But I also believe it is our blind support of Israel (just like your's) that has gotten us to this point. My point is, since the Israelis hate the Arabs, and the Arabs hate the Israelis, why do we (the US) stand between them? Why not let them slaughter each other 'til the cows come home?, then, if we fell it necessary, we can kill those who survive. Yes, I do take a simplistic view of all this; Don't stick your nose in someone else's business (beware "entangling alliances"). But, since we've already done that, we need to finish what we started, and I believe the cheapest way, in terms of American lives, as well as money, is to let all of them have a free-for-all, then, and only then, mop up and take over. But, we'll probably not do anything like that. We'll probably waste hundreds, maybe thousands of American lives, spend billions of dollars, and when it's all over we'll give back all conquered territory and spend billions more to rebuild, in the name of the "global economy".
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 8:00:51 AM EDT
Coming this fall to a theater near you (well, really near Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Kuwait).................with a sneak preview by Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina...........Gulf War part Deux. Personally, I can feel the love from uncle Sam coming towards me by way of recall orders through the mail box. It should be here sometime this summer just so I can be back in green and kickin arse no later than Halloween. It will be open season on all camels and tyranical leaders who develop WMD!
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 8:22:32 AM EDT
OIL???? Here's the gig. Kuwait supplies very little to the US. Japan however gets 90% of it's oil from Kuwait. I was in on the "Reflagged Kuwaiti tanker" thing back in 87'. Can't tell you how heart warming it was to be called "Gaijin" in Tokyo after baking the brains out in a berth for 3 months,so the Jappaneese could keep their Bluebirds running,and Honda could continue to try and Drive Harley Davidson out of business. Oil my Hairy Jarheadded arse! It's about Global finance,and who has what invested where!! If anything,the Kurds may benefit from any action taken finally,as we abandoned them when G.W.'s dad showed how much of a Liar he was. War sucks!Good men will die,and any benefit that may be gotten will be a long time coming. We can close up our borders,and keep the idiots out if we wanted to...Think about it. If Iraq falls,what will the Iranians do? Iraq is impoverished to the nth degree,after Saddam falls who will feed those that are left? Who will protect them from their neighbors? The Saudi's are not in favor of any of this,so what will happen when their people start screaming about the infadels(Us) next door? This is a bad thing. We need old style CIA to do an ugly deed,get rid of Saddam,and let things work out without a heavy presence. No I ain't a Peacenik.If Mother Green calls,the Seabag is already packed,and I'll go without question. It's just not making sense that we heavily involve ourselves. S-28
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 8:29:38 AM EDT
I think the bright sun has cooked all of their brains. Look at Califonia. Bright hot sun = crazy people. lol
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 8:34:37 AM EDT
They better take out more than just Saddam, one of his 2 sons is suppose to be worse than he is. Can't remember which one, i think he runs the national police.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 8:41:13 AM EDT
Roger, If you are volunteering....Might I suggest a load? Something in .338Lapua? Wouldn't it be great to have a "Volunteer shoot off match"? Make it national,no...Global news. "Gun crazed Americans battle for the job of killing Saddam and family". Lemme get the .300Winnie tuned up and I'll see ya at Perry. Cheers! S-28
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 8:55:34 AM EDT
I have a feeling that the invasion isn't going to be as easy as last time, we'll see. As far as what this is all about, it's about rich people wanting to dominate the world. The US uses 25% of the world's oil supply and keeping that supply inbound is of primary importance in order to keep the status quo here--must keep the consumerism and corporatism going at all costs or we will suffer an empire-ending collapse. If they can upset the balance of power in Iraq, they can affect politics in Saudi Arabia. It's all about oil in one way or another. If Iraq had no mineral wealth, they wouldn't be so hot to go in there. The sad part is that a lot of young Americans are going to lose their lives so that a few rich people can get richer, basically. War on terror is just so much empty rhetoric, just like war on drugs is.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 8:57:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2002 8:59:13 AM EDT by rogerb]
S-28, I was thinking more like a .416 or .375 , after all this is big game and a .50 would just screw up the mount.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 9:15:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: I have a feeling that the invasion isn't going to be as easy as last time
View Quote
You're right---it will be much easier.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 11:50:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 11:55:38 AM EDT
It's time to thin out the heard!
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 12:00:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BoWilliams: It's time to thin out the heard!
View Quote
I herd that.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 12:24:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: Who cares what they do to each other. but a good solution would be to kill off as many Iraqies as possible and then give the land or divy it up between the Kurds, the Shi'ite Muslims and The rest we give to the palestinians. That should help solve the Israeli issue. Then these three groups can kill each other off in Iraq. WOW !! I just made a better peace plan than the Suckdi's did. I think this would work....
View Quote
I second the proposal of Mr. ilikelegs, do I have a third?
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 12:49:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By BoWilliams: It's time to thin out the heard!
View Quote
I herd that.
View Quote
Thanks, I can't spell.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 2:05:16 PM EDT
Roger, I hear ya,you're quite the sporting chap! BTW who does your taxidermy? Mine would shoot me if brought in a couple heads like that!;) Cheers! S-28
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 7:35:30 PM EDT
God forgive us. I don't understand this desire to kick Saddam out. He never did anything to us. He doesn't have WMD. He didn't have anything to do 9/11. So why should we get involved in local squabbles? Because we can? I have no don't we will defeat him, but that doesn't make it right. Will we get a Declaration of War like the Constitution REQUIRES? I doubt it. The Constitution doesn't mean anything any more. I'm no fan of Saddam, but it isn't any of our damn business!
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 7:45:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 7:47:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: He doesn't have WMD.
View Quote
!?
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 7:52:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 8:25:16 PM EDT
Here's a good article about the current situation and history repeating itself: [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson032502.shtml[/url] -kill-9
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 8:33:24 PM EDT
Aw guys, just ignore him. He is an Iraqi agent! Things are looking up. I REALLY, REALLY want Saudi to get on the wrong side of this!! I truly believe they are the REAL power behind Al Queda and the rest of the maniacs there. Remember, Osama bin jackass and 15 of the 19 murdering vermin were from SA!! In my opinion SA is the country responsible for 9/11 and we should declare war on them. All out, full scale, congressional declared WAR; the real thing!! Not that the politicians have it in them, but I can dream. The buildup is underway. The attack will be within a very few months. I supect they want the pig to sweat. Who really gives a crap WHAT Ahab thinks? AIn't nuthin them vermin can do about it!
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 8:40:29 PM EDT
I think Saudi Arabia is about two or three countries down the line. First we knock off Iraq, because they're a pack of fascists and because they pose a threat to us. After that Iran. With those (or maybe just Iraq) in the bag we can use the oil of those countries, plus that of Russia, to start taking a harsher line on Saudi Arabia. They won't have nearly the same leverage when there are other, friendly oil producers out there.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 9:00:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: God forgive us. I don't understand this desire to kick Saddam out. He never did anything to us. He doesn't have WMD. He didn't have anything to do 9/11. So why should we get involved in local squabbles? Because we can? I have no don't we will defeat him, but that doesn't make it right. Will we get a Declaration of War like the Constitution REQUIRES? I doubt it. The Constitution doesn't mean anything any more. I'm no fan of Saddam, but it isn't any of our damn business!
View Quote
I know people are entitled to say what they want BUT,Liberty76 I see by your comments that you are one of those faggot ass draft-dodgin coward.F**k Saddam.PISS ON IRAQ!I WILL! I suppose by your comments that you won't support our troops either.I hope I get to kill that MFer PERSONALLY!WE ARE GONNA FIGHT AND WE ARE GONNA WIN!
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 12:27:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: God forgive us. I don't understand this desire to kick Saddam out. He never did anything to us. He doesn't have WMD. He didn't have anything to do 9/11. So why should we get involved in local squabbles? Because we can? I have no don't we will defeat him, but that doesn't make it right. Will we get a Declaration of War like the Constitution REQUIRES? I doubt it. The Constitution doesn't mean anything any more. I'm no fan of Saddam, but it isn't any of our damn business!
View Quote
Liberty, On this one, you are flat out wrong. Saddam, probably was involved in WTC #1, certainly has WMD, and may have been involed with 9/11 and/or antrax. Where did you get the idea that he means us no harm?? Did you ask him?
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 12:38:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: I don't understand this desire to kick Saddam out. He never did anything to us.
View Quote
I've said some pretty stupid/ignorant things in my day, but this has got to be the most ignorant thing I've heard in months.
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 1:01:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: But they hate us anyway. and in a street fight, only a dumb ass waites to get hit first. In a way we already have been hit. I have read plenty about a possible connection between al Qaeda and Iraq.
View Quote
I agree that waiting to get hit is not a wise move, and in this case it would be for a second time. I am all for hitting Iraq, it is long overdue, and the WMD point is the perfect reason for doing it now. However I want to point out that using the "possible" links to al Qaeda, that you have read about is definitely not the strongest argument we have, and should be left out unless we CAN make that link.
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 6:42:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: God forgive us. I don't understand this desire to kick Saddam out. He never did anything to us. [/B] No? He invaded one of our closest allies in the Middle East and threatened to invade another. He also plotted to assassinate one of our ex Presidents. He provides financial support to terrorists such as the ones that attacked the Cole, our African embassies and the WTC. [B] He doesn't have WMD. [/B] Oh really? When did he let you in to take a look? I mean, the UN Weapons Inspectors haven't been in there in 8 years, so how the bloody hell would YOU know? [B] He didn't have anything to do 9/11. [/B] Whoa, with this sort of flawless intell, you should work for the CIA. How the hell do YOU know if he had anything to do with it or not? [B] I have no don't we will defeat him, but that doesn't make it right. [/B] Sure it does. [B] Will we get a Declaration of War like the Constitution REQUIRES? [/B] The Constitution does not require a declaration of war every time our military acts. Did Jefferson have the Congress declare war on the Barbary Pirates after Tripoli declared war on us?
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 9:47:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: What about the Saddam, al Qaeda, Osama connection ?
View Quote
There isn't one. Do you have any solid proof of one, because I haven't seen it.
Originally Posted By zonan: !?
View Quote
Nope, doesn't even have the capibility to make them, according to the UN Weapon Inspectors.
Originally Posted By MAC-DADDY: BUT,Liberty76...you are one of those faggot ass draft-dodgin coward.
View Quote
These personal attacks certainly don't bolster your position. It seems you are just falling for the propoganda.
I suppose by your comments that you won't support our troops either.
View Quote
I'll pray they are safe, and that they get home quickly. I just wish we weren't sending brave men and women on an unjust cause.
Originally Posted By BillofRights: Liberty, On this one, you are flat out wrong. Saddam, probably was involved in WTC #1, certainly has WMD, and may have been involed with 9/11 and/or antrax. Where did you get the idea that he means us no harm?? Did you ask him?
View Quote
Do you have proof of any of your assertions? There is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence linking him to the 9/11, the UN Weapons Inspectors have stated he does not have the capibility to create WMDs, and the anthrax attacks came from someone closer to home, and not Iraq. Does Saddam mean us harm? Only if we mean him harm. We wouldn't have cared about us if we didn't atack him in the Gulf Undeclared War.
Originally Posted By odobo: Never? I guess youre too young to remember the USS Stark being hit by two Iraqi Exocet missles. 37 Sailors were killed.
View Quote
Was that during the Gulf Undeclared War or after it? Then that doesn't count, because that was "war", and we shouldn't have fought that war anyway.
Originally Posted By RikWriter: No? He invaded one of our closest allies in the Middle East and threatened to invade another. He also plotted to assassinate one of our ex Presidents. He provides financial support to terrorists such as the ones that attacked the Cole, our African embassies and the WTC.
View Quote
I didn't know Kuwait was our "closest" ally. If they are, they shouldn't. Entangling Alliances! There is also doubt on the plot to assassinate Bush I. It wasn't a Iraqi agent, just a digruntled solder who lost his family in the Gulf undeclared war. And there is NO evidence linking him to the WTC. In any case, if we didn't go to war with him in the first place, he wouldn't care about us
Oh really? When did he let you in to take a look? I mean, the UN Weapons Inspectors haven't been in there in 8 years, so how the bloody hell would YOU know?
View Quote
Because those UN Weapons Inspectors, who were there in 1998, said so. They said he had NO capability to make them.
How the hell do YOU know if he had anything to do with it or not?
View Quote
Because there is NO evidence linking him to the attack. The burden of proving that he WAS involved rests on you, not me. So, show me evidence he was involved.
Sure it does.
View Quote
So you believe might makes right? That is one of the most statist things I have ever heard.
The Constitution does not require a declaration of war every time our military acts. Did Jefferson have the Congress declare war on the Barbary Pirates after Tripoli declared war on us?
View Quote
Could Jefferson not have been wrong? He was. The President can make war, but only if authorized, unless we are attacked or invaded.
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 10:15:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: I didn't know Kuwait was our "closest" ally.
View Quote
You also apparently don't know how to read. I said "one of our closest."
If they are, they shouldn't. Entangling Alliances!
View Quote
Grow up.
There is also doubt on the plot to assassinate Bush I. It wasn't a Iraqi agent, just a digruntled solder who lost his family in the Gulf undeclared war. And there is NO evidence linking him to the WTC. In any case, if we didn't go to war with him in the first place, he wouldn't care about us
View Quote
I am sure you are willing to believe the worst possible rumors, but that's your problem.
Because those UN Weapons Inspectors, who were there in 1998, said so. They said he had NO capability to make them.
View Quote
And we know how he gave them unrestricted access to his weapons labs...>snort!< You refuse to believe anything OUR government says, but you'll swallow whole anything the Iraqis say...how "objective" of you.
Because there is NO evidence linking him to the attack.
View Quote
Again, how do you know this?
So you believe might makes right? That is one of the most statist things I have ever heard.
View Quote
When it comes to national relations, might has always and will always triumph over idealism...particularly the naive sort you espouse.
Could Jefferson not have been wrong? He was. The President can make war, but only if authorized, unless we are attacked or invaded.
View Quote
WE WERE ATTACKED. And the Congress DID authorize it! You need to keep up with the news.
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 5:26:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2002 5:27:01 PM EDT by Benjamin0001]
Hmmm, the level of arrogance I am seeing about us going back into Iraq is worrisome. Let us not forget to respect our enemies or we will surely see too many of our own die. So all I have to say about it is this. GOD BE WITH OUR MEN!! Benjamin
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 6:45:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: Hmmm, the level of arrogance I am seeing about us going back into Iraq is worrisome. Let us not forget to respect our enemies or we will surely see too many of our own die.
View Quote
That's very unlikely. WE are not the ones going into Iraq, nor are WE the ones making the plans...so the people posting here have no need to respect Iraq's military. We will leave that to the professionals who will be planning and executing the mission.
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 6:49:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: You also apparently don't know how to read. I said "one of our closest."
View Quote
No, I just left out the one of our. Never knew they were "one of our closest". And like I said, they shouldn't be.
Grow up.
View Quote
Holy cow! What an argument! You've convinced me! So should George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grow up?
I am sure you are willing to believe the worst possible rumors, but that's your problem.
View Quote
Actually, it seems you are the one willing to believe the worst possible rumors: that Iraq has WMD, that they were involved in 9/11, etc.
And we know how he gave them unrestricted access to his weapons labs...>snort!<
View Quote
According to the Weapons Inspectors, they were given near complete access. Iraq couldn't hide anything.
You refuse to believe anything OUR government says, but you'll swallow whole anything the Iraqis say...how "objective" of you.
View Quote
No, I don't trust implicitly a word the Iraqis say, just like I don't trust implicitly a word our government, or for that matter any other government says. In any case, this isn't about swallowing what the Iraqi's say, it is reading and believe what OTHERS say about them.
Again, how do you know this?
View Quote
Like I said before, YOU have the burden proven they weren't involved. It is impossible to prove a negative- you must proof that they were involved. How do YOU know they were?
When it comes to national relations, might has always and will always triumph over idealism...particularly the naive sort you espouse.
View Quote
I never said that might could triumph over idealism, just like a gun can triumph over a pen, but that doesn't make it right. If I say the Earth is Round, but you kill me for believing and saying it, you may have "won", but I am still right.
WE WERE ATTACKED.
View Quote
By who? 19 men who died in the attack.
And the Congress DID authorize it! You need to keep up with the news.
View Quote
Congress did? I didn't see a declaration of war? That is the only way they can authorize military action. Not the unconstitutional "authorization" they made. I don't see anything in there say "Congress shall have power to authorize military action", excepting the War Power clause. Want to take on the Taliban? Get a Dec of War. Want to take on Iraq. Get a Dec of War. It is all in the Constitution. Might we to read it. Try the Federalist Papers, and the Anti Federalist Papers too. Here is a interesting quote from Federalist Number 4(written by Jay) But the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN force depends not only on their forbearing to [B]give JUST causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and [b]continuing themselves in such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult[/b]; for it need not be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war. --- Heck, most of Fed 4 is good. Read it. BTW, 25(&some of 26) blows my (former) belief of opposition to standing armies and reliance completely on a militia to shreads(DaveG will like that), although it was written by Hamilton, a known statist, and it doesn't deal with a relatively small standing army, and doesn't deal with their use.
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 6:53:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2002 7:02:45 PM EDT by libertyof76]
Originally Posted By odobo: May 17, 1987 ...
View Quote
Well then, why the hell did we wait 4 years to attack them? And why the hell did they have French Exocet missles? And why did they attack us in the first place? Edit: Just read up on the Stark incident. We didn't attack them, because we were rooting on the Iraqi's. How times change.
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 7:11:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: By who? 19 men who died in the attack.
View Quote
Oh yeah...no need for me to discuss this with you further. This is a PERFECT example of your hypocricy. People such as yourself CONSTANTLY talk about how Oklahoma City was a vast conspiracy, even though there is absolutely no proof that anyone but the three men accused were involved. But when a couple dozen foreigners execute a precisely timed and well planned operation and we have video of their leader crowing about how well his operation went, YOU choose to believe these couple dozen guys thought it up, planned and executed it all by their lonesome. Bye bye...not wasting my pixels on you one more second.
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 7:16:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76:
Originally Posted By odobo: Never? I guess youre too young to remember the USS Stark being hit by two Iraqi Exocet missles. 37 Sailors were killed.
View Quote
Was that during the Gulf Undeclared War or after it? Then that doesn't count, because that was "war", and we shouldn't have fought that war anyway.
View Quote
You are ignorant of your history. That is unfortunate. At 8:00 PM on 17 March 1987, a Mirage F-1 fighter jet took off from Iraq's Shaibah military airport and headed south into the Persian Gulf, flying along the Saudi Arabian coast. An Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane, in the air over Saudi Arabia and manned by a joint American-Saudi crew, detected the aircraft. Aboard the USS Stark, a Perry-class frigate on duty in the gulf, radar operators picked up the Mirage when it was some 200 miles away; it was flying at 5,000 feet and traveling at 550 mph. Captain Glenn Brindel, 43, commander of the Stark, was not particularly alarmed. He knew it was fairly common for Iraqi and Iranian warplanes to fly over the gulf. Earlier in the day, Iraqi jets had fired missiles into a Cypriot tanker, disabling the vessel. But no American vessel had been attacked. (Why were they firing on ships you ask? This was during that troubling little war between Iran and Iraq where they decided to start firing on EVERYONE in the region. This cripples shipping lanes into and out of the Persian Gulf) In keeping with standard procedure, Captain Brindel ordered a radio message flashed at 10:09 PM: "Unknown aircraft, this is U.S. Navy warship on your 078 for twelve miles. Request you identify yourself." There was no reply. A second request was sent. Still no answer. Brindel noted that the aircraft's pilot had not locked his targeting radar on the Stark, so he expected it to veer away. At 10:10 PM, the AWACS crew noticed that the Mirage had banked suddenly and then turned northward, as though heading for home. What they failed to detect was the launching by the Iraqi pilot of two Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles. The Exocets had a range of 40 miles and each carried a 352 lb. warhead. For some reason, the sea-skimming missiles were not detected by the Stark's sophisticated monitoring equipment. A lookout spotted the first Exocet just seconds before the missile struck, tearing a ten-by-fifteen-foot hole in the warship's steel hull on the port side before ripping through the crew's quarters. The resulting fire rushed upward into the vessel's combat information center, disabling the electrical systems. The second missile plowed into the frigate's superstructure.
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 7:35:48 PM EDT
[B]A crewman sent a distress signal with a handheld radio that was picked up by the USS Waddell, a destroyer on patrol nearby. Meanwhile, the AWACS crew requested that two airborne Saudi F-15s pursue the Iraqi Mirage. But ground controllers at Dhahran airbase said they lacked the authority to embark on such a mission, and the Mirage was safely back in Iraqi airspace before approval could be obtained. As fires raged aboard the Stark, Brindel ordered the starboard side blooded to keep the gaping hole on the port side above the waterline. All through the night the fate of the stricken frigate was in doubt. Once the inferno was finally under control, the Stark limped back to port. The Navy immediately launched an investigation into an incident that had cost 37 American seamen their lives. The Stark was endowed with an impressive array of defenses -- an MK92 fire control system that could intercept incoming aircraft at a range of 90 miles; an OTO gun that could fire three-inch anti-aircraft shells at a rate of 90 per minute; electronic defenses that could produce bogus radar images to deceive attackers; and the Phalanx, a six-barreled gun that could fire 3,000 uranium rounds a minute at incoming missiles. Brindel insisted that his ship's combat system was fully operational, but Navy technicians in Bahrain said the Stark's Phalanx system had not been working properly when the frigate put out to sea. (Brindel was relieved of duty and later forced to retire.) A C141B Starlifter carried 35 flag-draped caskets to the Stark's home base at Mayport, Florida. (Two of the crewmen were lost at sea during the attack.) President Reagan and the First Lady were on hand to extend condolences to grieving families. Congress was unhappy with Saudi Arabia for what it viewed as a lackadaisical response to the request to pursue the Iraqi Mirage -- so unhappy, in fact, that the administration thought it wise to delay submission of a proposal to sell new F-15 fighter jets to the Saudis.[/B] I've defended them in the past, but Saudi Arabia can go pound sand. Saddam can go pound sand. Our allies who don't like what we do can go pound sand. These are the same allies that allowed Hitler to start taking over parts of Europe without any opposition so there would be no war. Granted, this was in part because of the hell that was World War I, but the US' own isolationist position as well as the cowardly lion approach of the rest of Europe almost resluted in the rest of the world speaking either German, Japanese, or Italian. Furthermore, Saddam has proven himself to be an evil man. I'm sure your aware of how he was elected to power as a member of the Iraqi Bath party, and soon after winning he had many members of his party who were responsible for his election executed for "crimes against the state." We're talking about a man who sees himself as a modern day Nebuchadnezzar, has spent millions to rebuild Babylon, and many are convinced he fancies himself as the future ruler of that region.
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 8:24:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: According to the Weapons Inspectors, they were given near complete access. Iraq couldn't hide anything.
View Quote
Can anybody pick out the key word here??
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 9:20:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Oh yeah...no need for me to discuss this with you further. This is a PERFECT example of your hypocricy. People such as yourself CONSTANTLY talk about how Oklahoma City was a vast conspiracy, even though there is absolutely no proof that anyone but the three men accused were involved. But when a couple dozen foreigners execute a precisely timed and well planned operation and we have video of their leader crowing about how well his operation went, YOU choose to believe these couple dozen guys thought it up, planned and executed it all by their lonesome.
View Quote
I've never said a word on the OKC tragedy. I never said, though I may have wrongly implied, that there weren't others involved. I DO how ever have yet to see evidence of who exactly that was.
Bye bye...not wasting my pixels on you one more second.
View Quote
Running away from the argument? GodBlessTexas: Had you read the post 2 posts above yours, you would see me admitting my ignorance. That incident is also a perfect example of our foreign policy. An attack on one of our ships, and we don't do anything, because we are supporting that country. But, when that same country invades another country who has nothing to do with us, THEN we attack! Great Logic. USP: Near? In any case, from what I understand, even what they weren't allowed to see(which was not much), wouldn't be anything that could hide WMD.
Link Posted: 3/28/2002 11:09:14 PM EDT
I am stunned by some peoples unwillingness to see our responsibility to weed out and kill evil. As a super power we have that responsibility. The fact that these nations (Iraq,Iran,Saudi) harbor terrorist and have been hostile towards that just reinforces our right and responsibility. I have no facts about Iraq's involvement in 9-11, but I am sure the CIA does. I am just a citizen and am not privy to all intel that some in government are, so I am forced to trust the words of my leaders. In this case that leader is George W. Bush. I trust what this man says for the most part, if it was Clinton things would be different. Three years ago my wife was attacked by a man wearing a ski mask, he was hiding in the back of our van. Due to this fact my wife wasn't sure who it was, but I had an idea. Based on this I did some investigation which lead to circumstantial evidence. This was enough for the cops to arrest the guy and they ended up getting a confession from him later. Based on (anti)Liberty76 mode of operation I should have done nothing. As a matter of fact, I should of been held responsible since the attacker was a past friend of mine whom I often invited into my home previously and thus introduced to my wife!!! Is that about right 76?? I know you are young and like to think that you think for yourself and think that you are conservative. But you will learn (I hope) as time goes on that sometimes you [b]must[/b] bend the rules. That sometimes you must fight evil, not based on facts but on reputation, because it is the right and responsible think to do. Yes, oil is involved and always will be. But that Ford Escort bumper sticker car of your's ain't running on air alone and neather is any factory the US has. Maybe someday we will be drilling in Alaska and the Gulf and end our dependance on the middle-east. But until that day comes we must support Isreal and protect or needs(oil). That is the second reason. If you don't get this I can't help you. sgtar15
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 1:39:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15: I am stunned by some peoples unwillingness to see our responsibility to weed out and kill evil. As a super power we have that responsibility.
View Quote
I don't think we have any kind of responsibility toward the world. Our Founders never intended us to go in search of enemies. Heck, most of them would probably be terrified at such a thought!
I am forced to trust the words of my leaders. In this case that leader is George W. Bush. I trust what this man says for the most part
View Quote
I don't trust ANY politician, except MAYBE Ron Paul. And I don't see our politicians as our Leaders, but our Rulers. If they want to lead, they must present the evidence and give a damn good reason why we should follow them. I haven't seen either.
Three years ago my wife was attacked by a man wearing a ski mask, Based on (anti)Liberty76 mode of operation I should have done nothing. As a matter of fact, I should of been held responsible since the attacker was a past friend of mine whom I often invited into my home previously and thus introduced to my wife!!!
View Quote
No, you are comparing states to individuals. They operate under two completely different set of rules. That is bad analogy. Plus, there is another problems with your analogy: You did nothing to harm the attacker, unlike the US, which routine harms other countries, for unjust causes. The current case of Iraq is not like that. Plus, what is with the anti in front of my name? If anything you are the one who is anti-liberty. I follow the beliefs of the Founders, which you do not, at least in regards to war. In fact, I am going to start another thread with a whole bunch of quotes of the founders on alliances. See the one in my sig.
Is that about right 76?? I know you are young and like to think that you think for yourself and think that you are conservative. But you will learn (I hope) as time goes on that sometimes you [b]must[/b] bend the rules. That sometimes you must fight evil, not based on facts but on reputation, because it is the right and responsible think to do.
View Quote
NO!! I am emphatically NOT a conservative. I am a libertarian. Conservatives are pro-war among other disagreements I have with them. As for bending the rules, I can't agree with that.
Yes, oil is involved and always will be. But until that day comes we must support Isreal and protect or needs(oil).
View Quote
Oil is irrelevant. If they want to be poor, they can hoard their oil. If they want to be rich, they can sell it to us. We can reduce our dependence on Middle East Oil, but it isn't really necessary. Free Trade broods peace. We also have other sources: our own oil wells, Russia, etc. With our market economy, we can even end reliance on gasoline, IF there is a demand for it. Some inventor will supply new technology. Let the market work, and Oil will not be important. We don't need to send our Military everywhere to protect it. As for Israel, let them defend themselves, as a sovereign nation should. Let them stand on their own two feet and do whatever THEY want, and not be supported by us and do what we want(ie coddle the Palistinians). The Jewish People are a strong and mighty people, and they don't NEED us. Their previous wars point this out. Let them have pride knowing they themselves defeated evil, and not us.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 2:51:07 PM EDT
Saudi Arabia would make a nice 51st state. Don't ya think?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top