Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 337
  1. #201
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86
    So where are they? Even Bush has stated he now believes there are no WMD's.
    When did he say there were no WMDs? Only thing I remember saying was they didn't find them. You can't tell me he didn't have them, he used them on his own people!

    Another thing I've noticed and will likely never know the answer to. The Dems (and some Reps to be totally fair) demanded an investigation into the intelligence and "false" claims of WMDs. Why is it that after that investigation was completed, we haven't heard a word about WMDs and Iraq? Maybe because they were shown something that confirmed that they were there? But like I say, we'll likely never know.

    You may not consider it a WMD, but here's some evidence they had other weapons that were banned.


  2. #202
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22
    When did he say there were no WMDs? Only thing I remember saying was they didn't find them. You can't tell me he didn't have them, he used them on his own people!
    Right here. You must have missed it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22
    Another thing I've noticed and will likely never know the answer to. The Dems (and some Reps to be totally fair) demanded an investigation into the intelligence and "false" claims of WMDs. Why is it that after that investigation was completed, we haven't heard a word about WMDs and Iraq? Maybe because they were shown something that confirmed that they were there? But like I say, we'll likely never know.

    You may not consider it a WMD, but here's some evidence they had other weapons that were banned.
    The GOP majority (at the time) released their report stating that evidence used to determine the validity of WMD claims in Iraq was specious at best.

    I could be wrong. Saddam was allowed to keep his aircraft. He just wasn't allowed to use them in the No FLY zones. Despite the title claiming I wasn't able to read the article in liberal media I remember reading it in foreign media like this one.

    Can't help it if you only get your news from one source.
    Last edited by scfire86; 11-19-2006 at 12:40 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #203
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    The fact remains that he did have them at one point, he used them repeatedly, the terms of the cease fire required him to account for them and cooperate with inspectors, he failed to do this and hostilities were resumed. Not such a hard thing to understand.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  4. #204
    Forum Member VinnieB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    On the couch in my skivvies
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    They were ALL wrong......We were dealing with a closed society, and a usless organization was doing the investigations, which seemed much like a cat and mouse game.


    Yeah....OOOPS
    IACOJ Member

  5. #205
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VinnieB
    They were ALL wrong......We were dealing with a closed society, and a usless organization was doing the investigations, which seemed much like a cat and mouse game.


    Yeah....OOOPS
    I like that little link. Interesting, if not even enlightening.

  6. #206
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86
    Right here. You must have missed it.
    I may still be missing it in the election year mumbo-jumbo in that article. I still don't see any clear "Iraq had no WMDs whatsoever and never did."

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86
    The GOP majority (at the time) released their report stating that evidence used to determine the validity of WMD claims in Iraq was specious at best.

    I could be wrong. Saddam was allowed to keep his aircraft. He just wasn't allowed to use them in the No FLY zones. Despite the title claiming I wasn't able to read the article in liberal media I remember reading it in foreign media like this one.

    Can't help it if you only get your news from one source.
    I may be a conspiracy theorist or whatever term someone may choose, but the guy had aircraft buried in the sand so they couldn't be found, I'm not about to be naive enough to believe in the months and weeks between our stating the desire to attack Iraq and the time it took for the UN to get out of the way that he couldn't have buried them or moved them to Syria or any other nation that would be willing to hold onto them for him.

    Kinda like the end of the link I posted says, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Personnally, I'd like to see the naysayers crawdadding with a big cache of WMDs being found. However, that may end up a pipe dream. I hope to God that the wrong people don't find them before we do, though.

  7. #207
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoFF
    The fact remains that he did have them at one point, he used them repeatedly, the terms of the cease fire required him to account for them and cooperate with inspectors, he failed to do this and hostilities were resumed. Not such a hard thing to understand.
    He used them 20 years ago against a group who was powerless. The same group we promised to support and then left high and dry.

    The inspector's report to the UN Security Council states otherwise on cooperation.

    UNMOVIC report to the UN Security Council

    And was the specious evidence in place worth the price and cost of fighting this war.

    Please tell me one aspect of the predictions made prior to our invasion that has occurred.

    1. We would find WMD's lying around in vast quantities. (hasn't happened)

    2. We would be welcomed as liberators. (At first yes, not so welcome anymore.)

    3. The war wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime since it would be paid with oil revenues. (Technically true. The was has cost much more than a dime with the entire cost borne primarily by US taxpayers)

    The soundbites of Dem leadership regarding the potential threat of Iraq are well documented. Please point me to one that advocates a pre-emptive invasion.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #208
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86
    He used them 20 years ago against a group who was powerless. The same group we promised to support and then left high and dry.
    Which group is that? Do you mean the Iranians?

    Late, in March 1986, the UN secretary general, Javier Perez de Cuellar, formally accused Iraq of using chemical weapons against Iran. Citing the report of four chemical warfare experts whom the UN had sent to Iran in February and March 1986, the secretary general called on Baghdad to end its violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol on the use of chemical weapons. The UN report concluded that "Iraqi forces have used chemical warfare against Iranian forces"; the weapons used included both mustard gas and nerve gas. The report further stated that "the use of chemical weapons appear[ed] to be more extensive [in 1981] than in 1984." Iraq attempted to deny using chemicals, but the evidence, in the form of many badly burned casualties flown to European hospitals for treatment, was overwhelming. According to a British representative at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva in July 1986, "Iraqi chemical warfare was responsible for about 10,000 casualties." In March 1988, Iraq was again charged with a major use of chemical warfare while retaking Halabjah, a Kurdish town in northeastern Iraq, near the Iranian border.


    The inspector's report to the UN Security Council states otherwise on cooperation.

    UNMOVIC report to the UN Security Council
    Yeah, that Hans Blix sure is a sharpie. By the way, has he found his *** yet?

    Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraqís Declaration of 7 December did not bring new documentary evidence. I hope that efforts in this respect, including the appointment of a governmental commission, will give significant results. When proscribed items are deemed unaccounted for it is above all credible accounts that is needed Ė or the proscribed items, if they exist.

    Taken from the report you cited.
    Last edited by ChicagoFF; 11-19-2006 at 03:43 PM.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  9. #209
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoFF
    Which group is that? Do you mean the Iranians?
    And the Kurds? What is your point? Was that reason for us to launch a pre-emptive strike?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoFF
    Yeah, that Hans Blix sure is a sharpie. By the way, has he found his *** yet?
    Is the violation of UN resolutions the reason you give for the Iraq invasion? If so, should the US now abide by UN desires? Even up to the 11th hour the UN Security Council was asking that we NOT invade?

    Which is it?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #210
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86
    He used them 20 years ago against a group who was powerless. The same group we promised to support and then left high and dry.
    So, even though he used them on multiple groups, killing thousands, he hasn't done it recently so it's no cause for concern.
    Is the violation of UN resolutions the reason you give for the Iraq invasion?
    One of the many.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  11. #211
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoFF
    So, even though he used them on multiple groups, killing thousands, he hasn't done it recently so it's no cause for concern.
    You make no point. You assume he had his sights set on the US because he attacked a group in Iraq. His ability to attack the US with the impunity with which he attacked the Kurds is suspect at best.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoFF
    One of the many.
    And where in the resolution was it stated that military action should follow? In fact the UN Security Council requested the US do just the opposite.

    Though I do like how you cherry pick your support of the UN.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #212
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86
    You make no point. You assume he had his sights set on the US because he attacked a group in Iraq. His ability to attack the US with the impunity with which he attacked the Kurds is suspect at best.

    WOW you really got em there. More than likely he would not have been able to carry out a direct attack in the continental United States........................ .............................. ..
    But I have no doubt that Saddam had weapons or planned on building weapons to use against US military instillations throughout the region or attack our allies or cause various other harm to those with common interests of the US.

    Then again, I guess I have made a simple assumption as well.....

  13. #213
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ehs7554
    WOW you really got em there. More than likely he would not have been able to carry out a direct attack in the continental United States........................ .............................. ..
    But I have no doubt that Saddam had weapons or planned on building weapons to use against US military instillations throughout the region or attack our allies or cause various other harm to those with common interests of the US.

    Then again, I guess I have made a simple assumption as well.....
    Or he could have helped the various terrorist organizations in his country get the weapons. Oh, but I'm sure Iraq didn't harbor terrorists. They just magically appeared after we went in.

  14. #214
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ehs7554
    WOW you really got em there. More than likely he would not have been able to carry out a direct attack in the continental United States........................ .............................. ..
    But I have no doubt that Saddam had weapons or planned on building weapons to use against US military instillations throughout the region or attack our allies or cause various other harm to those with common interests of the US.

    Then again, I guess I have made a simple assumption as well.....
    He would've built had the UN inspection program stopped him from building weapons. Which it is now apparent they had been.


    Or he could have helped the various terrorist organizations in his country get the weapons. Oh, but I'm sure Iraq didn't harbor terrorists. They just magically appeared after we went in.
    Which ones? He was a mortal enemy of OBL and Al Qaeda. Who thanks to us now have a base of operations, training ground, and recruitment pool do to our destablizing that country.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #215
    Forum Member MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    A very liberal member of congress wants to reinstate the draft. Said Congressman is also a veteran. Feelings on this? Discussion ?
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  16. #216
    MembersZone Subscriber RoughRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oyster Bay, NY
    Posts
    798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
    A very liberal member of congress wants to reinstate the draft. Said Congressman is also a veteran. Feelings on this? Discussion ?
    He tried this last year. He put forth the same bill and it was voted down 402-2 with the author of the bill voting against it.

    He feels this bill will hold politicians accountable for sending our country to war. When did we empower politicians to decide whether or not we go to war? This notion scares me because elected officials should represent his/ her constituents interests NOT HIS/HER OWN. If his constituents feel we should be fighting terror, raising minimum wage or creating healthcare safety net for all Americans he should vote accordingly.

    A government of the people, by the people, for the people.
    Last edited by RoughRider; 11-20-2006 at 11:54 AM.
    Fortune does not change men; it unmasks them.

    The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter!! Either side of the hill.


    IACOJ PROUD

  17. #217
    Forum Member MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    I am quite familiar with Rangels success with last years vote. Take Rangel out of it. Is our military being spread too thin? I am not sure how I would feel about a draft. We all registered when we were 18. I chose not to join the military but to pursue a fire department career. I am too old now but I can imagine what the general consensus is amongst the teen-aged crowd. Now for something completely different. I make a motion that any active military personnel be allowed to leagally drink under the age of 21. We expect these young people to go overseas and kill our enemies...But they can't walk into the VFW and order a beer.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  18. #218
    MembersZone Subscriber RoughRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oyster Bay, NY
    Posts
    798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
    I am quite familiar with Rangels success with last years vote. Take Rangel out of it. Is our military being spread too thin? I am not sure how I would feel about a draft. We all registered when we were 18. I chose not to join the military but to pursue a fire department career. I am too old now but I can imagine what the general consensus is amongst the teen-aged crowd. Now for something completely different. I make a motion that any active military personnel be allowed to leagally drink under the age of 21. We expect these young people to go overseas and kill our enemies...But they can't walk into the VFW and order a beer.
    I don't feel we should fight a war we're not willing to win. If its the peoples will to go to war I expect our leaders to have the people in place to win the war.

    You raise an interesting point. Having a draft may certainly get the 18 - 21 crowd to pay more attention to the political process.

    As far as allowing military personnel to have a drink, I second your motion.

    All in favor ?
    Last edited by RoughRider; 11-20-2006 at 12:15 PM.
    Fortune does not change men; it unmasks them.

    The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter!! Either side of the hill.


    IACOJ PROUD

  19. #219
    Fir Na Tine LuckyThirteen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Sumter, SC
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
    I make a motion that any active military personnel be allowed to leagally drink under the age of 21. We expect these young people to go overseas and kill our enemies...But they can't walk into the VFW and order a beer.
    I've always agreed with that to a point. I'll explain briefly. I'm in the AF. Most of us in the AF have never seen combat. Many still have never even at least deployed to a combat area of operations. Now I've had lots of young troops make the statement about being old enough to go to war, but not old enough to drink. My reponse to them is always the same. When you go to war, I'll be the first one to buy you a beer when you get home, but until that time... I think that having deployed and/or fought in combat should be a condition of that. That's just me though.

    And that's they way I feel. I'd easily buy round after round for folks coming back from duty, but to all these kids that have never even seen sand or run through a jungle, they can just shut up and color.
    Tom Warshaw
    Station 13 (Bethel)
    Sumter Fire Department

    "Scientists believe that the world is composed mainly of hydrogen because in their opinion, it is the most abundant element. I however, feel the earth is composed mainly of stupidity, because it is more abundant than hydrogen." - Frank Zappa

    September 11, 2001. We Must Never Forget.

    In memory of Thomas Sabella, L-13, FDNY


    All opinions stated are my own and do not reflect the opinions of my department or any organization I may belong to.

  20. #220
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    87

    Default

    WMDís in IRAQ, yes and if you think he used them all up in the past you need to look for some ocean front property in Arizona. There have been a few discoveries that have made the news but I guess they werenít the huge warehouse so folks were looking for. If I am not mistaken the purpose of WMDís is more bang for the buck and it doesnít take much of an agent to make a big impact. They are still there in smaller quantities and like was already posted I hope we find them before the bad guys do.

    The draft: If it was suggested for political impact then no. It would sure get some younger folks attention real quick. There are a whole lot of people out there that the military would help but I donít know if I want to serve with some of them either. My life is worth a lot to me and I like to know that my buddy has my back and I have his or hers since we are coed! I think as well that if you are old enough to vote, join the military, and get married you should be able to buy alcohol as well.

    We all know initially what would happen if this happens and from the fire/ems side it would be job security, but from the safety side it would be a pretty uphill run for a while. I think the laws about DUI and DWI would have to improve. No drinking and driving period! Get pulled over for DWI you are done driving for quite a while, no insurance same thing. The car gets towed and if you canít afford to get it out them it is off to the sheriffís sale.

    We donít make the laws and we canít pick and choose which ones we enforce, if we buy the newly returned troop a drink of their choice and it happens to have alcohol they had better be 21 or we will have to answer up to the boss on why were contributing to underage drinking! Great intentions but not a good example to set, that part comes from a 23 year proud chairforce ranger! Sorry Lucky13 that wasnít directed directly at you but just food for thought and that change will have to come from folks in a much higher pay grade than you and I!!


    I know there are quite a few here that have or are serving, all I can say is Thanks!!

    Remember to Vote and ask questions of our elected officials this is our way of keeping things rolling and maybe in the end putting someone in office we might like

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Did you respond to WTC???
    By E40FDNYL35 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 197
    Last Post: 04-21-2011, 07:28 PM
  2. Contract Fire Protection Information
    By galebagram2u in forum Americans Overseas
    Replies: 544
    Last Post: 05-11-2010, 07:19 AM
  3. All You Military Brats Out There!
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum Emergency (& Non) Entertainment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-07-2006, 11:44 PM
  4. Military looking for a few good medics: $120,000 sign-on bonus
    By GeorgeWendtCFI in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-13-2005, 06:54 AM
  5. John Kerry the Guy
    By StoveBolt in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: 11-09-2004, 06:44 PM

Posting Permissions

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