Get Free, Friendly, Expert Advice
Call 1-888-352-9466 or email

Designed and Manufactured in Canada Since 1980

Axiom Dolby Atmos 7.2.4 Cinema
Solarrdadd's 7.1 Apartment HT!
AxiomAudio Blog

Insider’s Sneak Peek: AxiomAeris

Axiom’s New Computer Speakers

Blind Listening Tests

Who's Online
2 registered (CV, 2x6spds), 112 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
13,584 Registered Members
11 Forums
23,430 Topics
415,482 Posts

Most users ever online: 378 @ 02/24/13 04:33 PM
Top Posters
Ken.C 18029
pmbuko 16418
SirQuack 13369
CV 11586
MarkSJohnson 11370
Meanwhile On Facebook
Page 93 of 172 < 1 2 91 92 93 94 95 171 172 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#53529 - 09/15/04 06:20 PM Re: Holy crap
Michael_A Offline

Registered: 02/07/04
Posts: 418
In reply to:

Invading Iraq, however, was not retaliation and even Bush needed "permission" before proceeding. This permission came from the countries that allied themselves with us. We would not have gone into Iraq if we had to do it totally alone... least get your events straight.

The facts that I am basing my arguments on are the same as ones documented in Britannica Online

"Though justified by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on grounds that Kuwait was historically part of Iraq, the invasion was presumed to be motivated by Iraq's desire to acquire Kuwait's rich oil fields and expand its power in the region. The United States, fearing Iraq's broader strategic intentions and acting under UN auspices, eventually formed a broad coalition, which included a number of Arab countries, and began massing troops in northern Saudi Arabia. When Iraq ignored a UN Security Council deadline for it to withdraw from Kuwait, the coalition began a large-scale air offensive (Jan. 16–17, 1991). Saddam responded by launching ballistic missiles against neighbouring coalition states as well as Israel. A ground offensive by the coalition (February 24–28) quickly achieved victory. Estimates of Iraqi military deaths range up to 100,000; coalition forces lost about 300 troops. The war also caused extensive damage to the region's environment. The Iraqi regime subsequently faced widespread popular uprisings, which it brutally suppressed. A UN trade embargo remained in effect after the end of the conflict, pending Iraq's compliance with the terms of the armistice. The foremost term was that Iraq destroy its nuclear-, biological-, and chemical-weapons programs. The embargo continued into the 21st century and ceased only after the Second Persian Gulf War.(2003) International conflict that took place between Iraq and a combined force of troops from the United States and Great Britain, with smaller contingents from several other countries.

The trade embargo and weapons-inspection process that the UN imposed on Iraq following the First Persian Gulf War (1990–91) had partly fallen into abeyance by 2001. U.S. Pres. George W. Bush argued that the September 11 attacks on the U.S. in that same year highlighted the threat to U.S. security posed by hostile countries such as Iraq. Encouraged by Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the UN issued Security Council Resolution 1441 in November 2002, demanding that Iraq readmit weapons inspectors and comply with all previous resolutions. Although Iraqi did readmit inspectors, Bush and Blair declared in early 2003 (despite objections by many world leaders) that Iraq was continuing to hinder UN inspections and that it still retained proscribed weapons. On March 20, seeking no further UN resolutions, the U.S. and Britain (with token representation from other countries) launched a series of air attacks on Iraq, and a ground invasion followed.

Now, I did elude to the fact that we "retaliated" against Bin Laden when we took out Saddam, but the written historical record shows that 9-11 was just a triggering event that lead to us taking action on Saddam's violation of the the 1991 armistice earlier than we otherwise would have. Ok... I should have been more specific there. My apologies. I presume that we agree that when a country signs a peace armistice with the UN, that they should honor the terms of that armistice. I also think that most of us would agree that failure to follow the terms of an armistice, returns the warring parties back to the state they were in before the armistice was signed and ignored - war. I do not believe that the US & UK needed any additional permission to continue the hostilities that were already approved by the original UN Coalition. The armistice was a protracted cease fire, and it was violated by Saddam. The other countries simply walked away before the job was done. It's not our fault that they won't come back to finsh what they willingly participated in at the start of the Gulf War. I don't really see it as Gulf War 1 & Gulf War 2. It is like we had halftime in Gulf War 1. This war is just the end of a long cease fire.

The corruption within the U.N., and the countries that were receiving kickbacks from Saddam will be a huge scandal this winter. France, Russia, and Germany (or the UN representatives of those countries) were being paid off by Saddam with the money that he got for selling oil that was supposed to be buying food and medicine for the Iraqi people - The "Oil for Food" prorgam.

So we have:
1- Saddam is stonewalling the UN on the WMD inspections front
2- At the same time, Saddam is paying off the UN officials capable of initiating the actions spelled out in UN 1441.
3- Both Saddam AND the UN officials involved are making money hand over fist by siphoning money off of the "UN approved" oil sales program.

All they have to do to protect this arrangement is keep the status quo. Saddam defiantly snubs the UN, the US pushes for armistice compliance, the UN reaffirms the embargo (trapping the Iraqi people in a situation that they can not change), oil for food, kickback money to UN officials, rinse, repeat...

This sort of stuff normally makes left leaning folks go ballistic. Rich folks making outrageous profits off of the pain and suffering of poor people, while stealing their precious national resources at the same time. Why doesn't this anger you? All you seem to care about is making President Bush look like the bad guy. Given the events described above, he mounted a RESCUE, not an occupation.

I think the kicker of this scandal is going to be that we find out someone at the UN fed Saddam the invastion date, and he had sufficient notice, and possibly even UN help in secreting his WMDs off to another counrty, or under the sand somewhere in Iraq. This thing is gonna bust wide open, proving the UN is corrupt, Saddam had WMDs, and the terrorists fighting us in Iraq now are really Al Queada. It's going to be a hat trick for the Prez.
In reply to:

So if you say Kerry would wait to ask for permission before retaliating after an attack on our soil...

Yes, I am saying that because he himself said it, on 2 or 3 occasions. I've also seen him on TV saying the exact opposite, that he wouldn't ask the UN for permission. Ok... I say that 50% of the time Kerry would act immediately, and 50% of the time, he'd ask Zimbabwe and France for permission. I really just don't know, and he certainly hasn't made it any easier for me to understand his position. The only real question is, "Do I feel lucky?".
M- M60s/VP150/QS8s/SVS PC-Ultra/HK630 Sit down. Shut up. Listen.

#53530 - 09/15/04 07:53 PM Re: Holy crap
littleb Offline

Registered: 08/03/03
Posts: 1235
Loc: Moorhead, Minnesota/US
When is this thread going to die. It's gone on longer than that time I used the 'b' word. Geesh!

#53531 - 09/15/04 09:34 PM Re: Holy crap
BigWill Offline

Registered: 05/01/03
Posts: 1951
Loc: Corona, Calif. USA!!!
craigsub, I've been at work all day and unable to really devote any time to this subject. I'm very glad that you have supported the child financially. No matter how the lady spent the money, the child is better off for you sending it to her.
But to modify child support laws to the point where any guy who claims, "I didn't want the kid, so don't send me the bill", can get out of paying child support would basically eliminate child support.
Friggin' A! Now I'm burning dinner. LAter.

#53532 - 09/15/04 10:31 PM Re: Holy crap
craigsub Offline

Registered: 12/15/03
Posts: 1522
BigWill... If there were sane laws regarding child support, the young lady would have had food, clothes, insurance... all the basics... and about $80,000 in the bank for college...

Instead... Her mother has been driving new cars.

Yep... You are right... a GREAT friggin system.

And of course, had the mother decided this child should have been killed, THAT is ok with everybody...

Hope you have pizza delivery...
Old enough to know better.

#53533 - 09/16/04 12:27 AM Re: Holy crap
BigWill Offline

Registered: 05/01/03
Posts: 1951
Loc: Corona, Calif. USA!!!
How about something we can agree on?
I'm sure you've already read it, but Rich Lowry's recent tongue-in-cheek piece on Kerry's "nuanced" Iraq position(s) is a quick, funny read:

#53534 - 09/16/04 07:29 AM Re: Holy crap
craigsub Offline

Registered: 12/15/03
Posts: 1522
BigWill... I will check it out later. Thanks...
Old enough to know better.

#53535 - 09/16/04 03:13 PM Re: Holy crap
md55 Offline

Registered: 05/20/03
Posts: 284
Loc: Nevada City, CA
My understanding is a Master (in California) is a "judge" with limited powers and jurisdiction to take the workload off full judges. Your point though is a good example of what I was saying about no interest in fairness. The legal system is almost a mindless machine for rendering decisions. I think that while you may be righ about the "excuse" is to protect the child, the real purpose is to protect the state...from paying, for welfare etc. If the mother has a demonstrated income from child support she won't qualify for welfare.

I made the mistake of believing idealistically that the courts were for doing justice. What I learned is that they are in many respects the worst of government mechanisms, rendering nothing more than finality to disagreements.


#53536 - 09/17/04 04:01 AM Re: Holy crap
pmbuko Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 04/02/03
Posts: 16418
Loc: Leesburg, Virginia
In reply to:

PMB - Welcome to our side...

Oh hoh hoh! No no. Stating the facts does not mean I support the decision. Watch out for a lashing here.

While the government is spending billions of dollars fighting a Global War on Terror abroad, it is leaving domestic security seriously underfunded. You may have heard about The Maritime Transportation Security Act, passed by Congress in 2002, and designed to help get our nation's ports more secure. But did you know that it completely lacks any mechanism for funding? That means that even though many ports know what they need to do to get more secure, they don't have the money to do it, and the funding ain't coming anytime soon. That makes the act completely useless.

So how big a risk is an unsecure port? A single container ship, or even a single container on a ship goes boom in one of our major ports, and it's dirty bomb clean-up time, at worst. At best, the port will have to be shut down until the problem is sorted out. A closed major port would be devastating to countless industries that rely on global trade.

Port security is a major part of securing the homeland. It cannot be ignored.

Sure, we've taken the fight TO our enemies, but we haven't even taken it to our #1 enemy: Al Qaeda. And what has happened to decrease the chances of a devastating attack occuring on our soil again, by this #1 enemy or anyone else? Not much. Homeland Security is a buzzword, nothing more. Words without action.

Do you really think the fact that we are in Iraq is a deterrent for terrorists? Remember the type of enemy we're dealing with here.

Still feel safer?

Edited by pmbuko (09/17/04 04:04 AM)
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

#53537 - 09/17/04 07:37 AM Re: Holy crap
craigsub Offline

Registered: 12/15/03
Posts: 1522
Let us see... I spent some time with our director of Homeland security this summer at a function here. He lives less than 2 miles from us. Good golfer, too.

About 1/2 the budget and policies are classified, including ports, Nuclear plants, and commercial (as in Fed Ex) flights.

PM - Would you have Mr. Ridge send Al Queda a blueprint outlining all their policies and strategies ?


Listen to Tom Ridge for a few hours, and you will realize Michael Moores is an IDIOT.
Old enough to know better.

#53538 - 09/17/04 07:51 AM Re: Holy crap
ringmir Offline

Registered: 02/03/04
Posts: 619
Loc: boston
See, it's precisely the classified information that makes me think I should just leave the issue be. Working on the missile defense system really drives this home for me. A large percentage of the stuff I work on is classified. The things I hear in the media regarding interceptor tests and the initial system going into place are lacking in *so* much information that they often completely misrepresent the entire program. I've learned to ignore them, but they are the only image into the missile defense system that your typical citizen gets. That person probably never even considers that they're getting less than 2% of the real picture. When it comes to the DoD, the information you can actually get is never, ever, more than one small piece in a huge puzzle.
[black]-"The further we go and older we grow, the more we know, the less we show."[/black]

Page 93 of 172 < 1 2 91 92 93 94 95 171 172 >

Moderator:  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Home  |  Corporate Info  |  Products  |  Message Board  |  FAQs  |  Warranty  |  Site Map  |  Privacy Statement   |  Contact Us

©2015 Colquhoun Audio Laboratories Limited
All Rights Reserved.