The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 404

US to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland


JohnP - | 210
17 Apr 2009 #211
The President doesn't have control over interceptors, as they aren't considered strategic offensive weapons. He has the nuclear "football" now, and can launch nuclear weapons, if need be... but Patriots need no such authority to be launched. They can even be set on sort of an "automatic" mode, and kill anything coming through the expected tragectory of an enemy missile...

It's very effective, but unfortunately guidance computers, like other computers, are inherently stupid and cannot tell the difference between friend or foe quickly enough to matter; at the beginning of the latest war in Iraq, Patriots shot down somewhere between 19 and 23 missiles fired by Iraq into the base I was at over a period of a few weeks; unfortunately, they had to be taken off of automatic mode, apparently, as they also shot down one of our own F/A 18 Hornets and a British Tornado, when those happened to come back along the same path the missiles had taken.

Shame.
It wouldn't surprise me that the latest iterations have since resolved even this problem.

Doubt they are going to be as effective against an ICBM as the THAAD originally being offered, however.

Watch and wait, wait and watch.

John P.
bimber94 7 | 254
17 Apr 2009 #212
The Yanks are hell bent on blowing half the world up, so they may as well blow Poland up too. What dickheads.
JohnP - | 210
18 Apr 2009 #213
There was a time when Poland didn't have special operations forces, because Russia didn't like it. Now she doesn't want interceptors, ostensibly, again, because Russia doesn't like it.

Might as well shut down Warsaw and move it to the Kremlin, that way people like you can go on complaining about the Americans, while being happy that Russia finally got what it wanted.

Honestly, nobody on here really knows if there were or weren't WMD's in Iraq, either (chemical weapons and biological weapons are included as WMDs incidentally). You know only what you've heard from other people, who themselves, often have no idea.

What we know-Iraq *used* to have them, (openly) and for years after 1991, failed to demonstrate what happened to them; amongst other UN sanctions they continued to flaunt. Regardless of pride or whatever reasons they may have had, Iraq was still thumbing its nose at the inspectors, and even blocking them from entry to some locations... then the spark occurred when over a short amount of time multiple primarily American civilian targets had been hit, with thousands of lives lost. We lost our sense of humor for such things-and Iraq was not only openly hostile to the US but hinted it had something up its sleeve. There's an endless amount of conspiracy theories you can find, so-and-so here or there that's still alive or some such...and you can wear as thick of a tinfoil hat as you like-but either Iraq had something, and it was removed/disabled before it could be used, or they didn't, and chose a very poor time to imply they did, perhaps thinking that like the previous administration, nothing would be done to them and their neighbors would continue to quake. America does have trouble fighting the paper tiger label, after all...for every President with a will to do something (and a congress who will let him) there are three who only pay lip service to actions, and then only when trying to get elected.

Saying one did not find anything under those conditions proves little or nothing besides that the government in question is hiding something, whatever that may be.

Second guess it all you want, it has never been shown that Iraq didn't have WMD's; only that they haven't been openly found. To me it is the equivalent of having the police search your house for contraband, but not allowing them to look in the garage.

When they say they found nothing...it really doesn't prove anything.

The oil story is completely off the mark, and is basically a canned answer at this point, as it seems to be tossed out every time America has an interest ANYWHERE. Yet we do not get the oil...we have to buy it like everyone else. Other countries...well, I guess you are just unwilling to criticize; because as they get control of ALL the oil (in Europe...) you're afraid to call a spade a spade, and are still distracted by Americans buying some of Iraq's oil.

Originally...it was all going to go to another country and THEY were going to decide how to divide it. Now Iraq gets to do this. Interesting now that Iran is digging up territory disputes from hundreds of years ago, to try claiming the oil is theirs because it passes through "their" waters. (It doesn't...but they try claiming the whole sea as "theirs" these days).

If anyone blows up Poland, it won't be the US.
The only thing that changes by not having US interceptors there, is that you'll have the self satisfaction of knowing, that when someone DOES blow you up(!?) you got the last laugh, because no nasty American missile shot down the incoming missiles. The satisfaction will last in fractions of a second, but hey...no American interceptors.

To me, not allowing interceptors (patriots included) is like playing hockey, and removing your goalie because it offends the opposing teams.

John P.
bimber94 7 | 254
18 Apr 2009 #214
You're saying it's OK for USA and UK to have WMDs, but not who they decide is an 'enemy'? Funny how whatever 'enemy' it is, just happens to be sitting on oil.

Remember the Yankee attacks on the Balkans about 20 yerars ago? They have SOME oil, but not huge reserves like Iran has. Iran is next.
With all the technology and expertise USA has, they didn't manage to find WMDs? Come off it. And who put Saddam into power in the first place? USA.

Remember a Mr Kelly, the WMD expert? Funny how he took a walk down the road, and was found far off in the woods, having topped himself "because he couldn't stand the stress of being questioned". No-one to date has found WMDs in Iraq. That Hussein must have had magic powers to make them invisible.

Accept the fact that the real terrorists are in the White House and in Downing Street.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
18 Apr 2009 #215
What we know-Iraq *used* to have them, (openly) and for years after 1991, failed to demonstrate what happened to them; amongst other UN sanctions they continued to flaunt

No we dont, there's no proof that Iraq ever had WMDs of any nature, it had chemical weapns yes but they were not WMDs in nature, there was never any proof that it had WMDs and Bush administration used exactly the same general blanket statements as you do here to justify illegal actions against a country invaded for a completely made up reason.

Iraq was still thumbing its nose at the inspectors, and even blocking them from entry to some locations...

Naturally, USA was enforcing inspections via European institutions as means of political pressure and to assert dominance over Iraq, Iraqi goverment defied these attempts in the only way it could, by not admitting the inspectors.

then the spark occurred when over a short amount of time multiple primarily American civilian targets had been hit,

Iraq has never killed thousands of American civilians, this is another blanket statement designed to avoid burden of proof and still give your absolutely general argument some sense of credibility, it has none.

We lost our sense of humor for such things-and Iraq was not only openly hostile to the US but hinted it had something up its sleeve.

The invasion happened purely as a means to control and strip Iraq of a strategic resource, namely oil, every argument put up by US was simply an excuse to start this conflict.

Iraq never hinted it had something up its sleeve, its the US that continously knowingly lied about Iraqi capacity to justify its war to the general public.

When they say they found nothing...it really doesn't prove anything.

It proves everything, together with the fact that US never had ANY tangible proof of Iraq having WMDs this proves that United States invaded a country for no ethical or logical reason other than controling its immensly valuable resources.

The oil story is completely off the mark, and is basically a canned answer at this point, as it seems to be tossed out every time America has an interest ANYWHERE. Yet we do not get the oil...we have to buy it like everyone else.

Of course you have to buy it, Iraqi oil does not automatically go to the people, it goes to oil companies which use your immense ignorance and stupidity to earn money off you, THEY get cheaper oil not you.

Also its not a canned answer, US has different goals in different theaters, typically these goals are unethical or downright evil but Afgani discussion is for another thread.

US has showed with Iraq and Afganistan how cynical and unethical its policies are, if the scene shifts and Poland becomes a target of opportunity US would not hesitate.
szkotja2007 27 | 1,498
18 Apr 2009 #216
then the spark occurred when over a short amount of time multiple primarily American civilian targets had been hit,

Still trying to associate Iraq with the twin towers - baaaad John.

Can you clarify the point you are trying to make here.
leszek38 - | 31
19 Apr 2009 #217
Whats wrong with these Patriots? Does someone feel, that his right to bomb Poland whenever he wants, is being tampered with, by nasty Poles and even nastier Americans? Dont want to assign more resources to bombing Polsnd then it is necessary?

Lets just rust them by dozens of years. I for one, would like if the money for these Patriots would turned out to be wasted.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
19 Apr 2009 #218
They now say that pirates of Somalia stole the WMD from Iraq and transported them to their ships by camel caravans. Hmm... interesting.
JohnP - | 210
20 Apr 2009 #219
Hate to burst your bubble here...chemical weapons ARE WMD's. Saddam also had a nuclear program (Canada currently receiving the fuel left over from this) and had employed former bioweapons experts from elsewhere also. Not only this, but a large issue with the assessment of WMD's was that Saddam failed to show evidence for the destruction of ALL of the ones he used to have, just some of them.

You're saying it's OK for USA and UK to have WMDs, but not who they decide is an 'enemy'? Funny how whatever 'enemy' it is, just happens to be sitting on oil.

look up "nonproliferation". The cat's already out of the bag, no need to let it walk around the block. As far as oil goes...the same people are buying it from Iraq as before, and Afghanistan doesn't have any. Odd, though, must be easy to point at us Americans; lot safer feeling than looking at the country right next door that controls nearly ALL the oil in Europe now... Funny how things just conveniently worked out to spark intervention in just about the only country to have a non-Russian pipeline, and a nice, juicy seaport. But hey...it wasn't Americans doing it, so must've been all on the up and up...

Naturally, USA was enforcing inspections via European institutions as means of political pressure and to assert dominance over Iraq, Iraqi goverment defied these attempts in the only way it could, by not admitting the inspectors.

The UN is not a "European institution" but an institution founded by the victors of WWII. Iraq wouldn't have had to worry about these things if they had not invaded Kuwait in the first place. Incidentally, the bullet holes where Saddam's army lined up the Kuwaiti officers outside their barracks and machine gunned them...are still there.

Iraq has never killed thousands of American civilians, this is another blanket statement designed to avoid burden of proof and still give your absolutely general argument some sense of credibility, it has none

You're kidding, right? stop hyperventilating and read what I said. And yes, support and funding for hijackers is still enough to blame Iraq at least partially for what happened. If you hire a hit man to kill your wife, YOU are going to jail for murder also, not just your trigger man.

Still trying to associate Iraq with the twin towers - baaaad John.

Yet...you've yet to show that it wasn't associated. Even if it were not the brains, it was I believe at least partially responsible for funding. Iraq's public affairs website, even, prior to the war beginning, looked like it came from a Neo-Nazi group, blaming all sorts of things on the US and especially "Zionists" here or there. Yes, I went to the site. I believe it pays to study one's enemies...it not only helps in war, but later when that same enemy might be a friend.

Can you clarify the point you are trying to make here.

Americans don't control the oil in Europe, we don't even control the oil in MOST places...but there IS a country that does control most of Europe's oil now and is striving to change that statement from "most" to "all".

That country, no matter how easy it is to point fingers at us Americans...is not the United States of America. I'm not spelling it out for you any more. It doesn't pay to fight with a pig, you get all dirty and the pig likes it.

I think if there was a drought in China you would somehow think us responsible, but that's just my impression.

John P.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
20 Apr 2009 #221
Hate to burst your bubble here...chemical weapons ARE WMD's

What about farts? Can Iraqis fart or if they do, they got invaded?

where Saddam's army lined up the Kuwaiti officers outside their barracks and machine gunned them...are still there.

They were there for 10 years, didn't you know about them before and found out only in 2003?

still enough to blame Iraq at least partially for what happened.

Why don't attack Saudi Arabia instead or with Iraq. 19 "hijackers" were from there, right?

Yet...you've yet to show that it wasn't associated.

Nice move. I hope courts would never be working like that: you are guilty unless you prove your innocence.

Even if it were not the brains, it was I believe at least partially responsible for funding. Iraq's public affairs website, even, prior to the war beginning, looked like it came from a Neo-Nazi group, blaming all sorts of things on the US and especially "Zionists" here or there. Yes, I went to the site. I believe it pays to study one's enemies...it not only helps in war, but later when that same enemy might be a friend.

"I believe at least partially", "website...[i]looked like it came from Neo-Nazi group..", "blaming all sorts of things on the US" etc.

Not much is necessary to be wrong in American eyes. But what is hurting the most is the fact that this only applies to oil-bearing nations. Do you think only Iraq had something to say about you?

believe it pays to study one's enemies...it not only helps in war, but later when that same enemy might be a friend

I believe you study oil fields, not social, cultural or other currents of life.

Why are to be afraid to say Russia is the country. Well, both of ya are pain in the butt of many nations. Why there is no finger-pointing to Canada, second-largest country in the world? Because it doesn't stick its nose where it doesn't belong and doesn't kill thousands of civilians on the way.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
20 Apr 2009 #222
Hate to burst your bubble here...chemical weapons ARE WMD's.

Thats correct i had to look it up myself, and Iraq did have them, for a while, then it used them up on Kurds or simply destroyed them long before US invasion or demands since no proof of these weapons was found except for a few shells with traces which could be decades old.

addam also had a nuclear program (Canada currently receiving the fuel left over from this) and had employed former bioweapons experts from elsewhere also.

You mean the Osirak reactor bombed by Israelis which was not operational for years? I'm sorry but you keep issuing these general statements so lets be specific.

Iraq had chemical agents that its disposed of many years before the invasion as evidenced by lack of storage facilities or stockpiles, Iraq had a nuke programme that was damaged by Israelis and non operational for years, Iraq had NO WMD's at the time or a good few years before the invasion ,that much is proven and no amount of blanket general statements can change that.

Not only this, but a large issue with the assessment of WMD's was that Saddam failed to show evidence for the destruction of ALL of the ones he used to have, just some of them.

Saddam did not have to show the evidence, Iraq was a sovereign country and you had no right to invade just because someone refuse to show every single recording of chem agents being scrapped, its a pride thing you know and hardly justification for waging war on a country.

So if Poland gets nuclear reactors you will be entitled to invade if you think we're developing a nuke and fail to give in to insolent demands of turning over ALL the most secret military documentetion? Get real and stop being arrogant.

The UN is not a "European institution" but an institution founded by the victors of WWII

And victors of WWII are where? Gee except USA they're mostly in Europe, also what authority does UN have over countries not part of it?

Iraq wouldn't have had to worry about these things if they had not invaded Kuwait in the first place. Incidentally, the bullet holes where Saddam's army lined up the Kuwaiti officers outside their barracks and machine gunned them...are still there.

Wait wait, so now you're usurping power to inspect a sovereign country because it invaded someone nearly 20 years ago! Do you even see how ridiculous your dishonest claims are?

First you claim that Iraq was invaded because it had some mythical WMDs that were never found or proven to exist in the last decade, then you claim that Iraq got invaded because it invaded Kuwait nearly two bloody decades ago, i'm sorry but your reasoning is just preposterous.

So why did US invade? What resources Iraq has? Bananas? Fresh socks? No wait... oil!

and Afghanistan doesn't have any

The point of invading Afghanistan is to destabilize Pakistan by border incidents, Pakistan is a potential ally of China, by caussing dissent through attacking Pakistani borders US weakens the non-Islamic goverment and inspires fracture of the state that would otherwise become a powerfull ally to US main rival, China.

Afghanistan has nothing to do with Taliban rebels, its just a front for a bigger political goal in the region.

You're kidding, right? stop hyperventilating and read what I said. And yes, support and funding for hijackers is still enough to blame Iraq at least partially for what happened. If you hire a hit man to kill your wife, YOU are going to jail for murder also, not just your trigger man.

Ok i'm sorry now you're just lying like holy shite, no one from Iraq was ever connected to 9/11 in any way so we're back to square one, the only reason for invasion being control of the oil.

looked like it came from a Neo-Nazi group, blaming all sorts of things on the US

And then US came in under made up casus belli and destroyed the country, murdered its leader, wrecked its infrastructure and took over its major resource, in fact US acts far more fascist than Iraq ever did at this point.
szkotja2007 27 | 1,498
20 Apr 2009 #223
Yet...you've yet to show that it wasn't associated.

Your government said it wasn't associated.

It doesn't pay to fight with a pig, you get all dirty and the pig likes it.

Slow down tiger ! I just asked you to clarify an obscure point you were making ( Exxon are better than Gazprom )
Whatever.....linking the twin towers to the invasion of Iraq is low.
JohnP - | 210
21 Apr 2009 #224
What about farts? Can Iraqis fart or if they do, they got invaded?

Iraq is in the position to have pissed off a lot of people in 1991, and one of the conditions they were required to meet was to eliminate their WMDs (including reporting and inventory of where material went) and WMD programs. It was not a secret that they did neither.

JohnP:
where Saddam's army lined up the Kuwaiti officers outside their barracks and machine gunned them...are still there.
They were there for 10 years, didn't you know about them before and found out only in 2003?

Strange...had you read my post you would have understand why this was relevant. Iraq was thumbing its nose at restrictions placed on it during the first war...which started with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait over what he supposed were oil wells drilled on a slant or some such.

Why don't attack Saudi Arabia instead or with Iraq. 19 "hijackers" were from there, right?

Never had anyone from your home town commit a crime? Just because a group of terrorists are from a certain country is not enough to call that country a state supporter. Saddam openly gave to various terror groups, and the Taliban even more so. The Saudi government does not, regardless of the fact some of the hijackers were Saudi. That is the primary difference. No country is immune to having religious zealots or even run-of-the-mill whack-jobs. It doesn't mean that country is actively supporting the efforts of these.

But what is hurting the most is the fact that this only applies to oil-bearing nations. Do you think only Iraq had something to say about you?

What are you talking about here, it seems you haven't read anything I've written...

I believe you study oil fields, not social, cultural or other currents of life.

I think you are a blow-hard. If this premise were true, we'd have killed Saddam back in 1991 and let the Kuwaitis play football with his head, or perhaps when the Saudis and others nationalized oil infrastructure built and operated by US and on land bought by US and UK companies...instead of making a deal with the Saudis (they deal in US Dollars only) we would have sailed a ship or two there and killed everyone. You and I both know we could have done it, and there wouldn't be squat anyone could do about it. We did not.

So your argument is faulty.

Why are to be afraid to say Russia is the country. Well, both of ya are pain in the butt of many nations. Why there is no finger-pointing to Canada, second-largest country in the world? Because it doesn't stick its nose where it doesn't belong and doesn't kill thousands of civilians on the way.

Watch the news buddy. Canadian troops are fighting right along side ours, and you have no idea how many civilians have or have not killed or by whom. I was simply pointing out that it is quite easy to point at the people across an ocean from you as being the cause of the world's problems, blame them for controlling all the oil, meanwhile someone in your own back yard is actually DOING the things you THINK Americans are. Which is foolhardy. I don't blame Russia or Russians...they are doing what they SHOULD be doing, which is to look after their own interests. Rather, I blame people like you, who lose everything because they are watching the neighbor's house while their own is on fire.

Saddam did not have to show the evidence, Iraq was a sovereign country and you had no right to invade just because someone refuse to show every single recording of chem agents being scrapped, its a pride thing you know and hardly justification for waging war on a country.

Iraq, while being a sovereign nation, as you say...was only allowed to remain so if it agreed to various restrictions placed on it at the end of the first war in 1991, one of which was reporting, another was unfettered access being given to weapons inspectors, and also a no-fly zone. It did not honor any of these, and short of Saddam's saying so we had no evidence he had, as he said, destroyed his stockpiles, stopped his development program, or for that matter did not possess WMDs. Inspectors did declare many locations to be free of WMDs, true, but almost up to zero-hour there were also places which Saddam restricted the inspectors from visiting. Combine this with a stance openly in support of the 9-11 attacks, as well as information pointing to Iraqi money flowing to support the hijackers and it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

There was justification for war from the first time Saddam shot at an aircraft in the no-fly zone, and the first time he barred inspectors from a site they wished to visit;

Just because he got away with it for 12 years didn't mean he would continue to do so, and apparently he made the misjudgment of thinking he would. Just my opinion, anyway.

the only reason for invasion being control of the oil.

So where is it? WE sure aren't getting it for free...if that was your theory, it is misguided.

And then US came in under made up casus belli and destroyed the country, murdered its leader, wrecked its infrastructure and took over its major resource, in fact US acts far more fascist than Iraq ever did at this point.

Now while you made some interesting points about China, you're wrong here...first of all, Iraq is not destroyed, second, the only US participation in Saddam's death was to provide him a defense attorney the rest was up to Iraq...third of all its infrastructure is better than it was before the war, fourth, the US nor any other member of the coalition took over its major resource (Iraq still has that...we pay for it just like everybody else, although most US oil comes from elsewhere) and lastly, while I'm concerned as the next person about the loss of freedoms currently being threatened by our government, we do not have people who speak up against the government disappearing, or secret police so feared that when they march in public they always keep their faces hidden as did Saddam's Fedayeen secret police. America has its problems, but you're a bit off here. I'd say the UK is closer than we are (cameras everywhere, etc) but still a whole different ball game compared to what the Iraqis had to worry about under Saddam.

Slow down tiger ! I just asked you to clarify an obscure point you were making ( Exxon are better than Gazprom )
Whatever.....linking the twin towers to the invasion of Iraq is low.

Prior to the war, there were photos shown on the news of Iraqi intelligence agents meeting with hijackers in Switzerland; not only this there used to be methods of tracking the banking activities of these same, which later became useless due to an article publishing the techniques used...so linking the two is only low if you refuse to believe there was ever a connection or the possibility of it. Perhaps America is indeed so evil that it will conquer a nation living under a Tyrant, force it to install a democratically elected government, and then steal its oil by paying them for it....or perhaps we sometimes actually have reasons other than those you seem most amenable to.

John P.
bimber94 7 | 254
21 Apr 2009 #225
All in all, it strongly looks like JohnP is the end product of establishment brainwashing, and a CIA agent. Of course he'll deny every word of it.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
21 Apr 2009 #226
More or less, a living evidence of my prior claim that US is intentionally creating a nation of morons who without moral or ethical backbone or personal opinion will be easily manipulated and governed.

So where is it? WE sure aren't getting it for free...if that was your theory, it is misguided.

For you nothing has changed, oil companies get more oil, they can sell more oil but thats for their benefit, not yours.

Iraq, while being a sovereign nation, as you say...was only allowed to remain so

Who are you to decide about sovereignity of other countries?

Combine this with a stance openly in support of the 9-11 attacks

So? America is not the friend of ME states, if i was an Iraqi i'd be cheering those jumpers who hopped out of windows since i'd hate you and your people for all the sanctions and Israel support, their support of 9/11 is fully understanble even if not politically correct, they hate you for good reasons so ofc they wont be sad when your people die.

Inspectors did declare many locations to be free of WMDs,

No WMDs have been discovered prior to or after the war, US admitted it had no tangible proof which means the country was invaded for another reason, the only other reason is oil.

The one thing that scares me is that USA is so powerfull and yet inhabited by mindless drones like you, make no mistake thats not an insult, as far as i can like a nickname on an online forum you evoke sympathy, the problem is that what you're reapiting is basically the same pro-war propaganda spewed by Bush and debunked later, your arguments hold zero factual basis.
szkotja2007 27 | 1,498
21 Apr 2009 #227
All in all, it strongly looks like JohnP is the end product of establishment brainwashing, and a CIA agent. Of course he'll deny every word of it.

This is the truth -

Iraq bombed the twin towers.

US invaded Iraq and conquored the best Air Force, one of the best Navy and some of the mostly highly equipped troops in the world.

Iraq had nuclear warheads aimed at the rest of the world.

No civilians were killed.

Iraqis love us for it.

It was not about oil.

Al Quaeda are everywhere.

Everyone hates Amerikkkaaa.
My phone is bugged -
OMG there is a white van outside.....this is the truth I tell ya.......get off me ya commies.....I'm a winner........
Ironside 50 | 11,260
22 Apr 2009 #228
No WMDs have been discovered prior to or after the war, US admitted it had no tangible proof which means the country was invaded for another reason, the only other reason is oil.

Wrong .....guess again
JohnP - | 210
22 Apr 2009 #229
More or less, a living evidence of my prior claim that US is intentionally creating a nation of morons who without moral or ethical backbone or personal opinion will be easily manipulated and governed

And yet...it isn't me who believes the (unfounded in fact) status quo, but you. If there is large scale manipulation happening...well, the status quo and most of the voters agree with you. Now who's the "moron"? Enjoy that next spoon full of pablum.

For you nothing has changed, oil companies get more oil, they can sell more oil but thats for their benefit, not yours.

??? of course oil companies sell oil, who did you expect would sell it, refrigerator manufacturers?

Iraq, like other governments, owns its own oil. If it sells it to companies for resale, that is their decision, not yours or mine. Hence their recent efforts at OPEC to reduce the supply, to allow them more income.

Iraq is also famous for its dates, but somehow I doubt they produce nearly enough to support their economy compared to the oil.

Who are you to decide about sovereignity of other countries?

Wasn't me. Saddam lost in 1991, the UN made restrictions on him, he agreed to them. He was allowed not only to live, but remain in power, so long as he followed those restrictions. He did not. His choice.

So? America is not the friend of ME states, if i was an Iraqi i'd be cheering those jumpers who hopped out of windows since i'd hate you and your people for all the sanctions and Israel support, their support of 9/11 is fully understanble even if not politically correct, they hate you for good reasons so ofc they wont be sad when your people die.

And yet, you are NOT an Iraqi, nor are your views (or mine) necessarily theirs.
UN sanctions left Saddam able to take care of his people, just not so much his war machine.
Like so many dictators in precarious positions of power, his path was unfortunately predictable...the money wasn't spent on people but on Saddam and his sons' ever increasing power, while creating a secret police that grew in ruthlessness in direct proportion to the unhappiness of his people. Your implication of a more Utopian Iraq under Saddam, with everything just peachy under him...is wrong.

No WMDs have been discovered prior to or after the war, US admitted it had no tangible proof which means the country was invaded for another reason, the only other reason is oil

This is a shallow minded argument. You can do better. Finding nothing when inspectors are not allowed to look....proves nothing, other than that inspectors, contrary to the restrictions Saddam agreed to, were not being granted unfettered access. As for during and after the war...who knows what may be found in the future, but artillery rounds found full of Sarin gas, have already been discovered (5 years ago....) and do qualify.

Not finding a nuclear weapon is not indicative of no WMDs, but short of a nuclear weapon going off, it will receive little coverage unless it is found as a result of efforts by the party favored by a majority of the media, especially during election years. We are still finding things buried and stockpiled left over from the Iran-Iraq war, including MiG fighters (much larger than a WMD).

Oil? please...there are several here who think everything ever done by America is about oil (or perhaps Israel...or bankers...where's my tinfoil hat) ...who pulled your string?

If oil was the reason for going to Iraq, we would have saved ourselves the trouble of the first war, let alone the last one...and simply leveraged Saddam to sell to us at a cut rate (much as Russia was attempting to do prior to the invasion behind the scenes...Putin had a lot of money in Saddam and lost a lot when he fell). We did not do so. Iraq is paidfull price for its oil, although the US is not their primary customer as I understand. Most US oil comes from much closer than the Middle East.

The one thing that scares me is that USA is so powerfull and yet inhabited by mindless drones like you, make no mistake thats not an insult, as far as i can like a nickname on an online forum you evoke sympathy, the problem is that what you're reapiting is basically the same pro-war propaganda spewed by Bush and debunked later, your arguments hold zero factual basis.

I am a mindless drone eh? And yet I put my own name to my posts. You sir...hide behind the name of a long dead philosopher who you do not represent in the least.

I do my own thinking.
You obviously, do not, and come across as shocked that anyone would disagree with what you, from your armchair, have deemed to be the absolute truth.

You make accusations about me, without backing up them or even your own statements.
I, presumably unlike yourself, have at least a basic grasp on the US and on our military. I have been to Iraq for long periods of time and have been shoulder to shoulder with Iraqi soldiers as well as civilians.

Where does your knowledge come from? a commentator or two who agree with you politically? politicians going through an election?
Some of your information may be correct...but it is at least as suspect as anything I've written.
Mine? I doubt I will ever convince you, but then again, your opinion is far more important than facts are, isn't it.

imber94:
All in all, it strongly looks like JohnP is the end product of establishment brainwashing, and a CIA agent. Of course he'll deny every word of it.

This is the truth -

@bimber...I wish I were a CIA agent. They make a LOT more than I do; and interestingly...the establishment is saying the crap YOU believe.

I simply feel the establishment has swallowed a bunch of BS because of its desire to win elections at all cost, and much of what people believe...is based on biased political commentary, while they skim over without seeing the few morsels that are fact.

Iraq bombed the twin towers.

Your words, not mine. I do believe they tossed in cash when the hat was passed, however. Just as Columbus did not sail in 1492 at his own expense, neither did the hijackers do all of their work with their own money.

US invaded Iraq and conquored the best Air Force, one of the best Navy and some of the mostly highly equipped troops in the world.

I see you still haven't bothered reading, but rather input what YOU think I (or for that matter, anyone else who agrees with me on some basis) believe.

Mocking me does not address my (actual) points. Nevermind I've never even implied any of the things in this statement.

Iraq had nuclear warheads aimed at the rest of the world.

Nor have I implied this one...although I do believe he either had one or two or was actively trying to get them.

No civilians were killed.

Not even this one...although I did take you and your source to task for making up numbers and inventing imaginary military tactics...
The source claiming millions of civilians killed....the one you and others have referenced in the past...apparently never actually verified the majority of the casualties they claim, claiming it was too "dangerous" to actually visit the sites of these alleged civilian slayings.

Pardon me for thinking this was shoddy work on the part of the reporter, especially considering at that time the US was paying large sums of money to those who indeed had suffered and could demonstrate this.

The numbers claimed were inflated to a level that would have been difficult to believe even under WWII style total war, let alone current "you're going to go to jail for murder if the guy you shoot wasn't the one shooting at you" tactics.

Forgive me for my insensibilities here, but where I grew up, that sort of story is called a "Lie".

Iraqis love us for it.

Some do, however I suspect some also resent the fact we could have helped them take their country from Saddam in 1991, and when the chips fell, left them hanging because the politicos in the UN wanted to give Saddam another chance, and Pres. Bush (Sr) obliged them. Saddam mowed his people down like grass while the promised help in their revolt...never came, called off the very DAY the fight was to start.

So it is bittersweet to some, especially those who risked and lost the first time...that they would have to wait 12 years with their grief.

Al Quaeda are everywhere.

Again a feeble attempt at mockery by attributing to me things which I have not claimed.
Yet you can claim all sorts of conspiracies, and feel secure that those are completely sane.
Perhaps Al Qaeda are everywhere...but not as strong as they once were.
Oh sure, many pay lip service...but the ones who'll put their lives on the line, real planners? not so much. Perhaps they're in Iran (or perhaps your basement?) being trained. After all, if you can claim I must be a CIA operative...(simply for disagreeing with your constant attacks on America or her troops or her citizens....where I grew up that was called "patriot" not CIA but hey...) then I could just as easily claim based on your statements that you were working for Al Qaeda.

See? It is the same. Hopefully you (and bimber) now see the ridiculousness of these statements.

John P.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
22 Apr 2009 #230
JohnP:
still enough to blame Iraq at least partially for what happened.

What about others "partially" responsible? Are they excused?

Iraq was thumbing its nose at restrictions placed on it during the first war...

But was the restrictions set by US or the United Nations? If it was the latter, why the United Nations were against invasion of Iraq? US thumbed its nose at the UN resolutions, hm?

And the Saudi gave under the table? Where is the proof of support of these organizations and why the UN haven't seen it? How do you know Saudi didn't support? Is there any way you can check? Of course, not, only Hollywood can do that by tracking People's Bank checking accounts. What about Bin Laden, what was it all about? What was his family doing in the US and leaving day after the Twin Towers fall? It is tiring even to write because it will hit a wall anyway and you like to type Bibles: many words and no sense.

So your argument is faulty.

Do you yourself understand what you wrote? It is gibberish of nonsense.

Rather, I blame people like you, who lose everything because they are watching the neighbor's house while their own is on fire.

Of course, you blame me and people that have the same opinion about Holy US BS. I didn't lose anything and I am not going to bend my back listening to the trash you try to spill on the world. You are not brainwashed, for that brains are necessary in the first place. Love to your country in all the aspect no matter what it does is not love because innocent people of your own country die for the sake of retards like your previous president and his surroundings. They did earn money and f*cked the country with the help of similar to you, blinded squeeks.
JohnP - | 210
22 Apr 2009 #231
What about others "partially" responsible? Are they excused?

No. Which is why they are being hunted and or killed as we speak, although I have a feeling you are (predictably) going to try to blame everyone but the terrorists or their direct supporters...

But was the restrictions set by US or the United Nations? If it was the latter, why the United Nations were against invasion of Iraq? US thumbed its nose at the UN resolutions, hm?

There were no UN resolutions against the US...and for that matter, while the UN wanted to wait (and apparently the G.S. was involved in a related scandal) the mandate for war was written into the very resolutions drafted at the end of open hostilities in 1991. Not to say the US or any nation needs UN permission to go to war. We all created the UN after WWII...however did anyone survive without the UN prior to that, one wonders. The UN is a club. Its only power is the will of its independent member nations to support various ideas and mandates it arrives at. It has the strength of iron in some ways, but soft clay in others, if you will...not predictable.

And the Saudi gave under the table?

Not that you have the sense to read them anyway. Go back to your comic books. The lot of questions you put in this last paragraph demonstrate you lack the motivation to look things up for yourself. Hollywood tracking bank accounts (huh?) Bin Laden's family in US, twin towers....wow. You could keep Reynolds wrap in business for YEARS. Don't bother reading my posts any more. I prefer to argue with people who come up with valid arguments to discuss, not off the wall conspiracies or unfounded blanket statements.

Do you yourself understand what you wrote? It is gibberish of nonsense.

Ahh...so the new definition of anything challenging your canned belief with logic is "gibberish of nonsense". Good to know should that information be required.

Of course, you blame me and people that have the same opinion about Holy US BS.

Way to prove your higher learning. You went on the attack against my country with generalizations that are categorically false (e.g. you whether or not intentionally are spreading lies)

...I merely defended it; if you cannot take the heat in return, do not dish it out, especially if you are not prepared to defend your positions with more than insults. There are many here who disagree with me quite a bit but are capable of holding a discussion in a civilized manner, which makes the exchange of ideas enjoyable. Learn from them.

John P.
bimber94 7 | 254
22 Apr 2009 #232
You are fooling no-one, JohnP.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
22 Apr 2009 #233
John, the evidence is overwhelmingly against an Iraqi connection. Why not admit it and say that it was just finishing the job that George W Bush snr started? Namely, killing Saddam. That would have been a good enough reason, getting rid of an evil dictator who was disliked by most. No, pride took over and another pretext needed to be found. Face it, it was a mistake not to take Saddam out before when he started his killing spree.

You also talk of UN Resolutions but they have no teeth. You base 2 MAJOR decisions on mandates, i.e 1948 creation of Israel and 2002/03 war with Iraq. Fair enough, following international law but you might want to check how many times Israel has breached them. They are not worth the paper they are written on, convenient when necessary and ignored when not.

Anyway, I'd like to see what Obama does with some of them. Bush made it very clear that he couldn't care less about the UN.

The Saudis fund terrorist groups and there is a lot of evidence on that. Dig deep enough and you will find it.

John, what Iraqi funds were passed to the hijackers? $100,000 was wired to Atta by Mahmoud Ahmed of your great friends, the Pakistani ISI. Well, former ISI director I should say. It's make believe to think that Saddam wired anything.

The great majority of people who know about what ACTUALLY happened on 9/11 were American officials and people in the shadows.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
22 Apr 2009 #234
Prior to the war, there were photos shown on the news of Iraqi intelligence agents meeting with hijackers in Switzerland;

And you are saying to me go and read my comic books? I can provide you with photos of my penis dealing with crack dealers from Colombia at the Eiffel tower in Pakistan before today, tomorrow and twenty years from now. Photos and BinLaden translations are for the US not for the thinking world. Photos is a proof of its lack.

No. Which is why they are being hunted and or killed as we speak,

Who is hunted? Give me a break, Bin Laden is being hunted? Hahah. Yeh, right. You will hunt until there are no more hunters that's for sure. You still didn't answer about the fate of "partially responsible". I was talking not about imaginary responsible that your government made up. But even a simple fact that majority of the "terrorists" were from Saudi Arabia suggests that probably their bosses, at least some of them, are in that country as well, no? Do you do something to find out or

The Saudi government does not, regardless of the fact some of the hijackers were Saudi. That is the primary difference.

logic is going to be your startegy?

Just because a group of terrorists are from a certain country is not enough to call that country a state supporter

"Axis of evil" spreads only on those who are in the way, I know. You will have photos, you will have Switzerland banks, you will have camels carrying WMDs across the Red Sea - everything just to show majority of Americans glued to TVs like to the last source of survival and tell them as much lies as you can. Do what you do, but at the end of the day, the regular American and regular person from so many other countries will pay for it dearly either by own blood or blood of the kids.

although I have a feeling you are (predictably) going to try to blame everyone but the terrorists or their direct supporters...

I am used to proves and not calling guilty before that as well as we are living in the global community and if all the world is saying "wait" and Johnny Poop says "no, I don't give a crap because I am the One who can produce photos and only my intelligence is correct", in my opinion, it is wrong and I say that.

Ahh...so the new definition of anything challenging your canned belief

You call logical attacking Iraq when there was no prove of the WMDs in the country and the UN asked you to wait until it is cleared out + linking Iraq to the Twin Towers and support of terrorist while so many other countries sell weapons to each other and so-called terrorists. Still you attacked Iraq. What is that great logic behind it that I can't grasp with my little brain?
szkotja2007 27 | 1,498
22 Apr 2009 #235
I have been to Iraq

Why haven't you mentioned this before ?

Again a feeble attempt at mockery by attributing to me things which I have not claimed.

Thats the level the debate has dropped to. You are regurgitating 2003 rhetoric as truth - even when your own government - the guys you work for - have changed thier stance.

Yet you can claim all sorts of conspiracies,

I haven't claimed any conspiracies.
I used to post links from the Department of Defense but whats the point - I can understand the difficulty in going to war following one belief which then turns out to be false. For example, the twin towers and Iraq - again - its a Department of Defense link where Wolfowitz says Iraq had nothing to do with it.

simply leveraged Saddam to sell to us at a cut rate

Saddam wasn't playing and was in talks with ME oil exporters to start trading in roubles using an Iranian based Oil bourse. Thereby devaluing the dollar as a monetery peg.

If you want to talk oil the floors yours.
I was punting on Iraqi oil licences and drilling long before 2003.
paczka 1 | 63
23 Apr 2009 #236
JohnP surely likes to write novels.
free palestine - | 14
23 Apr 2009 #237
Accept the fact that the real terrorists are in the White House and in Downing Street.

absolutely cock-on.not only that but its the zionists who choose who sits in the white house.yes U.S needs the oil like everybody else but attacking countries in the middle east is not only about oil,its about making sure israel is the only superior power in that region.america as a super power is dying,first it was the british empire,when that outlived its use the power was transferred to the U.S now the power will be passed on to israel,the next financial hub of the world will be israel and it will also be a super power militarily helped by the west,they will deal only in electronic money,so this paper money as we know it will cease,why do you think they give you so many incentives to pay by credit card or shop on line,the jew will control most of the worlds money,not that he doesnt at the moment,but electronically he freeze peoples assets etc without warning and you cant do ******** are going to **** the whole world analy unless we all wake up now.
RyanJF 1 | 18
2 May 2009 #238
Well, as an American citizen I won't try to push my opinions on Poland too hard, however I don't believe it would be a good choice for *my* country to continually antagonize Russia. The Russians are a lot more powerful than we've been treating them.
scrappleton - | 829
2 May 2009 #239
The Russians are a lot more powerful than we've been treating them.

I'm American and even if they weren't all that powerful we don't have any business f*cking around over there.. none whatsoever.

We're flat goddamn broke!
RyanJF 1 | 18
3 May 2009 #240
scrappleton Yesterday, 05:48#240

RyanJF:
The Russians are a lot more powerful than we've been treating them.
I'm American and even if they weren't all that powerful we don't have any business f*cking around over there.. none whatsoever.

We're flat goddamn broke!

Eh, we still think we're the big boys on the block, even though it appears that we're losing a lot of influence on a global scale.

Home / News / US to deploy Patriot missiles to Poland
Discussion is closed.