Tillman

[bauman]

You need to read Flags of our Fathers and The Greatest Generation, two somewhat recent bestsellers, to learn what made this country what it is today. If Americans had the self-indulgent bent of today's generation we would probably be saluting a different flag today. The truly bad individuals and groups in the world today are counting on America going the way of the recent Spanish election and the appeasement approach of England in the pre-WWII era both of whom's motto is, "When the going gets tough, we cut and run". Thank God for strong leaders in both political parties who have the guts to make the tough decisions needed to keep this country strong and great!

God Bless America.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Just because you don't agree with his political views doesn't make him "very sick" and you necessarily (and everyone else who disagrees with him) reasonable and responsible.

I do agree that this forum may not be the appropriate place to express political views -- but only because the majority of the community wants to keep the forum free off that discussion -- but I think many of the ideas NYBill has expressed have merit.

[cheesycow]

the manner in which he conveyed his thoughts that could provoke that kind of response, not the ideas themselves.

Paranoid conspiracy theories? namecalling? making implied claims about my ability (and the ability of others) to make reasonable decisions for ourselves about the officials we choose to elect?

You're opening up a pandora's box with inflammatory statements like that.

[Box and Won]

How 'bout that Va'shun Newbourne? Could be quite the player, eh?

Let's leave our discussions here to Billiken basketball.

[Quality Is Job 1]

>Paranoid conspiracy theories? namecalling? making implied

>claims about my ability (and the ability of others) to make

>reasonable decisions for ourselves about the officials we

>choose to elect?

>

>You're opening up a pandora's box with inflammatory

>statements like that.

cheesycow, are you referring to me, bauman, or NYBill? I can't see how you could be accusing me of the things you named.

[cheesycow]

should have been more clear.

[AlumniFan]

I could not care any less than I already do about NYBill's opinions, but I deeply resent his implied misrepresentation of the facts. I have and will try very hard not to respond, but I resent when anyone misrepresents facts to further their own opinion. I don't like when people post inaccurate comments about SLU or about the team and I don't like when people post inaccurate comments about politics.

[brehms13]

I know the power of War and the advancements that we have gained. But they're talking about keeping the troops there for another 4 months, some which are my family that have been there for close to a year. If I meant to cut and run I would have hoped we wouldn't wait until now, but u tell me....wheres the resolution?? When will this end?? How many lives have to be lost before we say War is over?? U tell me??

[ACE]

>You need to read Flags of our Fathers and The Greatest

>Generation, two somewhat recent bestsellers, to learn what

>made this country what it is today. If Americans had the

>self-indulgent bent of today's generation we would probably

>be saluting a different flag today. The truly bad

>individuals and groups in the world today are counting on

>America going the way of the recent Spanish election and the

>appeasement approach of England in the pre-WWII era both of

>whom's motto is, "When the going gets tough, we cut and

>run". Thank God for strong leaders in both political

>parties who have the guts to make the tough decisions needed

>to keep this country strong and great!

>

>God Bless America.

Fighting Al Quada is where the focus should be. The war in Iraq is senseless and has nothing to do with what happened on 9/11. "Our leaders" have made a terrible error leading us into Iraq. The focus all along should be to destroy bin laden and his scumbag buddies. Going to get Sadam was a pointless diversion.

[cheesycow]

I'm not going to refute you, or agree with you- and I don't think anyone else is either. I think the general feeling of the board is that the politics should stay somewhere else.

[ACE]

>I'm not going to refute you, or agree with you- and I don't

>think anyone else is either. I think the general feeling of

>the board is that the politics should stay somewhere else.

Didn't you start a political thread a few days ago? Practice what you preach.

[cheesycow]

Mine was a funny little tidbit that wasn't going to cause anyone to get as emotionally charged as a discussion about death and war.

[AlumniFan]

If you don't think that Iraq harbored terrorists, you need a history lesson....Abu Nidal, one of the most notorious terrorists of the last quarter century died in a Baghdad apartment just a year or so ago.

[ACE]

>If you don't think that Iraq harbored terrorists, you need a

>history lesson....Abu Nidal, one of the most notorious

>terrorists of the last quarter century died in a Baghdad

>apartment just a year or so ago.

I thought it was about weapons of mass destruction, not harboring terrorists?

[bauman]

You are the one that is so naive to have said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Can you really be so stupid as to believe that? Can you really believe that Sadam's regime has no connections to other Muslim terrorists outside of Iraq? It is scary that people as uninformed as you and NYBILL are probably old enough to vote!

[billiken_roy]

i didnt want to get drawn into this thread, but i will add my 2 cents here, but then i will stay out hereforward. it was always my understanding that iraq was about saddam. saddam was a dangerous man that needed to be stopped. wmd was just part of it. i agree with stopping saddam completely. the problem is though, once he is taken out, which he has been, you cant just pick up and leave because then there is no sense of order or govt to control the country and justice has no chance. in all likelihood, far worse characters would pick up the crown and take over these poor oppressed people. thus we are stuck there until some semblelance of order and government evolve.

imo, iraq was a lose lose from day one. daddy bush should have finished the job in the early 90's. clinton should have stepped and finished the job the second saddam refused weapons inspections. in the aftermath of 9-11, president bush never said, "we will hunt bin laden down and then quietly go back to being america". he promised a war on terrorism overall. president bush did what he felt was the next step in sending a message to all terrorists. anyone that thinks everything is just about bin laden is naive. bin laden is the tip of the iceberg. a message is being sent to all radical groups and governments that represent a threat to the free world.

i feel terrible that hundreds of soldiers have lost their lives. but remember not one soldier or reservist was promised a desk job at scott afb for their entire career in the military. they knew what they were getting into when they signed their contract to serve in the military. their deaths, while unfortunate, are acts of heroism that are vital to stopping future acts like 9-11. until it is understood that the richest country in the universe wont stand for inhuman actions i dont see any other choice but to stand up to the saddam's and bin laden's of the world.

while it sounds cowardlike, i am glad these acts are happening thousands of miles away in bagdad and afghanistan rather than new york city. and if anyone thinks that if the usa just acts remorseful about acts of terror and stands by and does nothing and that no further tragic acts will happen here in america, i think that is naive.

[bauman]

Well said BROY!

[ACE]

>You are the one that is so naive to have said that Iraq had

>nothing to do with 9/11. Can you really be so stupid as to

>believe that? Can you really believe that Sadam's regime has

>no connections to other Muslim terrorists outside of Iraq?

>It is scary that people as uninformed as you and NYBILL are

>probably old enough to vote!

"Uninformed"? And you are the one that believed weapons of mass destruction nonsense. LOL!

Please explain the Sadam/al Quada connection if you are so "informed."

[ACE]

>Well said BROY!

When Rumsfeld said, immediately after 9/11 when all signs pointed to the Afghanistan-based Osama bin Laden as the architect of the plot, that he'd rather bomb Iraq because there were "...no good targets in Afghanistan", what he was saying was that there was nothing of value there; there wasn't a huge pool of oil in Afghanistan like there was in Iraq. Bombing Iraq in retaliation for what bin Laden did is like the old joke about the man who loses his wallet in a dark movie theater but goes outside to look for it on the street because "...the light is better there".

[billiken_roy]

ace, facts:

clinton allowed the united states intelligence network dwindle to virutally nothing during his two terms. the secret service, cia etc was tremendously underfunded and under manned.

second, we knew from just the actions of saddam throughout his reign that he was capable of extremely in humane acts and had an insatiable appetite for power.

third, saddam cut off regular weapons inspections for a number of years. and even during the months leading up to operation iraqi freedom, had to be pushed to the limit before allowing any inspectors in.

questions after the above facts are considered:

do you want to continue to ignore the threats and possibilities of what might happen knowing all of the above facts?

would weapons of mass destruction be the only reason to oust a ruthless and inhumane leader like saddam hussain?

as a christian and a right thinking kind of guy which you have demonstrated on numerous occasions on this board, could you, if you were the president, live with the facts of what saddam was doing to his own people to remain in power, knowing that you had the resources and ability to stop the man, stand by and allow that to go unanswered?

my own opinions on the above questions and facts:

after seeing what a few crazed loyalists did at 9-11, to think a fabulously wealthy blood thirsty and power hungry dictator wouldnt eventually come after either us or an important ally again, no way i ignore iraq and saddam.

as i stated in an earlier thread, weapons of mass destructions are not the only reason we are in iraq. never were and never will be.

[billiken_roy]

"no good targets there" - i would take that to mean that iraq also was harboring elements that contribute to the threat to freedom. nothing about afghanistan or bin laden. if your focus is bin laden only, then i understand your anger and point. what we dont agree on is the war on terrorism and the battle against those waging the ugly war AGAINST FREEDOM. the title to the conflict is "Iraqi Freedom", not "Let's get Saddam" just because.

[ACE]

Roy you have a well thought out argument, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I prefer to leave politics out of sports message boards and I shouldn't have fed the beast. Cheesycow shouldn't have started his thread in the same way that NYBill shouldn't have started this thread.

People are passionate about politics often to the point of being irrational. Bauman's categorization of my opinion, one which is been shared by many reasonable folks including some in the Bush administration, as "naive", "stupid" and "uninformed" crossed the line. Talk about being close-minded. Some people have a hard time engaging in civil debate when it comes to politics, which is why I'd rather see people stick to the topic of the board - Billiken hoops.

[AlumniFan]

ACE: Maybe you know more than the entirety of the international policy and intelligence community. Maybe you have never heard of the Bekka Valley or Syria. Maybe you have no idea of the vastness of the uninhabited areas of Iraq, but I suggest you read the following before suggesting to intelligent people that Iraq did not have WMD.

WMD - Here is a list of people who said, PRIOR to the Iraq war, that Iraq held WMD:

Hans Blix - Chief Weapons Inspector (UNSCOM)

Scott Ritter - Weapons Inspector

Al Gore

William Jefferson Clinton

Tony Blair

Dr John Chipman - IISS Director

Saddam Hussein

CIA Briefing exerpt from 2002:

"Successive Iraqi declarations on Baghdad's pre-Gulf war WMD programs gradually became more accurate between 1991 and 1998, but only because of sustained pressure from UN sanctions, Coalition military force, and vigorous and robust inspections facilitated by information from cooperative countries. Nevertheless, Iraq never has fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in its declarations and has provided no credible proof that it has completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure."

So, not only did Iraq HAVE weapons of mass destruction, they admitted it and then refused to provide any evidence of material destruction or deactivation of the weapons.

When we (the UN) tried to peacefully continue inspections here is what happened:

"Iraq repeatedly has rejected (in 1999 and 2000) the return of UN arms inspectors and claims that it has satisfied all UN resolutions relevant to disarmament. Compared with UNSCOM, 1284 gives the UNMOVIC chairman less authority, gives the Security Council a greater role in defining key disarmament tasks, and requires that inspectors be full-time UN employees."

Nuclear Weapons Programmes:

"Iraq's efforts to procure tens of thousands of proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs."

Britian's take on the WMD:

"The document published today is based, in large part, on the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). The JIC is at the heart of the British intelligence machinery. It is chaired by the Cabinet Office and made up of the heads of the UK's three Intelligence and Security Agencies, the Chief of Defence Intelligence, and senior officials from key government departments. For over 60 years the JIC has provided regular assessments to successive Prime Ministers and senior colleagues on a wide range of foreign policy and international security issues.

Its work, like the material it analyses, is largely secret. It is unprecedented for the Government to publish this kind of document. But in light of the debate about Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), I wanted to share with the British public the reasons why I believe this issue to be a current and serious threat to the UK national interest."

AND

"Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the SCUD ballistic missile in breach of UNSCR 687 which are capable of reaching Cyprus, Eastern Turkey, Tehran and Israel. It is also developing longer-range ballistic missiles..."

How about biological weapons (from the CIA):

"Iraq admitted producing thousands of liters of the BW agents anthrax,[6] botulinum toxin, (which paralyzes respiratory muscles and can be fatal within 24 to 36 hours), and aflatoxin, (a potent carcinogen that can attack the liver, killing years after ingestion),and preparing BW-filled Scud-variant missile warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks before the Gulf war."

In addition, there were at least 14 DOCUMENTED open air tests of weaponized dispersal agents (read BOMBS) that Iraq tested between 1988 and 1991.

From the International Institute for Strategic Studies:

"Our objective has been to assess, as accurately and dispassionately as possible, Iraq’s current WMD capacities. The task is challenging. Although UN inspections of Iraq produced a tremendous amount of technical information on the development, objectives and relative capabilities of Iraq’s WMD and missile programmes, Iraq made every effort to obscure its past, obstruct dismantlement of its present assets, and retain capabilities for the future. Since Iraq forced inspections to end in December 1998, it has become more difficult to learn about its activities and assess its capabilities."

From the Monterey Institute of International Studies:

"With sufficient black-market uranium or plutonium, Iraq probably could fabricate a nuclear weapon. If undetected and unobstructed, could produce weapons-grade fissile material within several years.

Engaged in clandestine procurement of special nuclear weapon-related equipment. Retains large and experienced pool of nuclear scientists and technicians. Retains nuclear weapons design, and may retain related components and software. Repeatedly violated its obligations under the NPT, which Iraq ratified on 10/29/69. Repeatedly violated its obligations under United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 687, which mandates destruction of Iraq's nuclear weapon capabilities. Until halted by Coalition air attacks and UNSCOM disarmament efforts, Iraq had an extensive nuclear weapon development program that began in 1972, involved 10,000 personnel, and had a multi-year budget totaling approximately $10 billion."

Still not convinced that Iraq possessed WMD? Tell that to the families of the following "statistics"...

Empirical evidence of the USE (not just possession, but use) of WMD:

KEY:

Date

Area Used

Type of Agent

Approximate Casualties

Target Population

Aug 1983

Hajj Umran

Mustard

fewer than 100

Iranians/Kurds

Oct-Nov 1983

Panjwin

Mustard

3,000

Iranian/Kurds

Feb-Mar 1984

Majnoon Island

Mustard

2,500

Iranians

Mar 1984

al-Basrah

Tabun

50 to 100

Iranians

Mar 1985

Hawizah Marsh

Mustard/Tabun

3,000

Iranians

Feb 1986

al-Faw

Mustard/Tabun

8,000 to 10,000

Iranians

Dec 1986

Umm ar Rasas

Mustard

thousands

Iranians

Apr 1987

al-Basrah

Mustard/Tabun

5,000

Iranians

Oct 1987

Sumar/Mehran

Mustard/nerve agents

3,000

Iranians

Mar 1988

Halabjah

Mustard/nerve agents

hundreds

Iranians/Kurds

[cheesycow]

Just another for your list.

[billiken_roy]

nm