• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. ignored reports of Iraqi abuse: documents

No. Seriously, some questioned the legality of those planes, but with no possibility of hititng those planes, it can't be used as a rationale for war.




Please link to evidence of "no possibility of hitting those planes".
 
No. Seriously, some questioned the legality of those planes, but with no possibility of hititng those planes, it can't be used as a rationale for war.


Then sir, you clearly do not understand Casus belli. Firing on another countries planes is an act of war, and under self defense rules we had every justification to put an end to it. Now, although that is not the only thing that violated the UN mandates for Iraq, and they were numerous. It is a justification. If you are trying to sit here and say that a plane has to be hit, or American's or their allies have to die in order for it to be an act of war, then you are woefully misinformed.

j-mac
 
Please link to evidence of "no possibility of hitting those planes".

Do you think none ever got hit because they didn't want to hit them?


But despite some 250,000 sorties and a bounty on the pilots' heads — Saddam has offered $14,000 to anyone who bags an American plane — not a single one has been shot down.

What explains this remarkable record? Part of the answer is that U.S. aircraft generally fly above 20,000 ft., beyond the reach of Iraqi guns. At the same time, electronic-warfare planes jam the guidance systems of any Iraqi missiles threatening U.S. planes. The pilots believe that only a "golden BB"--a lucky shot — can force them down inside Iraq. They say the Iraqis are generally firing blindly, scared to turn on anything that emits radiation and might trigger a U.S. missile strike.

Read more: The Forgotten War - TIME
 
Then sir, you clearly do not understand Casus belli. Firing on another countries planes is an act of war, and under self defense rules we had every justification to put an end to it. Now, although that is not the only thing that violated the UN mandates for Iraq, and they were numerous. It is a justification. If you are trying to sit here and say that a plane has to be hit, or American's or their allies have to die in order for it to be an act of war, then you are woefully misinformed.

j-mac

Oh, I do. And no, it doesn't. Only the UN can enforce a UN mandate. We can walk away if we don't like it, but the UN mandate belongs to the UN and not the US. And we were not remotely scared of the Iraqi firings, equal to pissing in the wind.

Like I keep saying, when someone wants an excuse, someone can find one.
 
Do you think none ever got hit because they didn't want to hit them?


But despite some 250,000 sorties and a bounty on the pilots' heads — Saddam has offered $14,000 to anyone who bags an American plane — not a single one has been shot down.

What explains this remarkable record? Part of the answer is that U.S. aircraft generally fly above 20,000 ft., beyond the reach of Iraqi guns. At the same time, electronic-warfare planes jam the guidance systems of any Iraqi missiles threatening U.S. planes. The pilots believe that only a "golden BB"--a lucky shot — can force them down inside Iraq. They say the Iraqis are generally firing blindly, scared to turn on anything that emits radiation and might trigger a U.S. missile strike.

Read more: The Forgotten War - TIME



wait before you bloviated some rumor mongering about bush telling us to fly low? which is it boo?
 
wait before you bloviated some rumor mongering about bush telling us to fly low? which is it boo?

What? I had fun with a rumor that I clearly made it as such. Humor. If it were an actual argument I wouldn't have pointed ut it was a rumor. I worry about you rev. I really, really do.
 
What? I had fun with a rumor that I clearly made it as such. Humor. If it were an actual argument I wouldn't have pointed ut it was a rumor. I worry about you rev. I really, really do.



So wait now, you are claiming it's rumor? Please boo no one is buying it.
 
So wait now, you are claiming it's rumor? Please boo no one is buying it.

Post 76:

Boo said:
Yeah, he couldn't hit any and that scared us to death. There was even rummor that Bush wanted us to fly low and get hit so he'd have a excuse (bay of Token anyone?). But that was just a rumor as far as I know.

Again J, anyone who wants to suspend disbleif and accept any reasonat all, no matter how weak. Saddam was contained and unable to hit us at all.

The argument: Yeah, he couldn't hit any

Humor: There was even rumor that Bush wanted us to fly low and get hit so he'd have a excuse (bay of Token anyone?). But that was just a rumor as far as I know.
 
According to the Senate Intelligence Committee report: ‘The CIA produced 78 reports, from multiple sources, documenting instances on which the Iraqi regime either trained operatives for attacks or dispatched them, to carry out attacks…Iraq continued to participate in terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s…From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the US and Israel…throughout 2002, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against US interests…. Twelve reports received from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda’s CBW efforts… In March 1998, after bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to met first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden’.

A Pentagon memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee revealed: ‘Bin Laden was receiving training on bomb-making from the IIS’s [Iraqi Intelligence Service’s] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden’s farm in Khartoum in Sep-Oct 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani-abd-al-Rashid-al-Tikriti…’

According to Sabah Khodada, a former captain in the Iraq army who worked at the Salman Pak terrorist training camp south of Baghdad, the camp ‘specialised in exporting terrorism to the whole world… they would be trained mainly on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism’.
 
Oh, I do. And no, it doesn't. Only the UN can enforce a UN mandate. We can walk away if we don't like it, but the UN mandate belongs to the UN and not the US. And we were not remotely scared of the Iraqi firings, equal to pissing in the wind.

Like I keep saying, when someone wants an excuse, someone can find one.


What you keep saying is so totally wrong it is laughable. But let's suppose that you are correct that only the UN can enforce their mandates. Then:

1. Explain how they do that

2. Please show me where the United States, or any other sovereign country has foregone that sovereignty in order to allow their own planes, or any other interest to be in harms way.

We don't hand over our ability to defend, and protect our own interests when we join with the UN Joe. Even though that is what liberals would like to see happen.


j-mac
 
What you keep saying is so totally wrong it is laughable. But let's suppose that you are correct that only the UN can enforce their mandates. Then:

1. Explain how they do that

2. Please show me where the United States, or any other sovereign country has foregone that sovereignty in order to allow their own planes, or any other interest to be in harms way.

We don't hand over our ability to defend, and protect our own interests when we join with the UN Joe. Even though that is what liberals would like to see happen.


j-mac

Absolutely!

The United States didn't give it's agreements, treaties, membership to various defense organization, its sovereignty, etc. when they joined the United Nations. To claim that the US cannot act in its own self interests, without prior approval from the UN, is ludicrous.
 
Absolutely!

The United States didn't give it's agreements, treaties, membership to various defense organization, its sovereignty, etc. when they joined the United Nations. To claim that the US cannot act in its own self interests, without prior approval from the UN, is ludicrous.

It's not the claim, yet another misrepresentation by your side. We may certainly defend ourselves, and act when justified. But, like all agreements, when we break them, we violate not only law, but our word, our credibility, ourselves.
 
Last edited:
What you keep saying is so totally wrong it is laughable. But let's suppose that you are correct that only the UN can enforce their mandates. Then:

1. Explain how they do that

2. Please show me where the United States, or any other sovereign country has foregone that sovereignty in order to allow their own planes, or any other interest to be in harms way.

We don't hand over our ability to defend, and protect our own interests when we join with the UN Joe. Even though that is what liberals would like to see happen.


j-mac

It's not wrong j. The US acted under a UN mandate. Iraq had not invaded the US, but Kuwait. And rightly, the UN said, no you can't do that. They called on memebers to form an army to push them back. We responded under a unified banner, and not a single US only act. Iraq agreed to terms. And the UN signed off on them. It was a proper UN actions. And only when the UN calls for nations to act can you act in their name, for BREAKING THEIR AGREEMENTS.

And don't start with the false cliam that anyone has suggested the US gave up sovereignty. Nothing has been suggested. Strawmen are easy to beat, which is probably hy your side throws up so many of them. Invading Iraq was not in our interest. It did not protect us. it merely cost us. In fact, invading was contrary to our interests. It has cost us much in terms of money and lives, more in credibility and help our enemies more than any other action would have. It may have made those with the fever feel better, but it was not in our interests.
 
Back
Top Bottom