Page 61 of 75 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 610 of 743

Thread: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

  1. #601
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mars View Post
    The old authority had expired? Needed to be thrown out?
    We never had authority from the UN to invade.

    Even with the chief weapons inspector stating Saddam was in material breach of UN 1441 it still doesn't matter to some people.
    That was a technical violation and did not present a threat to the US or Iraq's neighbors. We destroyed that capability in 1991! The most powerful military on the planet invaded one of the least powerful. We took their capital in 3 weeks!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #602
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:04 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,484
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No, like the UN, I knew Iraq was not a threat to the US or its neighbors.
    Strange that you knew, but your party didn't, Hans Blix didn't, David Kay didn't... but YOU KNEW... Catawbastrodamis KNEW!
    YOU KNEW?!

    The BS Meter just exploded.

    As we all knew, Hans Blix was never known to be a hawk, nonetheless he delivered this sober testimony... testimony that nukes the Catwbastrodamis's and other misinformed Leftists of the world. And YOU failed to pull out and rub your crystal ball and tell him how wrong he was. Why?

    In the name of cleaning up the environment due to too many misinformed Leftists, I will continue to recycle the following post. I urge all folks that want to clean the poisoned environment concerning Iraq to do like kind. It kills The Leftists nonsensical arguments about why we went to war... dead.
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    OV:That's all we need to quote. Saddam had and used WMD, and from here I'll let Hans Blix blow your ass out of the water on your error fueled claim.

    CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's remarks - Jan. 27, 2003
    Resolution 687 in 1991, like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq, but such was often withheld or given grudgingly.

    Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

    As we know, the twin operation declare and verify, which was prescribed in Resolution 687, too often turned into a game of hide and seek. Rather than just verify in declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programs and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations.

    As a result, the disarmament phase was not completed in the short time expected.

    While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.

    One of three important questions before us today is, How much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991 and possibly thereafter? The second question is, What, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998 when the inspectors left. And the third question is, How it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future?

    I'm obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of an intelligence character.

    Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

    On 7th of December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441, and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward.

    Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number.

    I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.

    The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.

    Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.

    Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

    UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

    There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

    Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

    During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and has set up a committee of investigation. Since then, it has reported that it has found four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Haji. I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of ... a mustard [gas] precursor.

    I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

    Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

    There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

    As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999.

    In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.


    In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure.

    Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes; that is yet to be determined.

    What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq; that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

    Presumptions do not solve the problem; evidence and full transparency may help.

    Let me be specific. Information provided by member states tells us about the movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons production.

    However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports and how they have been used. They should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports and production and losses of material.

    The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals.

    On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.

    Any further sign of the concealment of documents will be serious.
    Blix reveals uncertainties, asks questions that should have been answered a decade earlier. It was 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions. How many does a despot get after losing a war and agreeing to disarm? 3 decades and 30 resolutions? Perhaps not enough for the Libs... I don't know... I'm asking.

    Blix specifically mentioned: VX, weaponized VX, ANTHRAX, all unaccounted for according to Hans. Of course... Saddam would never, ever use WMD... nor would he pass it off to a terrorist, especially in the euphoria after 911. No... he'd never do that...

    ...Disney music... it's a small world after all, it's a small world after all, it's a small world after all... it's a small, small world...

    .
    We completely destroyed their military capability in 1991 followed by ten years of sanctions and 700 inspections.
    We did not know that until after the fact. See above transcript with Hans Blix.

    They were no more a threat to the US then Grenada.
    Sorry, BS meter done broked long ago in this thread. It is back at the shop for repairs.


    Anyone frightened of Iraq had serious paranoid fantasies, or an ulterior motive, which was spelled out in a report by Cheney and the oil industry that predated our invasion.
    Are you calling Blix seriously paranoid? Perhaps the person making this claim is seriously narrow and uninformed.

    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 03-24-11 at 04:37 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  3. #603
    wʜɪтe яussɪaи Tashah's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ישראל אמריקה
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 04:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,379

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Moderator's Warning:
    U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in LibyaThis thread is seriously derailing. The OP highlights current military operations in Libya. Keep it there.

    אשכנזי היהודי Белый Россию

  4. #604
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:04 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,484
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Tashah View Post
    Moderator's Warning:
    U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in LibyaThis thread is seriously derailing. The OP highlights current military operations in Libya. Keep it there.


    Thread Restart:

    Here is the OP folks:
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post


    More than 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles struck over 20 targets inside Libya today in the opening phase of an international military operation the Pentagon said was aimed at stopping attacks led by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and enforcing a U.N.-backed no-fly zone.

    Libya: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya - ABC News

    Hmmmmmmmmmmm... are we going to hear the leftists call The One a "warmonger"?

    Protest with Hitler signs?

    No War for Oil?

    .
    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 03-24-11 at 06:42 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  5. #605
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    That was a technical violation....


    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    We destroyed that capability in 1991!
    Even with the chief weapons inspector stating Saddam was in material breach of UN 1441 it still doesn't matter to some people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The most powerful military on the planet invaded one of the least powerful. We took their capital in 3 weeks!
    In the days leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the following Iraq War, the Army consisted of 375,000 troops, organized into 5 corps. In all, there were 11 infantry divisions, 3 mechanized divisions, and 3 armored divisions. The Republican Guard consisted of between 50,000 and 60,000 troops (although some sources indicate a strength of up to 80,000).
    Iraqi Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  6. #606
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No, like the UN, I knew Iraq was not a threat to the US or its neighbors.
    No, that's not true and fabricating such stories should have no place on these boards, It just wastes everyone's time and destroys any chance of honest debate,

  7. #607
    Educator
    Ron Mars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,194

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No, like the UN, I knew Iraq was not a threat to the US or its neighbors.
    You thought, felt or believed that. It's not possible for you to know that.

    You seriously need to read the Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) report.
    Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism
    The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.

  8. #608
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    Wrong. The US military is not at the top of the chain of command. . .

    Oil cos/PACs/Hedge Funds/Offense Contractors/AIPAC, other lobbyists -> CINC -> SECDEF -> (US military starts here) -> CCDR -> troops stained within UCC
    Yeah, not wrong....check the news reports. they all start out by speculating "when America might hand over command and control of this mission"

    they can say what they want, the truth is a different animal.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #609
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Alittle perspective goes a long way...

    Neither the War in Iraq nor the invasion of the island nation of Granada were declared by Congress as "acts of war". Both were perceived as "liberation" acts or actions taken for "humanitarian" reasons. Moreover, when Reagan invaded Granada he received neither U.N. support nor did he inform Congress until the day of the invasion.

    The Iraq War was never a declared war by Congress. Instead, what we got was an "internal resolution" by Congress that for all practical purposes trumped the U.N. resolution that provided our government "legitimate support" by Congress to invade Iraq. It was NOT a declaration of war; merely a continuation of the last U.N. resolution that authorized the U.S. to use military force to oust Saddem from Kuwait subsequent to the cease-fire that issued afterwards.

    So, to put this Libyan "no-fly zone" argument into perspective:

    1) It was okay for Reagan to invade Granada on false pretenses claiming "national security" out of fear that Cuba and Russia were constructing of military airport when the evidence proved false.

    2) It was okay for GW Bush NOT to receive a legitimate U.N. resolution authorizing not only the use of military force but also to remove Saddam from power, thereby, in his opinion continuing the "war effort" against Iraq by virtue of the previous U.N. resolution granting the U.S. the lead in combat operations again for reasons of "national security". i.e., WND, that later also proved false.

    But when Pres. Obama, a Democrat who Republicans have been claiming is so anti-military and soft on using U.S. military force when prudent, actually goes to the U.N., receives U.N. approval in a 10-0 vote w/the Arab League also being onboard for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya on "humanitarian" grounds and with it also establishing a U.N. coalition force that limits our military involvement to "no ground troops", suddently the pundits are pissed about it?

    UN-FREAKIN-REAL!!!

    Look, I'm as concerned as the next guy as to where this situation w/Libya will ultimately lead. And like many on both sides of the political isle, I also call into question (somewhat) the President's rationale for insisting that Quadaffi must leave, as well as America's involvement in what ultimately is a civil war, in the absence of a clearly defined strategy. Moreover, there are other Middle-Eastern nations whose people have also risen up against their oppressive governments yet we're not calling for their leader's ousting nor lending military support to their civilians forces in rebellion, but here lay the differences between what Reagan and GWB did in their respective "campaigns" as mentioned above and what Pres. Obama has done:

    1) Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran - for the most part, these nations have all allowed peaceful demonstrations. Except for Iran, their hasn't been massive bloodshed or brutality laid upon civilians in these countries.

    2) Let's be clear here: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yeman = US Allies. Libya, Iran = NOT! Hence, the large part of why the President was slow to get too heavily involved w/Egypt and has stood clear of Saudi Arabia and Yeman (for now), but was quick to jump on Libya. Which leads me to...

    3) We all know Quadaffi has been a thorn in America's side for decades. As such, I don't understand why Republicans are suddenly trying to make it seem as if America and our coalition allies are so wrong here. Afterall, you guys had your chance to get rid of him years ago and you didn't, but now you want to complain? Unreal!!

    4) Saddam committed similar brutality against his people and America also used "humanitarian efforts" as a partial excuse to invade Iraq. Why should Pres. Obama's call for rendering humanitarian relief to Libyan nationals or support to the rebel forces via providing a protective shield - a no-fly zone - be viewed any differently?

    5) The man went to the U.N. BEFORE committing U.S. forces in another country's civil war. He didn't seak a declaration of war from Congress because as of right now, there is no reason to do so. So, let me get this straight: Obama does pretty much what GW Bush did prior to invading Iraq only without false intel, more than what Reagan did prior to invading Granada, yet Obama's the bad guy here?

    Again, UN-FREAKIN-REAL!!!
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 03-24-11 at 01:11 PM.

  10. #610
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    suddently the pundits are pissed about it?
    Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action - John Bresnahan and Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

    Liberal Dems: Disengage in Libya - John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

    Did Obama lose Congress on Libya? - Jonathan Allen and Marin Cogan - POLITICO.com

    let alone what the germans, russians, italians, chinese, indians, brazilians, south africans are saying

Page 61 of 75 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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