Arming the Enemy

TEOTWAWKI wrote:We had zero right to invade and kill anyone in Iraq...the whole war was a war crime.....might doesn't make right it makes cowardly bullies....

Lurch wrote:If we don't arm anybody we won't have anybody to fight.. It doesn't look too good attacking a country without a well armed army.. It's a win win for the MIC arm sales too.. We shouldn't be giving Anybody weapons..

PkrBum wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-egypt-anniversary-idUSBRE90N1E620130129

Sooo... we backed the regime change that inserted the muslin brotherhood... now we are sending the new regime jets and tanks to be used to squash an insurrection/revolution. Help me understand this please.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:We had zero right to invade and kill anyone in Iraq...the whole war was a war crime.....might doesn't make right it makes cowardly bullies....

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:We had zero right to invade and kill anyone in Iraq...the whole war was a war crime.....might doesn't make right it makes cowardly bullies....

And, if you look at the situation from a tactical standpoint, there was very little room to manuever for the forces required to remove Saddam's 300k man army from Kuwait.If anyone was a cowardly bully, it was Hussein. If Saddam stays and plays in his own sandbox, there's no need to put a foot in his rear end. If he withdraws as the UN requested from Aug 2,1990 to the start of the actual air war on January 16, 1991 he still doesn't get put in his place. He refused. All the woes of the Iraqi forces were on his head.


Well then keep your queer for war, death and destruction posts I won't bother you again Why bother with a fricked up mind that thinks he can kill kids for Christ Hell awaits ...when you get there blame it on Saddam...

BTW, thanks for thread hijacking.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:And, if you look at the situation from a tactical standpoint, there was very little room to manuever for the forces required to remove Saddam's 300k man army from Kuwait.

boards of FL wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:And, if you look at the situation from a tactical standpoint, there was very little room to manuever for the forces required to remove Saddam's 300k man army from Kuwait.

School teacher who doesn't know the difference between 'you're' and 'your' is now flexing his military tactical prowess!

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I think this thread is being "hijacked" because the posters who have posted on here categorically disagree with much of what you have stated. "Hijacking" a thread is a more friendly way of telling a poster they are full of it.

BTW, weapons are being sold to Egypt because of decades old treaties, not because Obama is "setting up Israel." You need to make your arguments without being silly.

TEOTWAWKI wrote: This is surely one of the most heinous war crimes in contemporary history. [/color]

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:We had zero right to invade and kill anyone in Iraq...the whole war was a war crime.....might doesn't make right it makes cowardly bullies....

Did you tell that to the families of the 1500 Kuwaitis still missing from the Iraqi invasion into Kuwait? I think not.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
Iraq 1 Saddam gassed Kurds...never proven and it appears the Kurds were actually killed by Iranians...but that justified us killing 100s of thousands.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Teo,

Seriously, what does the final battle of the 1st Gulf War have to do with giving Egypt F-16s and M1A1 tanks? Really?

IMHO we didn't "finish the deed" here. President Bush (GHWB) failed to heed the words of his generals, especially the late Norman Schwartzkopf. The second Gulf War was a result of not having taken care of business in the aforementioned article you posted. Saddam doesn't stay in power if we do what needs to be done here.

A better entrapment could have taken place of the "vaunted" Republican Guard that was allowed to escape this battle. Every detail was made to have this event annihilate the main group of people that helped Saddam stay in power after the war ended in 1991. This was to be an example of how battles are fought and a follow through to what we did to the likes of Germany and Japan. It would have set a sterling example of winning with overwhelming force and superior firepower on all aspects of the battlefield.

There's no war crime here, just war at its rawest and most devestating. It's what we used to do to countries until we started accepting ties, negotiating with the enemy without having pounded him into submission, and worrying about what the rest of the world thinks. If the rest of the world was so concerned, they should have stepped up and did the deed themselves. They didn't...they hemmed, hawed, showed how weak and a joke of a governing body that the United Nations truly is and will always be.

None of this should have been seen in the media. That was a major flaw in allowing reporters to imbed with units. General Powell and the rest of the JCS forgot that about the Vietnam Era even though in James Kittfield's book "Prodigal Soldiers" it is mentioned quite a bit and something that Powell''s and Schwartzkopf's generation of leaders said would never happen again. Mainstream America is not ready to look at those sorts of pictures. Not in the modern day and age. I can remember the Time Life books in the library at W.T. Sampson Elementary in Gitmo back in the very early 70s when we lived down there. They had some gruesome pics of the carnage of war. Everyone was of the mindset that the Germans and the Japanese got what they deserved. You wouldn't find a book like that in any school library now, but you will find that Harry Potter crap.

No, we should have decimated the remaining Republican Guard. We should have made it to where there would have been no Gulf War II. Saddam should have hung at the end of a rope in 1991 and not 13 or 14 years later as it finally did.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I think this thread is being "hijacked" because the posters who have posted on here categorically disagree with much of what you have stated. "Hijacking" a thread is a more friendly way of telling a poster they are full of it.

BTW, weapons are being sold to Egypt because of decades old treaties, not because Obama is "setting up Israel." You need to make your arguments without being silly.

Yeah OK.

It's just like the old PNJ forums. You guys have your clique and pretty much everyone else gets blown off.

Sometimes treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on. Giving these types of weapons to people who make women second class citizens and persecute other religions aside from Islam is a giant mistake.

Ironsights wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I think this thread is being "hijacked" because the posters who have posted on here categorically disagree with much of what you have stated. "Hijacking" a thread is a more friendly way of telling a poster they are full of it.

BTW, weapons are being sold to Egypt because of decades old treaties, not because Obama is "setting up Israel." You need to make your arguments without being silly.

Yeah OK.

It's just like the old PNJ forums. You guys have your clique and pretty much everyone else gets blown off.

Sometimes treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on. Giving these types of weapons to people who make women second class citizens and persecute other religions aside from Islam is a giant mistake.

Mistake or not it is what helped secure peace between Israel and Egypt in the first place. But unless i am mistaken the current planes and takes were actually not part of the treaty but of an additional order placed in 2009. And despite the regime change i still believe that American companies should hold good to contracts. It helps our businesses internationally as it shows the US companies honoring our contracts despite something like regime change, you buy it you get it.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Let's hope we're not staring down the sights of these weapons in terms not under our control. Or we could just give their money back?