posted on August 9, 2003 05:18:06 PM new
Saddam Abused His Last Chance, Clinton Says
By Linda D. Kozaryn
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON -- A month ago, the United States called off its war
planes to give Saddam Hussein one last chance to cooperate. When
he failed to do so, the United States took action.
President Clinton ordered air strikes Dec. 16 against Iraq's
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its
military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Warships and combat
aircraft began bombarding the defiant Gulf state at 5 p.m. EST -
- 1 a.m. in Baghdad, the Iraqi capital.
"The international community gave Saddam one last chance to
resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors," Clinton said.
"Saddam has failed to seize the chance. So we had to act and act
now."
Less than an hour after American and British forces launched
Operation Desert Fox, the president addressed the nation to
explain his decision. He said the attack was designed to protect
the national interests of the United States and the interests of
people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or
the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,"
Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against
his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
The strikes culminated the second showdown with Iraq in the past
month. Clinton turned back U.S. warplanes bound for Iraq Nov. 14
when Hussein backed down in the face of intense diplomatic
pressure backed by overwhelming military force. At the time, the
Iraqi leader agreed to cooperate unconditionally with the U.N.
Special Commission.
"I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use
restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his
willingness to cooperate," the president said. The confrontation
wasn't over, but simply on hold -- Clinton said at the time that
the United States would be prepared to act "without delay,
diplomacy or warning" if Saddam failed again.
Over the next three weeks, U.N. weapons inspectors tested Iraq's
willingness to cooperate. UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler
reported Dec. 15 to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Butler's conclusions, Clinton said, proved to be "stark,
sobering and profoundly disturbing." Instead of living up to its
agreement, he said, "Iraq has abused its final chance."
He said Iraq had placed new restrictions on the inspectors,
further obstructed inspections and failed to turn over all
requested documents. In one instance, the Iraqis removed all
documents, furniture and equipment from a building prior to a
U.N. inspection.
Butler's report concluded Iraq has ensured U.N. inspectors could
make no progress toward disarmament. Even if the inspectors
could stay in Iraq, Clinton said, their work would be a sham.
"Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness," he said.
"Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, the Iraqi dictator
has disarmed the inspectors."
Clinton said he and his national security advisers agreed that
Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. He said he
deemed military action necessary to prove the international
community, led by the United States, had not lost its will.
Failure to act, Clinton said, would have "fatally undercut the
fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination
in the region."
In a Pentagon briefing immediately following the president's
address to the nation, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and
Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
briefed reporters.
Cohen said he was ordering a sharp increase in U.S. Gulf forces
to limit the risk to U.S. and allied troops. Deploying forces
include an air expeditionary wing with about 36 combat aircraft
and the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson battle group, to join
the 201 planes and USS Enterprise battle group already in the
region.
Shelton noted that deploying more elements of the crisis
response force would add flexibility and allow military leaders
to increase the intensity and tempo of strike operations if
necessary.
The chairman also recognized those called upon to enforce the
national defense leaders' decisions -- America's men and women
in uniform. "We can be particularly proud tonight of those that
are answering the call in the skies over Iraq and the Persian
Gulf," he said.
posted on August 9, 2003 05:21:03 PM new
U.S. Strikes Aimed at Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON -- President Clinton ordered a "strong and sustained"
air attack on Iraq Dec. 16 in response to continued Iraqi
attempts to build weapons of mass destruction.
Tomahawk cruise missiles streaked toward Baghdad at 5 p.m. EST
to start Operation Desert Fox. Defense Secretary William S.
Cohen said U.S. goals are to "degrade" Iraq's military
capability, to stop Saddam Hussein from threatening his
neighbors, to strike at facilities engaged in making weapons of
mass destruction and to deprive Hussein of the means of
delivering those weapons.
British airmen also joined in the strikes.
Cohen said he had ordered an air expeditionary wing and more
ground troops to the Persian Gulf region as a precaution.
Pentagon officials said the deployment order has been signed and
about 90 Air Force and Marine Corps aircraft will soon be
operating in the region. Deploying Army units include a brigade
from Fort Stewart, Ga.; Army Patriot missile batteries from Fort
Bliss, Texas, and Fort Bragg, N.C.; and a light infantry
battalion from Fort Drum, N.Y.
The new U.S. forces will join 24,100 other service members
already stationed in the region. There are 201 U.S. aircraft in
the area, including 15 B-52H bombers based at Diego Garcia, in
the Indian Ocean. The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and its
battle group are scheduled to arrive in the Gulf Dec. 18.
Pentagon officials said eight Navy ships started the strikes by
launching Tomahawk missiles. Army Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said strikes will be flown by the
U.S. Air Force and Royal Air Force pilots flying from bases in
the area and naval aviators from the USS Enterprise.
Cohen said the president agreed with advisers: "We wanted to
strike quickly with no more warning, no more carrots for Saddam
and no chance to prepare for the attacks."
The attacks followed a Dec. 15 report by chief U.N. arms
inspector Richard Butler that said Iraq's compliance with U.N.
resolutions had worsened since the U.N.-Iraqi confrontation in
November. U.S. planes had been in the air to strike Iraq Nov. 14
when Saddam agreed to abide completely by U.N. resolutions.
Shelton said planning for another U.S. attack started Nov. 15.
"We assumed a worst-case scenario [about compliance]," he said.
He said the timing of the attack had to wait on Butler's report.
"Frankly, we thought the report would be mixed," Cohen said.
"But in all five areas covered, Iraq had gotten worse."
Cohen and Shelton were not specific about the attack. Shelton
said strikes generally would hit transport, air defense sites,
and command and control facilities. "We're going after
everything [involved with weapons of mass destruction] from
transport to manufacturing to delivery," Shelton said.
He said U.S. forces will do all they can to avoid civilian
casualties, but said there will be some.
Pentagon officials estimate the Iraqis have 430,000 active duty
troops and 650,000 in reserve. About 17,000 Iraqi soldiers are
involved with air defense and the Iraqi air force still has
about 310 planes.
posted on August 9, 2003 05:22:34 PM new
posted on August 9, 2003 04:52:26 PM
Bigcity
Don't make the mistake of getting your info from Linda.
I do support some wars...probably the same ones that you would support.
Helen
posted on August 9, 2003 06:37:57 PM new
posted on March 22, 2003 06:46:01 PM
Actually, KatyD I'm not in favor of war, as you know, no matter who is president. If we can't manage to use diplomacy and negotiating skills to handle our problems -and we are going to rescue the world from tyrants we will be a warrior nation forever...all by ourselves.
Helen
---- ------ ------
posted on August 9, 2003 04:52:26 PM
Bigcity
Don't make the mistake of getting your info from Linda.
I do support some wars...probably the same ones that you would support.
Helen
YES....by all means DON'T GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM ME. ...just do a few past searches and find out the truth for yourself. LOL
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 9, 2003 06:40 PM ]
posted on August 9, 2003 06:53:40 PM new
Linda wrote,
"YES....by all means DON'T GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM ME. ...just do a few past searches and find out the truth for yourself. LOL"
Now, you're getting all hysterical, typing in all caps etc. The information that you provided to BigCity, that I believed in no war was incorrect. In my response to KatyD, I was referring to the Iraq war and other wars fought for ostensibly the same reason...to rescue or liberate people from a tyrant. If we are in that business, I was right in my quote above...we will become a warrior nation because there are many oppressed people throughout the world to liberate.
Helen
ed to add Linda wrote.
[ edited by Helenjw on Aug 9, 2003 06:55 PM ]
posted on August 9, 2003 07:15:17 PM new
Helen.....Anyone who wants to waste their time can search and see you have always stated you are against any war. That's why you said to KatyD "as you know" because you've said it on these threads so often.
Now you want to add the 'defensive' to it....go ahead and spin away. How sad.
Once before you tried to make it look like I didn't know what I was talking about when I made a comment about how you edited your posts. Not only for grammar or spelling but to change what you had previously said. You denied it and I let it go....just decided to not let this 'what's wrong with you linda, you're not like yourself' BS go by without comment.
This is just one post that I made in favor of defensive war.
2002-09-26 13:12:30 RE: Bush To Veto Homeland Sec Bill As Proposed
"So Helen...as a dove, who is against any war, what would you recommend doing say like right after 9-11? Should we have tried convincing the terrorists they shouldn't have done what they did. Just talk it out?"
Linda, I believe in self defense. For example, if this country is attacked by Iraq. That has not happened. Of course I believe in negotiation. I believe in the international community and being a respected member of that community. I believe in working toward disarmament.
Terrorism just invites retaliation. When Saddam's back is to the wall he will retaliate.
Bush wants a perpetual war.
Now, at this late date, Rumsfeld is trying to establish that there are in fact, Al Queda terrorists in Iraq. When the news reporters tried to verify his information related to one source, he said that it was based on different types of sources of varying degrees of reliability -vague. He was asked for information regarding links or proof and he could only say that "things are risky". Everything he said was inuendo. He had trouble defining the difference between a preemptive and a preventive war. He said that he needed a dictionary and then pointed out that it was probably a legal issue. Then he started talking about connecting the dots and how difficult that was.
We don't have all the facts and the attempts to justify this war now, are now changing.
Helen
------------------------------------
Now you may say you're sorry that you called me a liar. LOL
ed.to correct ubb.
[ edited by Helenjw on Aug 9, 2003 07:46 PM ]
I don't see how you can quote Helen from other posts. They are out of context when you don't post what the thread was in reference to. I believe, and correct me Helen if I am wrong, that Helen is against going to war when there is no solid evidence to support it. However, if the evidence exists and can be proven without doubt and it is to protect this country, then we should indeed go to war. Am I close?
The objection I have to this war is that it was fought based on lies. If we haven't been able to find them in 8 months (WOMD), how in the devil could Iraq have used them in 15 minutes? Things just don't add up. IMO. Instead of doing everything he could to avoid war, he did everything he could to start it. And don't give me any of the crap that everything was done to avoid it. I already know what the comments will be. . .they are always the same.
Cheryl
Power to the people. Power to the people, right on. - John Lennon
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Aug 9, 2003 07:41 PM ]
posted on August 9, 2003 07:57:42 PM new
Cheryl, Thanks for that.
As my post above indicates Rumsfeld was waffling about the excuse to go to war Aug.9, 2003. It was clear to me and many others here that this war was wrong.
I'm not sure why I am even bothering with this question. But I strongly object to someone calling me a liar and a drunk all in one night. LOL! It just doesn't make sense. Why would I lie about my position on war???
posted on August 9, 2003 08:03:22 PM new
Wow, Helen. If you're drunk all the time you are one of the smartest drunks I know. And you can even spell when you're drunk. Geeze, I can't even turn the computer on when I'm three sheets to the wind.
Cheryl
Power to the people. Power to the people, right on. - John Lennon
posted on August 9, 2003 08:36:27 PM new
"I believe in defensive war.
Helen here are the facts of the last defensive war this Nation of ours was in.
Vietnam, how about a 9yr av. 19 wounded per hour, 1 of those 19 going home in a body bag.
It got so bad Johnson & our Congress had to lie about the counts. The more the good people protested the higher the counts got.
I think you people, had best go back to a little history lesson on Vietnam.
The only thing about Vietnam that was not a lie, were the brave young men who fought it & the body counts. They never lost a BATTLE!. So who Lost the WAR?
So what is the big lie now! The same bull grap, produced by the same type of people who only want one thing. (Lets have a few more body bags) to prove lied to, we don't belong in Iraq.
It not about who is right or wrong, but
about given the enemy will to fight, to Kill our brave young troops. This is the lie being produced to win an election or prove a point.
For those who want to know, I served 3 tours in Vietnam, all over the required limit.
posted on August 9, 2003 08:57:32 PM new
Good post, Fred.
Very thought provoking too. I can't imagine a battlefield experience.
I like these quotes by Eisenhower.
No matter how well prepared for war we may be, no matter how certain we are that within 24 hours we could destroy Kuibyshev and Moscow and Lenningrad and Baku and all the other places that would allow the Soviets to carry on war, I want you [a group of military officers] to carry this question home with you: Gain such a victory, and what do you do with it? Here would be a great area from the Elbe to Vladivostok and down through Southeast Asia torn up and destroyed without government, without its communications, just an area of starvation and disaster. I ask you what would the civilized world do about it? I repeat, there is no victory in any war except through our imagination, through our dedication, and through our work to avoid it."
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity
posted on August 9, 2003 09:29:45 PM new
Right, He was very prophetic. This was written before the Iraq war began.
"It looks like we have not paid attention to Ike’s warnings. We have taken the wrong road to an unprecedented military build-up, and now the outbreak of global terrorism ensures that the military-corporate complex will grow ever stronger. We have, in the past century, fought wars to end all wars. The war we are now contemplating against Iraq, will be the beginning of endless war, and one of the casualties of endless war will be the loss of our liberties."
Ike was right, and consider his unique viewpoint: Commander-in-Chief, President, General, D-Day architect, West Point graduate, etc. He was a total insider. He was there at the birth of the military-industrial complex, which had not existed prior to WWII. Ike saw it all as it was being created, and he could also see where it could take us as a nation. The military-corporate complex has created for us “this world in arms.”
posted on August 9, 2003 10:12:21 PM new
Boy Howdy!
I haven't been here for awhile and nothing has changed at all.
LindaK, I remember well the days before the war began when those of us against THIS war repeated over and over to you "I am against THIS war at THIS time" .That statement was made because us "liberals" did not believe we were going for the reasons we were being told we were. And it turns out we were very likely right. There have been no weapons of mass destruction found...no nukes ready to be deployed to the US. I recall telling you that the inspectors needed to be given more time.I recall telling you that this war had nothing to do with 9-11 and terrorism.
I recall you repeatedly telling us we were anti war no matter how often we tried to tell you it was THIS war that did not seem right or just.Not every war.
I still feel this war was not right. If the Iraqi people are liberated that is the only benefit but not what we were going to war for.I do not believe we will ever completely leave Iraq. We are giving up bases in Saudi Arabia and will need to have a place for our troops over there.What better place than Iraq? Right next door to Syria and Iran.....two more countries that Bush and his friends would like to "liberate".
I'd feel better about all this "liberating" if the people there were asking for it.
LindaK,What you said to Helen was wrong. Plain wrong.Insinuating she is drinking is childish and mean spirited ~ something I always believed you were not.You were not always like this.
Must be the conservatives are feeling desperate, eh?
posted on August 9, 2003 10:18:38 PM new
Ike's philosophy doesn't apply to the war on terror. Because of our open and free society, we are completely defenseless at home. Therefor, we need to hit them before they hit us again. Democrats just don't get it and that's why they will lose the next election(s).
Helen in her dreamworld thinks we can just talk it over with the terrorists and the states that support them. Maybe if we disarm ourselves and ask them please, then maybe they will stop attacking us!
posted on August 9, 2003 10:26:07 PM new
I've learned something ebag, whenever it is pointed out that your solution holds no water your stock response is I was half kidding.
Frankly I'd rather run the gauntlet in a free society than wind my way through your Orwellian hell hole.
Turning our nation into a Nazi state is not a declaration of victory.
posted on August 9, 2003 10:26:51 PM new
The terrorists were mostly Saudis and they are not on the to be liberated list. Sorry.
Who do you want to "hit" first? And based on what information? The same good information we had to go into Iraq??
LOLOLOLOL!!!
You do realize of course that we will become the terrorists ourselves if we continue on this path.
If five people from a country are found to be terrorists we must "hit" the whole country? How incredibly simplistic.
We have our own Timothy McVeighs and other terrorist..do we have to pre-emptively strike ourselves to be safe?
If in all the millenia we haven't learned anymore than to kill other innocents to give ourselves a false sense of safety we are doomed..the whole world is doomed.
I'd hoped we'd progressed a bit further than that.
I always thought America was better than that.
posted on August 9, 2003 10:54:14 PM new Who do you want to "hit" first? And based on what information?
We need to hit every country that supports/harbors terrorists.
If we even THINK your country is supporting/harboring terrorists, then we take it out.
After a few more "regime changes" they'll get the message that we're not playing around and we're not going to take this sh!t anymore.
Turning our nation into a Nazi state
Orwellian hell hole.
Dave, you're starting to sound a little paranoid. I was only joking a while back when I said that Bush was driving liberals nuts but it might actually be true!
posted on August 9, 2003 11:18:06 PM new
Robin - How nice of you to drop in every 6 months or so to take sides. YOU said this war...You were more flexible...not helen.
Anyone who's read her posts can/has make their own judgements.
Here are just two more posts where she herself states she's anti-war.
posted on May 9, 2003 04:44:41 PM
stusi is so sweet.
He calls me Baghdad Helen because I am anti-war.
----------
posted on April 29, 2003 09:53:30 AM
But I didn't mention libel. I just want colin to tell the truth and he has not.
I'm not pro-communist.
I'm just anti-war and anti-bush.
You choose not to believe that's what she has said repeatedly? You're choice. But there are many more posts just like them.
Cheryl - I believe, and correct me Helen if I am wrong, that Helen is against going to war when there is no solid evidence to support it. ROFLMHO....problem with that is there will NEVER be solid evidence to support ANY war in Helen's mind. Has answered you yet? SHE'S ANTI WAR...period.
However, if the evidence exists and can be proven without doubt and it is to protect this country, then we should indeed go to war. That may be what you believe....but I've read Helen's posts way too long to believe she would EVER be on our countries side. Maybe sometime you could ask her if she supported WW1, WW11, Korea, Vietnam, the first gulf war, clinton's bombing of Iraq in 1998, Afghanistan....any wars or skirmishes the US has felt was in it's best interest. I'd place my bet there never was one she agreed we should have been involved in.
You guys believe what you want. I could care less anymore.
posted on August 9, 2003 11:27:32 PM new
Darn it LindaK..no one told me you were in charge of the posting rules now. You mean I can't take sides? LOL! No debating/bickering for me then!
You do sound a bit frantic lately Linda. I hope all is well with you.
Just so you know ~I had stepped back from the boards some. I feel more like posting now. Hope you don't mind if I join you now and again when I have the time and the inclinaton.
All sane people should be anti-war. We all know that sometimes, after all things have failed, war is necessary. You can be anti-war and know that it is a necessity sometimes. But to be pro-war..all war for any reason as some in this thread appear to be is insane.Just plain wacko.
posted on August 9, 2003 11:37:02 PM new
Helen has every right to be anti-war. It is not written in our constitution that to be a patriotic citizen you must be pro-war.
The more I have read the more I come to realize that it is the neo-con conservatives that are anti-American.They would have us up to our ears in debt and in perpetual wars.
