US soldier refuses to serve in ‘illegal Iraq war’

areyoushittin'me? · #**391** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

I don't think Bush, Sr. would have been okay with Saddam taking any of Kuwait - you have to take the matter in context - Kuwait and Iraq were involved in a border dispute at the time and negotations were stalled. The Kuwaits thought they could leverage Iraq to back down on the dispute because of Iraq's post Iran-Iraq war economic woes. Iraq responded to this leverage by massing troops in the south.

As far as the US was concerned, this was a simple dispute about the accurate placement of the Iraq-Kuwaiti border and was in the process of being negotiated. I don't know offhand how much territory was in dispute, but I imagine there was a perceived possibility that Iraq may launch a posturing incursion into the disputed area, but certainly nothing on the scale which actually happened.

How do you rectify that with your earlier statement?

Quote:

Nobody though Iraq would be stupid enough to invade Kuwait - the buildup of Iraqi forces in the south was just taken to be characteristic posturing by Saddam.

If we weren't concerned before, why did we become so later?

If there was a border dispute that we cared about we should have expressed our concern before...not given Saddam basically a green light...we knew his tendancies...I'm not buying that we were clueless.

I contend that Bush knew exactly what was up...are you ready to move on to the propaganda that was used to sell the first gulf war yet?

Cordelier · #**392** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

It was not a 'slam dunk' that is for sure---there in lies the real problem.

Ahhh... But that depends on who had the burden of proof - was it on US intelligence to prove that Iraq had WMD's or on Iraq to prove that it didn't?

Tileman · #**393** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Ahhh... But that depends on who had the burden of proof - was it on US intelligence to prove that Iraq had WMD's or on Iraq to prove that it didn't?

This is a fair question and based on previous resolutions it should be quite obvious whom the burden of proof were upon!

Furthermore, asshitnguy, has completely evaded showing any resolution that showed Direct and Obvious Illegal action by the invasion............ none..... sero......... nada........... and any other language that means absolutely nothing. He also needs to admit the soldier deserves the stockade.

Edited to add------------------- it was NOT the US nor UK nor SPAIN nor AUSTRALIA nor 25 other countries that wanted to enforce the UN resolutions through an invasion!

the BEST question to ask is *Why didn't the UN PROHIBIT an invasion*? hmmm? Answer, because EVERYONE thought they had WMD's unaccounted for!

Cordelier · #**394** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

How do you rectify that with your earlier statement?

Which statement was that? *L* I've made a lot of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

If we weren't concerned before, why did we become so later?

If there was a border dispute that we cared about we should have expressed our concern before...not given Saddam basically a green light...we knew his tendancies...I'm not buying that we were clueless.

I contend that Bush knew exactly what was up...are you ready to move on to the propaganda that was used to sell the first gulf war yet?

Nobody gave Saddam a green light - Saddam just heard what he wanted to hear.

There's a difference between a border dispute and a border conflict - so long as Iraq and Kuwait were committed to peacefully resolving their dispute, the US had no interest in it's outcome. But when dispute became conflict, that obviously changed the US posture.

areyoushittin'me? · #**395** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tileman

Originally Posted by Tileman
---Now, since we have proved that your stance of NO RESOLUTION that stipulates a military action has to be taken AND NO RESOLUTION that stipulates military action is approved we have to review all previous resolutions in their entirety...

-I did leave after attempting to get this thread back on track. You are correct on that part. Declaring victory is subject to *a goal set and achieved*. On that part you are wrong since I set no goal that I'd succeed in changing an appeasers thought process into logic terminology.

-Please elaborate on the progress because thus far you've provided nothing that dipicts or even implies no military action was warented or forbidden.

- True that you did not claim "no military action was called for" but you made yourself look like an idiot by implying it was an ILLEGAL WAR,....

Suck it up and take your medicine. How many more pages must you have your ass handed to you? I want this damn thing back on TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The soldier deserves to be in the STOCKADE!!!!!!!!! Plain and simple. STOCKADE time!

Keep spinning...resolution 678 calls into effect Chapter VII, article 42 which calls for military action...one down 13 to go...you say "I implied" so how about you provide a quote that you think substantiates such a notion so I can explain where you are confused?

Tileman · #**396** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:16 PM

Quote:

I contend that Bush knew exactly what was up...are you ready to move on to the propaganda that was used to sell the first gulf war yet?

only a moron would contend invasion of Kuwait was not worthy of military action.
Apply an entire tube of Preparation-H to your fingers...

Tileman · #**397** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:18 PM

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Out of everything I typed you only found 1 part to reply? My god! Are you accepting being wrong on all the other counts? If so then we have made tremendous progress!

areyoushittin'me? · #**398** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Yes, and the Security Council convened on January 27 to hear Dr. Blix's assessment of Iraq's WMD declaration. He gave it a failing grade. Iraq made false statements and omissions, which automatically put it further into material breach by the terms of Paragraph 4.

Yup...and then he said progress was being made at a later date and suggested "not weeks nor years but months" to resolve the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Like I asked before, how many Paragraph 2 final chances was Iraq supposed to get before Paragraph 13's "serious consequences" were initiated?

Good question...it was pretty pathetic if you ask me...do you recall where I provided what I would do if I were Prez on 9/11?

areyoushittin'me? · #**399** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Which statement was that? *L* I've made a lot of them.

How about the one I provided in the quotation following the question...are you even trying to carry on a logical conversation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Nobody gave Saddam a green light - Saddam just heard what he wanted to hear.

There's a difference between a border dispute and a border conflict - so long as Iraq and Kuwait were committed to peacefully resolving their dispute, the US had no interest in it's outcome. But when dispute became conflict, that obviously changed the US posture.

Obviously not...re-read what Glaspie said and try and get a clue.