US soldier refuses to serve in ‘illegal Iraq war’

areyoushittin'me? · #**401** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tileman

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!

Are you really that obtuse or just trying to be a pathetic troll?

You don't respond to questions.

You don't provide substantiation for your claims.

You are nothing but a pathetic partisan childish hack and I gave your post even more attention than it deserves...make any claims you wish...the reality is there for anyone to make up their own mind.

cat's meow · #**402** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

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?

Well, when all the Bush Administration wanted to do is listen to Chalibi then that is pretty stupid...don't you think? They literally took the advice of a man who had not set foot in Iraq in many years.

Did you even realize that Bush did not want to do this at first? He was very easily manipulated, so much for 'the decider.'

Cordelier · #**403** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

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.

Well, Blix was wrong... Even with the full compliance of the post-Saddam Iraqi Government, UNMOVIC was only able to issue it's final report in June of 2007.

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

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?

If you were President on 9/11? I don't recall reading that one.

Cordelier · #**404** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

Well, when all the Bush Administration wanted to do is listen to Chalibi then that is pretty stupid...don't you think? They literally took the advice of a man who had not set foot in Iraq in many years.

Did you even realize that Bush did not want to do this at first? He was very easily manipulated, so much for 'the decider.'

Chalibi and Curveball and Colin Powell's presentation at the UN were all beside the point, though... they were all superfluous. The key point is that, by the terms of Resolution 687, the burden of proof was on Iraq to provide "an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure" of all aspects of it's weapons programmes.

I think to the extent that the Administration bolstered Chalibi it was due to their intention of installing him as head of the post-Saddam caretaker Government.

areyoushittin'me? · #**405** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Well, Blix was wrong... Even with the full compliance of the post-Saddam Iraqi Government, UNMOVIC was only able to issue it's final report in June of 2007.

Perhaps so, we'll never know...it's not like the UNMOVIC came in immediately in our footsteps and carried on where they left off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

If you were President on 9/11? I don't recall reading that one.

Ok...I'll pull up a copy...it might give you a bit of perspective on where I stand on the subject...back in a minute or two.

cat's meow · #**406** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Well, Blix was wrong... Even with the full compliance of the post-Saddam Iraqi Government, UNMOVIC was only able to issue it's final report in June of 2007.

Well...there were a great deal of political problems that prevented this too...you are oversimplifying a long evolution of things that have gone on.

cat's meow · #**407** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Chalibi and Curveball and Colin Powell's presentation at the UN were all beside the point, though... they were all superfluous. The key point is that, by the terms of Resolution 687, the burden of proof was on Iraq to provide "an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure" of all aspects of it's weapons programmes.

I think to the extent that the Administration bolstered Chalibi it was due to their intention of installing him as head of the post-Saddam caretaker Government.

You are making my point. WMDs was not the motive as much as getting a person in place they wanted in the ME.

Jetblast · #**408** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:44 PM

Saying Bush was seriously concerned about Saddam possibly having WMD's is to take the offender's word as the one and only source. Meanwhile we have people ignoring all the much repeated facts that Bush had Israeli documents as early as 2002 telling him Iraq was broken, had no effective army, and no WMD's. I mean it's not much of an argument if people insist to ignore the plainly available evidence and continue to offer party line excuses crafted by well funded party lawyers and political operatives. Let's not pretend the Pentagon and other offices are not in a full-out propaganda war on Iraq. So repeating the official line over and over doesn't do much good.

Could it be the concern over WMD's was a false pretext used to justify something Bush knew he couldn't get away with otherwise? Funny how some people pretend to be making sincere arguments while ignoring PNAC and its influence right in broad daylight. If you limit the debate to the offender's defense it's pretty easy to win the case. That's what they do in China by the way.

So the "he was going to war no matter what" people are just cranks with a chip on their shoulder (even though all the evidence is with them)?

Hey - why doesn't our media press Bush on what he knew about Iraq prior to the invasion? The evidence is all out there. Why don't they?

areyoushittin'me? · #**409** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:45 PM

Here it is...something I wrote back in '04, before we got Saddam...

Quote:

Quote:
If I were Prez on 9/11

We can all see through our variously tinted lenses what is going on...we've had plenty of claims made about each of us from many perspectives...I know I personally have been accused of not offering an alternative to the BushCo 'plan'...yet never once have I been directly asked what would I have done differently.

How many have ever pondered this?

What do you do... ...oh shit, what do I do?

After 9/11 we determined that we had to do something about a very real enemy which we identify as terrorists...but in particular AQ and OBL...of course there is a bigger picture...shit there is an axis of evil of sorts...I would not have drawn a line in the sand but I did have the support of most of the world to launch a WoT...I'll guarantee you one thing OBL is toast.

We go into Afghanistan and deal with something that is accepted as necessary by most of the world...unfortunately we don't really send enough troops and provide the elements to come up with an acceptable alternative so the country gets overrun with poppy's...very lovely but not necessarily good for mankind...and it provides funds to many war lords who we need to be a part of the solution, not only that but chances are a good bit of the money probably filters into terrorists hands...not good...I would have put many more boots (military and humanitarian) on the ground and put more effort into hunting down bin-Laden.

This is where Bush started screwing up because he was lead by a bunch of people fanatical about getting Saddam out of power and besides, they have a bigger plan...and a message from God...yeehaw were invincible.

Anyway...as far as dealing with Saddam...yes he was a problem (and still is) let's face it, Rummy doesn't want him to stand up in court and talk about why they were both in a picture shaking hands, etc and so on so...well, we'll deal with that when we get to it...besides we'll be liberators and they will be sticking flowers in the barrels of our guns...maybe the Afghans can sell them poppy's.

What I would have done is handled Saddam very differently and I'd be curious to have people pick apart my plan.

Of course I would have had speech writers to smooth the rough edges to present it a bit more diplomatically but since I don't, read between the lines...

I would have gone to the UN and said alright...Saddam needs to come into full compliance...we've recently renewed inspections and making limited progress but it's not good enough...I'm tired of diddling around.

You chicken fuckers say you need more time...according to Mr. Blix he doesn't need years nor weeks but months...I'll give him two months and if we do not have FULL compliance from Saddam...I'm gonna fuck him up...he will yield or else.

I'm a bit busy right now in Afghanistan and I appreciate the support we've got there and I'd rather not have to go into Iraq militarily so here is what I'm gonna do...if in 2 months when we get another report from Mr. Blix, it does not indicate some real progress , that following Sunday evening shortly after sundown I'm gonna destroy one of his palaces...(kinda like a target of opportunity - eight seconds - $70 Million)...a little shock and awe should get their attention...no collateral damage.

During the week leading up to that Sunday I'm going to drop leaflets letting the citizens of Iraq know what a prick their leader is and also let them know to evacuate the area in the vicinity of the palace...details to follow.

Along with that in order to win the hearts and minds we are going to increase shipments of humanitarian aid.

When I run out of palaces, Ill get back to you...see ya.

This would have saved Billions upon Billions of dollars that could be used to greater benefit in the ongoing WoT which is far from over...I would also be putting more money into finding alternatives in order to lessen our future dependance on foreign oil.

cat's meow · #**410** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetblast

Saying Bush was seriously concerned about Saddam possibly having WMD's is to take the offender's word as the one and only source. Meanwhile we have people ignoring all the much repeated facts that Bush had Israeli documents as early as 2002 telling him Iraq was broken, had no effective army, and no WMD's. I mean it's not much of an argument if people insist to ignore the plainly available evidence and continue to offer party line excuses crafted by well funded party lawyers and political operatives. Let's not pretend the Pentagon and other offices are not in a full-out propaganda war on Iraq. So repeating the official line over and over doesn't do much good.

Could it be the concern over WMD's was a false pretext used to justify something Bush knew he couldn't get away with otherwise? Funny how some people pretend to be making sincere arguments while ignoring PNAC and its influence right in broad daylight. If you limit the debate to the offender's defense it's pretty easy to win the case. That's what they do in China by the way.

So the "he was going to war no matter what" people are just cranks with a chip on their shoulder (even though all the evidence is with them)?

Hey - why doesn't our media press Bush on what he knew about Iraq prior to the invasion? The evidence is all out there. Why don't they?

Yep, all good points. I believe Seymour Hearsh brought all this up early in 2002/2003, not like it was not out there.