US soldier refuses to serve in ‘illegal Iraq war’

areyoushittin'me? · #**411** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

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

Bingo...which goes to Saddam wanting to trade oil for Euros, among other things.

Cordelier · #**412** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

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

I'm wondering the same thing about you... I don't see any contradiction between the two statements. If Saddam launched a small-scale incursion into the disputed territory, would that not be construed to be posturing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

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

Might I suggest you do the same? Ambassador Glaspie referred to border disputes, not conflicts. Saddam took her message as meaning that the US would stay out of a potential conflict as well, but at no time did the Ambassador make such an assertion. He read into it what he wanted to hear... a failing I'm sure you can personally identify with.

areyoushittin'me? · #**413** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:53 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?

Yup...propaganda...like Rice claiming aluminum tubes "that could only be used for" when she knew full well others disagreed...the list goes on and on...even back to the first gulf war...like the "Saddams troops pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwait"...proven LIES...but hey, it justified a war.

cat's meow · #**414** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Yup...propaganda...like Rice claiming aluminum tubes "that could only be used for" when she knew full well others disagreed...the list goes on and on...even back to the first gulf war...like the "Saddams troops pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwait"...proven LIES...but hey, it justified a war.

When you have a list a 932 proven lies then something is wrong.

areyoushittin'me? · #**415** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

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

Indeed, as did others but anything they didn't want to accept was disregarded.

Cordelier · #**416** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

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

Well, someone had to be in charge in Iraq once Saddam was deposed, didn't they?

Jetblast · #**417** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:57 PM

Quote:

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'm missing the part where the nation making accusations of weapons that don't exist is held accountable for false and even contrived accusations meant to force an invasion on false circumstances. What is to stop any nation with the means to conduct a sophisticated frame-up from creating a false case against another nation? So what you are saying is any nation can force a fraud on any other nation through the auspices of the UN and then benefit from the result even though the accusations were criminally concocted?

This is a complete contravention of the US Constitution and its meaning. What you have just thoroughly made a case for is guilty before proven innocent, the annihilation of habeus corpus, and complete immunity for government for false accusations. Under our nation's key writs the accuser is made to prove the existence before the accused is punished, not the other way around. The accused is not forced at threat of action to prove he isn't guilty. Whether you're aware of it or not, that is exactly what you are saying above.

What is amazing to me is people who are willing to ignore all the evidence of Bush concocting lies in order to focus on this well formulated legal contrivance.

cat's meow · #**418** (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Well, someone had to be in charge in Iraq once Saddam was deposed, didn't they?

And...?

So this is the way you go about it?

Look, you are the one who even agreed about the massive problem with the South Vietnam leaders and how woefully weak they were as presidents...the US kept trying to put these sad-sacks in place. This is identical in Iraq. This is not the way you go about it, you are arguing a faulty premise in the first place.

areyoushittin'me? · #**419** (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

I'm wondering the same thing about you... I don't see any contradiction between the two statements. If Saddam launched a small-scale incursion into the disputed territory, would that not be construed to be posturing?

Might I suggest you do the same? Ambassador Glaspie referred to border disputes, not conflicts. Saddam took her message as meaning that the US would stay out of a potential conflict as well, but at no time did the Ambassador make such an assertion.

Quote:

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

Spin it however you wish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

He read into it what he wanted to hear...a failing I'm sure you can personally identify with.

Yes...I run into that alot around here.

areyoushittin'me? · #**420** (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetblast

I'm missing the part where the nation making accusations of weapons that don't exist is held accountable for false and even contrived accusations meant to force an invasion on false circumstances.

Which strongly resembles the claim made by Tileboy which got me started in this argument...he made a false claim and yet wanted me to prove that what he claimed existed didn't exist yet he was unwilling to read the evidence...go figure...I think I should bomb the child.