 |
|

05-23-2008, 01:14 AM
|
|
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 443
|
|
areufucknme has once again declined to reply with anything that disputes the claims of NUMEROUS posters.
Maybe he believes if he talks long enough he has a victory?
If he ignores the hard questions and only replies to easy ones nobody will notice?
We already know he LOVE's to see a new page turn! He feels safer to that way.
In any event he has NEVER shown evidence that the invasion was illegal because NOTHING was passed (but it was proposed) to PREVENT an invasion!!!
A lack of intelligence is the reason he hijakced this thread instead of bringing back MANY threads that already talked about the Legality of this war. The SOLDIER being in contempt is what THIS thread is about.
Last edited by Tileman; 05-23-2008 at 01:17 AM.
|

05-23-2008, 01:28 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,823
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
True...it should have been dealt with before Saddam sent his troops in.
|
NO your reffering to the blundering of the Diplomats...Il go with that. But given those mistakes. Kuwait needed to be liberated. I say that knowing fuull well of the other motives. I dont think that the mishandling of it was anything other then incompatnace. Perhpas even criminal incompatence....??
|

05-23-2008, 01:34 AM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,956
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cat's meow
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.
|
I'm not saying Chalibi was the ideal candidate for President - only that he was the one pegged by the US Government. Personally, I would have picked someone who had significant differences with the US and wasn't afraid to voice them.
Saddam was in power there for 25 years and you know as well as I do that he ruled with an iron hand. Anyone within Iraq who had the talent and ability to present a possible threat to Saddam was dead. The post-Saddam leadership was going to have to come from the Iraqi émigré community - just look at the elected leaders of Iraq to date - Allawi, Al-Jaafari, and Al-Maliki - they all were forced to flee from Saddam's Iraq, just like Chalibi.
|

05-23-2008, 01:45 AM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,956
|
|
Areyoushittin'me - Here's my problem with your post-9/11 scenario... if you put too many troops into Afghanistan, you risk Americanizing the conflict - that was the mistake the Soviets made - they went in too heavy and turned the population against them. As it was, it was the Afghans themselves (with American assistance) that liberated their country from the Taliban. Besides, even if you did go in heavy, would you have chased Bin Laden into Pakistan and risk destabilizing that country as well?
As far as bombing Saddam's palaces, what do you figure that would have accomplished? Do you seriously think that would have changed anything?
|

05-23-2008, 01:54 AM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,956
|
|
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. 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.
|
Iraq was obligated to provide a full accounting of their WMD programmes by the terms of the ceasefire. For whatever reason, whether they could not or would not provide this accounting. There was incontrovertible evidence of Iraq stockpiling WMD materials dating from the 70's and 80's that were never accounted for - so what happened to those materials? Unless or until Iraq accounted for the disposition of those materials, did it not have to be assumed that they had used them to construct WMD's? What was the alternative? To take Saddam's word for it that he had just dumped them in the desert?
|

05-23-2008, 02:06 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-south
Posts: 12,268
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
I'm not saying Chalibi was the ideal candidate for President - only that he was the one pegged by the US Government. Personally, I would have picked someone who had significant differences with the US and wasn't afraid to voice them.
|
They were desperate, if they thought Bozo the Clown would have been a viable leader for Iraq they would have done it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
Saddam was in power there for 25 years and you know as well as I do that he ruled with an iron hand. Anyone within Iraq who had the talent and ability to present a possible threat to Saddam was dead. The post-Saddam leadership was going to have to come from the Iraqi émigré community - just look at the elected leaders of Iraq to date - Allawi, Al-Jaafari, and Al-Maliki - they all were forced to flee from Saddam's Iraq, just like Chalibi.
|
No, anyone who had the talent and leadership skills had fled but had not been there in a long while...not a great assessment of what the current situation was in Iraq.
|

05-23-2008, 02:12 AM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,956
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cat's meow
They were desperate, if they thought Bozo the Clown would have been a viable leader for Iraq they would have done it.
No, anyone who had the talent and leadership skills had fled but had not been there in a long while...not a great assessment of what the current situation was in Iraq.
|
No doubt... but would keeping Saddam in power to be succeeded by Qusay have been any better?
|

05-23-2008, 02:13 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Huh?
Posts: 6,311
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
Areyoushittin'me - Here's my problem with your post-9/11 scenario... if you put too many troops into Afghanistan, you risk Americanizing the conflict - that was the mistake the Soviets made - they went in too heavy and turned the population against them. As it was, it was the Afghans themselves (with American assistance) that liberated their country from the Taliban. Besides, even if you did go in heavy, would you have chased Bin Laden into Pakistan and risk destabilizing that country as well?
As far as bombing Saddam's palaces, what do you figure that would have accomplished? Do you seriously think that would have changed anything?
|
I see your point about Afghanistan but I submit more could have been done...look at the vast rise in poppy production...we should be contributing to alternative programs.
As for going after bin Laden...to be quite honest with you, I'm thinking greater pursuit of him would be good...even if that meant expanding our operation into Pakistan...I'm not all that impressed with that relationship as it stands...heck, we get someone like that Khan guy selling nuke secrets and what do we do about it? Essentially nada...it needs to be impressed upon them that they need to work more closely with us or we would deal with things ourself.
As to bombing Saddam's palaces, I figure that would accomplish two things...first, I do believe it would get Saddam to cooperate because it would show that he was powerless against us which would have been an embarrasment that he could no have stood by and let happen in front of his people and secondly...it would have sent a very strong message to the UN that I wasn't going to waste my time screwing around with them and they better get with the program.
In any case, it couldn't be any worse than the mess we are in now and would have saved many soldiers lives and countless billions of dollars.
Thank you for your response in any case...generally, I don't get any response to my "liberal tree hugging bullshit".
__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
OBAMA/PEROT
|

05-23-2008, 02:17 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-south
Posts: 12,268
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
No doubt... but would keeping Saddam in power to be succeeded by Qusay have been any better?
|
Consider what the Iraqi people have been through in the past 6 years and how close Saddam was to getting ousted by his own people after Desert Fox. There was a better way to do this no doubt. There is still no evidence this will end up well in the end; nothing has been determined and there is a great deal of infighting between sects. Another Saddam may very well emerge.
|

05-23-2008, 02:22 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Huh?
Posts: 6,311
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
Iraq was obligated to provide a full accounting of their WMD programmes by the terms of the ceasefire. For whatever reason, whether they could not or would not provide this accounting. There was incontrovertible evidence of Iraq stockpiling WMD materials dating from the 70's and 80's that were never accounted for - so what happened to those materials? Unless or until Iraq accounted for the disposition of those materials, did it not have to be assumed that they had used them to construct WMD's? What was the alternative? To take Saddam's word for it that he had just dumped them in the desert?
|
The part I highlighted in red is the part I find rather fascinating...how can you justify holding him responsible for something he could not do? As it turns out, it appears that most of what we did not destroy in '91 was dealt with by the inspectors early on and I think most of the Saddam obfuscation was more to try and act tougher than he really was...he was nearly powerless on an international scale.
Yes, he was a dumbshit and had no clue what that cowboy we've got in office was capable of but I don't think he was nearly the threat he was purported to be.
__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
OBAMA/PEROT
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|