| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,491 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry |
|
| Registered: March 21, 2007 | | Posts: 171 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Draxen: Quote:
1) I suppose FUBAR was referring to the current invasion of Iraq, which eventually started as a result of the attack on WTC - not the first war due to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. I never said anything that remotely resembles what you apparently think I said. Please re-read what I have written in this thread. Thanks | | | | Graham |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Snark: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
Who said anything about invading Iraq? But yes, we were authorized, if only because they had violated the UN mandates that they agree to after the first Gulf War.
No. Bush tried to get the UN to sign off on it but they did not do so. Just how many times did you expect Saddam's utter contempt for the United Nations to be ignored. At the time of the invasion, there had been no fewer than 17 UN resolutions levied against Iraq, all of which were ignored by Hussein. There was never a peace treaty signed at the close of Gulf War I, a CEASE-FIRE wasa signed, every tenet of which was ignored for 13 years, we could have gone back in at any point due to any of those violations. I think both the US and the UN showed an inordinate amount of patience for this madman's behavior. This is not a very hard concept to understand Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 681 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting FUBAR: Quote:
Quoting Draxen:
Quote:
1) I suppose FUBAR was referring to the current invasion of Iraq, which eventually started as a result of the attack on WTC - not the first war due to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
I never said anything that remotely resembles what you apparently think I said. Please re-read what I have written in this thread. Thanks My comment was made after the following exchange, and indeed I was referring to the post by sugarjoe and not you. Apologies for putting words into your mouth...  Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting sugarjoe:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Blatant violation of the sovereignty of another country is not acceptable behavior for any country, regardless of the individual involved.
Does that mean you also oppose the US invasion in Irak?
There is no comparison between the situation in Iraq and pursuing an INDIVIDUAL terrorist!
Not only did Iraq invade its neighbor Kuwait, and murder its own citizens with chemical weapons, it also ignored 17 UN resolutions.
I really don't think we need to revisit everything that led up to the war in Iraq.
Trying to link gettign a single terrorist with what happened in Iraq is simply absurd. | | | Mika
I hate people who love me, and they hate me. (Bender Bending Rodriguez) |
|
| Registered: June 3, 2007 | | Posts: 333 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Just how many times did you expect Saddam's utter contempt for the United Nations to be ignored. At the time of the invasion, there had been no fewer than 17 UN resolutions levied against Iraq, all of which were ignored by Hussein. There was never a peace treaty signed at the close of Gulf War I, a CEASE-FIRE wasa signed, every tenet of which was ignored for 13 years, we could have gone back in at any point due to any of those violations. I think both the US and the UN showed an inordinate amount of patience for this madman's behavior. This is not a very hard concept to understand
Skip Well Skip, that was up to the UN to decide. Not us. If my neighbor plays his music too loud and gets 17 citatons from the police for noise pollution I don't get to go break his stereo on the 18th time. The authority being defied in that case is that of the law, not mine. And of course he didn't defy them all, did he? We went to the UN and they made a "final check or else" resolution which he DID comply with. We simply didn't want to wait for the time it would take UNMOVIC to verify compliance. So you're right, it's not at all hard to understand. A case can be made that the invasion was justified based on what was believed at the time (You kind of have to squint and tilt your head while looking at the 'evidence' however) but ignoring the UN isn't one of them. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Snark: Quote:
It certainly seemed implied in his statement as he used the UN violations as the reason. But no, I don't think we need the UN to take appropriate military action. But if we're going to go it unilaterally we better have a reason and be right. It wasn't implied at all. He just said they had violated UN sacntions, which is totally coreect. We did not go in unilaterally! Another myth propagated by the left. We did not go it alone. There were about 15 other countries that went into Iraq with us, many of which are still there. You just don't hear about them! | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Snark:: We were justified any time we wanted. His cease-fire, which he violated for what, 13 Years, was not with the UN, it was with the United States of America, If I bought your statement of half facts, then it s simple in the extreme....we ran out of patience with the man. But the facts are as Hal, pointed out we did NOT go it alone, as much as the Democrats want to pretend that is true. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: June 3, 2007 | | Posts: 333 |
| | Posted: | | | | The invasion was a US-British show, but the US was calling the shots. That's reality. The remaining forces were nickel and dime at best.
You can say it's justified Skip, but the facts simply don't bear it out. It was the UN's mandates that were violated and it was on the UN to enforce them if it chose to do so. Of course it did not. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Snark: Quote:
Well Skip, that was up to the UN to decide. Not us. If my neighbor plays his music too loud and gets 17 citatons from the police for noise pollution I don't get to go break his stereo on the 18th time. The authority being defied in that case is that of the law, not mine. You really need to spend some more time thinking through your analogies. The police have full authority to enforce laws and can arrest people who violate them. The U.N. is nothing but a social club with absolutely no enforcement capabilities. At some point when they fail to actually act (especially since the UN couldn't care less about the interests or national security of the US), we must act to protect our own interests, in spite of them. To do so is far from vigilante behavior as you infer! Quoting Snark: Quote:
And of course he didn't defy them all, did he? We went to the UN and they made a "final check or else" resolution which he DID comply with. Whetehr he defied them all or not is irrelevant. He defied enough of them to pose a significant threat. Quoting Snark: Quote:
We simply didn't want to wait for the time it would take UNMOVIC to verify compliance. Perhaps we should have just waited until he invaded and/or attacked another of his neighbors or killed a few more tens of thousands of his own citizens. He had every opportunity to comply. It was more than evident that no amount of time would have seen him do so. Quoting Snark: Quote:
A case can be made that the invasion was justified based on what was believed at the time (You kind of have to squint and tilt your head while looking at the 'evidence' however) but ignoring the UN isn't one of them. Sorry but the evidence was overwhelming regardless of what you wish to believe. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Snark: Quote:
The invasion was a US-British show, but the US was calling the shots. That's reality. The remaining forces were nickel and dime at best.
You can say it's justified Skip, but the facts simply don't bear it out. It was the UN's mandates that were violated and it was on the UN to enforce them if it chose to do so. Of course it did not. You said it was done "unilaterally". You are wrong. Just admit it! | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | edit | | | | Last edited: by sugarjoe |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Blatant violation of the sovereignty of another country is not acceptable behavior for any country, regardless of the individual involved. | | | | Last edited: by sugarjoe |
|
| Registered: June 3, 2007 | | Posts: 333 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
You really need to spend some more time thinking through your analogies. The police have full authority to enforce laws and can arrest people who violate them.
The U.N. is nothing but a social club with absolutely no enforcement capabilities.
At some point when they fail to actually act (especially since the UN couldn't care less about the interests or national security of the US), we must act to protect our own interests, in spite of them. To do so is far from vigilante behavior as you infer! If our national security was at stake I would agree with you. But it wasn't. Iraq was disarmed and contained, we simply did not want to believe it. I must admit though I have a little trouble buying into the wierd argument that somehow Iraq's defiance of some (but not all as we know) UN mandates somehow authorized us to do anything. If we're going to act outside of the UN it's a bit hypocritical IMO to try and invoke their defiance of the UN as a reason. But that's just my opinon. Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Whetehr he defied them all or not is irrelevant. He defied enough of them to pose a significant threat. And what threat would that have be? Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Perhaps we should have just waited until he invaded and/or attacked another of his neighbors or killed a few more tens of thousands of his own citizens. He had every opportunity to comply. It was more than evident that no amount of time would have seen him do so. Except of course that in the end he did. There were no weapons programs, no real attempts to gain nukes, etc. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Snark: Quote:
If our national security was at stake I would agree with you. But it wasn't. Iraq was disarmed and contained, we simply did not want to believe it. Many who had access to the intelligence information in this regard would disagree with your "opinion". I think I'll trust the people who actually saw that intelligence over your view! Quoting Snark: Quote:
I must admit though I have a little trouble buying into the wierd argument that somehow Iraq's defiance of some (but not all as we know) UN mandates somehow authorized us to do anything. If we're going to act outside of the UN it's a bit hypocritical IMO to try and invoke their defiance of the UN as a reason. Sorry, but that doesn't quite fly. We are soundly rebuked by the international community if we act without attempting to get the UN involved. We did that in this case. They proved to be their usual impotent self. So are you suggesting that if the UN is incapable of doing what's needed that we should just sit idly by even when not addressing the issue poses a grave threat to us directly or our allies? Quoting Snark: Quote:
And what threat would that have be? I guess we are going to have to go through all the reasons why we got involved in this war, after all. How about development of nuclear weapons grade materials and potentially the development of nuclear weapons. There is no other plausible explanation for the need of the centrifuges that they had. How about the development of ballistics missiles to deliver those weapons? Many of these WERE discoverred and destroyed during the war. How about development (and use of) chemical weapons? We know he had them. He used them on the Kurds. How about threats against Israel? Just read some newspapers from that time period. Do some research and you'll find all of them!  Quoting Snark: Quote:
Except of course that in the end he did. There were no weapons programs, no real attempts to gain nukes, etc. If you are naive enough to think that because we did not find some of this stuff, that it wasn't there and he wasn't engaged in these activities, then he was successful in pulling the wool over your eyes. He had months and months to move all evidence to "friendly" neighbors like Lebanon and Syria. Their refusal to let UN inspectors do their job and actually visit any number of facilities that they wanted to visit should tell you something. It tells me they were hiding things. There is no other plausible explanation. Do I have proof that this happened? No, they did it secretly! And they were successful. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: June 3, 2007 | | Posts: 333 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Many who had access to the intelligence information in this regard would disagree with your "opinion". I think I'll trust the people who actually saw that intelligence over your view!
And as we now know many of them agreed with my "opinion" at the time. And of course we know what really turned out to be the case. Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Sorry, but that doesn't quite fly. We are soundly rebuked by the international community if we act without attempting to get the UN involved. We did that in this case. They proved to be their usual impotent self.
So are you suggesting that if the UN is incapable of doing what's needed that we should just sit idly by even when not addressing the issue poses a grave threat to us directly or our allies? Absolutely not. I am saying that it's a stretch to act outside of the UN and try to invoke defiance of the UN as the reason. If there's a grave threat of course we act on our own. But the evidence provided even if taken at face value didn't suggest "grave threat". Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I guess we are going to have to go through all the reasons why we got involved in this war, after all.
How about development of nuclear weapons grade materials and potentially the development of nuclear weapons. There is no other plausible explanation for the need of the centrifuges that they had. There were no centrifuges. The assumption was made (falsely) that aluminum tubes were to be used in making some. Quoting hal9g: Quote:
How about development (and use of) chemical weapons? We know he had them. He used them on the Kurds. Yep. And were apparently subsequently destroyed. Quoting hal9g: Quote:
How about threats against Israel? Just read some newspapers from that time period.
Do some research and you'll find all of them! Err... What about 'em? Threats against Isreal are common in the middle east. Some even from countries with the capabiliies to back 'em up. Quoting Snark: Quote:
If you are naive enough to think that because we did not find some of this stuff, that it wasn't there and he wasn't engaged in these activities, then he was successful in pulling the wool over your eyes. He had months and months to move all evidence to "friendly" neighbors like Lebanon and Syria.
Their refusal to let UN inspectors do their job and actually visit any number of facilities that they wanted to visit should tell you something. It tells me they were hiding things. There is no other plausible explanation.
Do I have proof that this happened? No, they did it secretly! And they were successful. Well you're surely entitled to believe that Hal. But the fact remains we made charges we couldn't back up. He was certainly given the opportunity to use any existant weapons on US troops during the invasion and nothing of the sort happened. I find it hard to believe that he would secretly develop weapons to use against us and not deploy them given the chance. | | | | Last edited: by Snark |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Snark: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
You really need to spend some more time thinking through your analogies. The police have full authority to enforce laws and can arrest people who violate them.
The U.N. is nothing but a social club with absolutely no enforcement capabilities.
At some point when they fail to actually act (especially since the UN couldn't care less about the interests or national security of the US), we must act to protect our own interests, in spite of them. To do so is far from vigilante behavior as you infer!
If our national security was at stake I would agree with you. But it wasn't. Iraq was disarmed and contained, we simply did not want to believe it.
I must admit though I have a little trouble buying into the wierd argument that somehow Iraq's defiance of some (but not all as we know) UN mandates somehow authorized us to do anything. If we're going to act outside of the UN it's a bit hypocritical IMO to try and invoke their defiance of the UN as a reason.
But that's just my opinon.
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Whetehr he defied them all or not is irrelevant. He defied enough of them to pose a significant threat.
And what threat would that have be?
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Perhaps we should have just waited until he invaded and/or attacked another of his neighbors or killed a few more tens of thousands of his own citizens. He had every opportunity to comply. It was more than evident that no amount of time would have seen him do so.
Except of course that in the end he did. There were no weapons programs, no real attempts to gain nukes, etc. What do you not understand? Saddam managed to throw off the Intelligence sections of Goivernments all over the world, including one of the most highly respected, Israel's Mossad. They all believed that Iraq had WMD, we were not acting unilaterally nor soley on our own intelligence. You really need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid, mi amigo. Though i can teach you how to make Kool-Aid wine, from, my college days....true rot gut. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|