11
   

Iraq invasion in 2003 was illegitimate: Dutch probe

 
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 06:54 pm
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
I am serious in believing that the US should pull our forces out from everywhere and stop sending financial assistance to other countries.


Why would you think doing a silly thing like that would help? Isn't this just a childish, "I'm taking my ball and going home"?

The humane thing to do is to stop launching illegal invasions of sovereign nations.

The USA is already the stingiest country in the world or damn close to it in terms of aid.
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 07:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I've got no issue with a serious investigation to determine whether anyone purposely altered intel reports in order to justify going to war. The problem I see is that in any investigation there will be cries of partisan politics. And inevitably, there will be classified data that will be unavailable to study. (I don't know this, I'm just guessing here. I could be wrong.) These reports go back prior to the Bush admin (at least I would guess that there are reports from the Clinton admin) and they need to be looked at also, if for no other reason than to see if there was a moment in time when the gist of the reports changed.

If the Bush admin was on the up and up about their decision making in this matter, then they have nothing to fear from any investigation. So I'd be all for it. If someone or some group, be they republican or democrat or a combo thereof, purposely altered data for the explicit purpose of giving us an excuse to go to war, then they should face the consequences.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 07:06 pm
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
CR wrote: ... if for no other reason than to see if there was a moment in time when the gist of the reports changed.


Quote:
In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said:

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again.

On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, [Mid July, 2001] Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."


Quote:
CT wrote: If the Bush admin was on the up and up about their decision making in this matter, then they have nothing to fear from any investigation. So I'd be all for it. If someone or some group, be they republican or democrat or a combo thereof, purposely altered data for the explicit purpose of giving us an excuse to go to war, then they should face the consequences.


Yeah, that'd be peachy keen. Let's have another kangaroo 9-11 Commission.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 07:09 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Why would you think doing a silly thing like that would help? Isn't this just a childish, "I'm taking my ball and going home"


Childish, maybe. But the way I look at it, we have major debt going on here at home, so why are we sending money we don't have elsewhere? Why are we spending money by sending military forces all over the world, and when we use them for what is believed to be a good thing, all we get is a bunch of grief about it.

As for your assertion that the US is the stingiest country in the world or damn close (I checked to make sure I exactly quoted you. I don't need to be called a liar twice in one day. Sorry, couldn't resist. No wonder I get in trouble all the time.) You would have to provide figures for me to quite believe that.

Well, my wife is home now so I am out of here for the evening. I'll catch up tomorrow. Have a good evening.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 07:37 pm
@CoastalRat,
1) we have major debt going on here at home, so why are we sending money we don't have elsewhere?

Welcome to the club. Other nations have their troubles too. Really, you should try a dose of honesty once in a while, CR.

2)Why are we spending money by sending military forces all over the world, and when we use them for what is believed to be a good thing, all we get is a bunch of grief about it.

Here you go again, repeating the old propaganda line. It's not considered good when a country is illegally invaded, at least tens of thousands are killed, [don't you think that a government that purports to be doing this for the people's benefit would take some small interest in how many are being killed, would express some sense of remorse for those that have died? - completely absent] their country's infrastructure destroyed, lives are ruined, depleted uranium is spread all over, burning phosphorus is rained upon those the propaganda tells us you set out to save, cluster bombs are left for children to play with.

Why on earth do you figure that anyone would want to give you grief over little things like these?

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 08:27 pm
@CoastalRat,
I don't "put someone on ignore." If i don't want to read what they write, i just don't read it. Although you got huffy, and claimed that "as usual" i addressed you in an offensive manner, i suspect that if you gave it some thought, you'd recall that we don't necessarily always disagree, nor do i habitually address you as i did today. You often have interesting things to write, so i read your posts. I have no reason to ignore you.

But stop being silly--when you make a statement, don't address it someone (me or anyone else), unless you know to a certainty that it is true of them. This could have been avoided entirely if you had, instead of lumping me in with the Bush-hating ranters whom you despise, simply addressed me, described them, and stated your objections. I would have replied that, "Well, that's not me," and we could have proceeded directly to the issue of who was or wasn't responsible, what was or wasn't criminal, etc.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 08:37 pm
@Setanta,
Still playing the martyr card.

"Poor poor pitiful me, poor poor pitiful me."

If you had an honest bone in your body, you'd just apologize to CR and forget it.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 07:09 am
@Setanta,
Set, I know we have often had some good discussions. Once in a while we do actually agree. More often we don't. But that is one reason I keep showing up here and reading posts, to get a point of view I may not otherwise think about. The only thing that tends to get my ire up on here is when people in a discussion go off the deep end and begin insulting one another. There is no point to it. It is counter-productive to any learning process and childish in the extreme. That is my opinion and I don't care whether the person doing the insulting is a republican, democrat, leftist, rightist, moderate, independent or socialist or any other -ist.

I have stated from the get-go that I was not referring necessarily to you with the comments that got you all upset. You reacted in a manner that was unbecoming of you. Rather than verifying that my remarks were directed toward you before getting upset, you began to attack me with language I find not only offensive, but quite frankly beneath that of people with a sliver of intelligence. My "shoe fits" comment was a knee jerk reaction to your attack and my way of trying to say that there was no reason for you to assume I was speaking about you if unless you were one of the people who thought as I indicated. My choice of "y'all" was simply the way I write and what I would say when talking about more than one person on here.

All that said, I reread the posts from the beginning and I do understand how you would think that I lumped you into the group I was talking about. I admit that because I addressed the reply to you that you had every reason to believe that I was talking about you. I've already apologized I believe for the misunderstanding and stated that I did not necessarily mean you personally. But all this vitriol between the two of us could have been avoided had you simply stated that you do not agree that what I wrote applied to you and asked me to point to any post to back up my assertion. I could then have told you what I have told you repeatedly, that I don't believe you personally felt that way and that I was not clear in my post. I hope this clears the air between us.
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 07:24 am
@JTT,
Hey JTT, I never said other nations didn't have their troubles also. What I am saying is that the US should look to taking care of our debt issues and let other nations take care of theirs.

As to number 2, I can only say that war is hell. People die, oftentimes innocent people. I would rather have seen the people of Iraq get rid of Saddam. He was their problem and we had no business going in there simply to remove him. We can argue all day about whether the US and allies had a right to go in there based on the belief that he was developing WMD, but attack the US did (and allies) and the result was that people died. I've got no problem if Obama were to make the decision that we will not intercede militarily unless we are directly attacked. That's fine by me. Next time the Kuwaitis can defend their own country. Let the South Koreans defend their own country. I'm all for that. Let the UN send peacekeeping forces that do not include the US to do all the things these other countries want. But something tells me if that were the case, people would be here complaining that the US does not recognize that we are part of a world community and have responsibility to help those who need help. Seems to be a lose-lose situation.

So let me ask you JTT. What do you think a country such as the US owes the world?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 07:51 am
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
The only thing that tends to get my ire up on here is when people in a discussion go off the deep end and begin insulting one another.


and

Quote:
I have stated from the get-go that I was not referring necessarily to you with the comments that got you all upset.


You don't think it was insulting to me to be the subject of your accusations ? ! ? ! ? For chrissake, grow up. What kind of response could you have expected? It is utterly false that you said "from the get-go" that your remarks did not necessarily refer to me.

This is the entirety of your accusatory post, Post #3875556:

CoastalRat wrote:
No, I think you all misunderstand my position. I would not appeal for us to invade Burma, the Sudan or Iraq for that matter because of atrocities perpetrated within those countries by their own government. I supported going into Iraq for one reason and one reason only. And it had nothing to do with how Saddam treated his people. The point of my post, and not a very well expressed point based on responses, is that y'all are really quick to cry for all these people who died during a war with Iraq (and rightly so, since death should never be something we celebrate) and try to claim that American soldiers were mass murderers but y'all seem strangely silent about atrocities and true instances of mass murder elsewhere that American soldiers have no presence. I guess it is only when our military is involved that some of you find large numbers of dead people appalling.

No, you desire to persist in claiming that members of the Bush government are war criminals for killing masses of innocent Iraqis. The problem you face is that you cannot claim that American leaders are mass murderers without claiming that our soldiers were complacent in the mass murders. Now, if you believe that our soldiers were mass murderers with the approval of our government, then just come out and say it. But you cannot have it both ways. Either our government and our soldiers are guilty of mass murder or neither one is guilty. But I think this reasoning will go over your heads as you continue to make the claim that our military is doing a bang up job while it is only our former governmental leaders that are the mass murderers. Ah well.

Anyway, I hope I've explained my position a bit better. While Saddam needed to be removed for what he did to his own people, I would rather have seen his people do the removing as opposed to us. While the world should have been morally outraged, just as much as we should be outraged over the Sudan, it is not our business to go in and straighten them out. Y'all have a good day.


It is flagrantly accusatory, and it contains no disclaimer to suggest that it does not necessarily refer to me, and in fact it's snide tone is very personal. You need to stop making false claims. There was no disclaimer, that post is insulting, accusatory and personal, and you deserve the response you got. I simply cannot believe that you continue to make a claim which is patently false, and despite the fact that anyone can go back to your post, read it, and see that it is a lie that you said from the get-go that you were not necessarily referring to me.

If you are going to continue to attempt to peddle a story which is so obviously false, there is really no point in attempting to discuss this with you. You did not state that your remarks did not necessarily refer to me, neither before you made them, nor after you had made them. Read the damned post, it's clear. If there is anything childish going on here, it is the spectacle of you attempting to make a claim that your own post shows is false.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 07:59 am
@CoastalRat,
There was an investigation into the Intel of the Bush administration for all the good it did (nada) and it was bi-partisan, a heck of lot more bi-partisan than Clinton's impeachment investigations and hearings. When it comes to these matters it is almost impossible to have people investigating and everyone being satisfied with who is doing the investigating and it will have partisan influence of a certainty unless there is some kind of big smoking gun impossible to twist around in any direction.



Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence



You mentioned Saddam invading Kuwait, he did before the first gulf war, in fact all of the reasons for invading Iraq were actions which happened before the first war (except for Saddam's continued oppression of his people of which he was hardly the only dictator in the world...) and the WMD Intel was sexed up and has been proved up the wazoo for anyone without a blind spot.

If someone deserves criticism because of their own actions, then it is not just a hatred which causes the criticism. The Bush administration did force that war down our throats, they did extend guidelines to the treatment of detainees, and they did break out in new territory when it comes to civil liberties in the name of fighting terror. Some of things, I am not happy with Obama for not changing, but Bush started the precedences.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jan, 2010 12:37 pm
Well, for all those who say some of us can never say anything good about Bush, I am proud of him for joining Clinton in the effort (to encourage) give aid to the Haitians. It was a terrible tragedy and if anyone ever needed aid, it is the Haitians after that horrible earthquake. Maybe without Cheney and Wolfwitch (whatever his name was, that one fits in any case) pulling his chains, he ain't a bad guy.

Bush, Clinton: Haiti response not about politics

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jan, 2010 01:57 pm
@revel,
There's really not anything that can provide redemption for a war criminal/mass murderer.

Perhaps his lawyer can bring that up in the pre-sentence report.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jan, 2010 02:00 pm
@Setanta,
All the death and destruction heaped upon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and Setanta spends the whole thread whining about how poorly he's being treated.

Conceited much!

He's just another Gob1 only in short pants.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 07:33 am
@JTT,
I guess there are extremes on both sides and you are one example I am sorry to say.

Moreover you have been going on about Set longer (or just as long) than Set has been explaining his side of the argument between George and Set.

I agree the Iraq invasion was not justified in 2003, however, most of the killing which took place after the war started happened between the factions of the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis. There was poor planning for that eventually and even outright ignoring of pre-war intelligence which said that would happen though.

Regarding civilian death in Afghanistan
UN: Taliban cause Afghan civilian deaths to soar

Bush and Clinton encouraging aid for the Haitians is a good thing and redemption is not relevant to it.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 07:45 am
@revel,
Substitute coastalrat for george.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 07:47 pm
@revel,
You don't have to be sorry about anything, Revel. Speak your mind.

It's odd how people view telling the truth as extreme. There are way too many fence sitters, people who know that there are war criminals/mass murderers among them but they are simply too chicken or too "emotionally invested" to speak up.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/25/2014 at 09:36:23