The UN, US and Iraq IV

hobitbob wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

With these brilliant deductions and wonderful analysis of current events, you should be running for office. It's a shame we have these intellectually inferiors like Rumsfield, Cheney, and Bush running the show. You should be making our foriegn affair policy instead of the people now who have made their entire careers out of it.

Bah- it's late.

Which part of my analysis do you disagree with?

All of it. You fall victim to the same fallacy as those of us from the right do and that's the fact that you refuse to understand the other side. You have "facts" that make your side look like it is correct and you think that is the end all- be all. It's not. Some of what you say has merit and some of what we say has merit, but you refuse to give and that makes ALL your arguements pointless to discuss.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Brand X wrote:
hobitbob wrote:
I figured out who your author is, x. He is the sweaty fat chap on the McLaughlin group that dresses like a 1930s gangster. Considering the paper he works for (Washington Times, proud property of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and as far to the right as any Murdoch publication) the opinion doesn't strike me as particularly valid. I'm sure you are fond of the source though. You strike me as a dyed in the wool Daniel Pipes fan, and the WashTimes has been his biggest cheerleader.

BTW, I lifted it from another open forum, good thing we didn't use your clairvoyance in the Iraq case after all, I had no idea who the guy is. Anyway, if you have issues with him and his writings, contact him for a debate.

I find it hard to believe you would post an article unless you felt it represented your opinion. Therefore criticism of the article is implicit criticism of your opinion. Failure to attribute the source was merely sloppy work. I have no idea what you mean by clairvoyance.

You tried to pidgeon-hole me as a far right winger, Washington Post reader, as if you knew it was true, and as if it would be criminal. I think what the guy wrote has some credence, yes. BTW, who is Daniel Pipes?

0 Replies

A) Hussein was effectively contained. He made no advances on any of his neighbors in the decade 1991-2001.
B) It is beginning to look like Hussein had indeed destroyed his stock of WMD.
C) The Inspection team, led by Blix, was being allowed access that was far superior to previous acess.
D) The failure of this round of inspections is directly attributable to the bellicose attitude of the current US government. Bush "ordered" the inspectors out on the eve of invasion. This leads one to conclude that any other option besides invasion was never the goal of the US.
E) Castro: The US has tried on numerous occasions to kill or remove him from power. These have all failed (If you want proof, the fact that he is still alive is a good start). Already impoverished, Cuba's government cannot survive Castro's death. Cuba is not a threat.
F) North Korea: Kim Jong Il is unpredictable. The Administration has not effectively dealt with him until teh past few weeks. Instead of focusing on N. Korean Nuclear capabilities in 2002, the administration was planning their petty war against Hussein. This will likely prove to be a horrible mistake.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

You tried to pidgeon-hole me as a far right winger, Washington Post reader, as if you knew it was true, and as if it would be criminal. I think what the guy wrote has some credence, yes. BTW, who is Daniel Pipes?

Er, no. I am a left winger Washington Post reader. You strike me as a right wing Washington Times reader. It is certainly not criminal. IT is a logical deduction considering the posts you have made today.
Pipes is a right wing bigot who believes Isilam is evil and a threat to Western Society. Do a quick Google search and you will find out all you need to know.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Craven -- I wouldn't call that "dissent"!! Do you?

The party line is the party line -- it ain't pretty and it aint respectable! Above all, it shows lack of independence. Scary... if you are old enough to be a voter.

1) yes, at least in that it is an opinion that diverges from yours (and frequently from mine)

2) pretty and respectable are subjective words. as such something two people can easily disagree on

3) nobody's position here is unique, anyone can easily be derided as lacking in "independence"

4) That's an "emperor's new clothes" argument

0 Replies

Some things can be made simpler.

If we didn't think UN approval was necessary to legitimize the Iraq invasion, why did we keep going to them? Over and over?

If we didn't need help from all sides in what is perceived more and more to be a foundering operation, why was it - and it is - so important to keep asking for help?

And now that the administration finally seems to have realized they've earned themselves an unenviable reputation, are they refuting the very things they announced as fact a short while ago?

Those who think we did the right thing by playing cowboy and insisting we needed no one else are trying to rationalize an unplatable position. And losing. So far, we haven't won anything positive.

Ann Coulter? As a sure and reliable source? A notion born of desperation.

0 Replies

Craven, have you ever done a search on alltheweb.com with your stage name as the target?
Whoa i

0 Replies

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/osamabinforgotten22.jpg

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/whatmeworrywizard.jpg

0 Replies

I think Alfred E. Neuman had more brains.

0 Replies

Interesting to dig through.

http://www.state.gov/

0 Replies

Took the test several years ago. Decided on grad school instead. Their loss. Wink

0 Replies

The Left wing likes to posit the Washington Times against the Washington Post.

What they don't realize or don't want to realize is that the adversary of the Washington Post is not the Washington Times, but rather the Wall Street Journal.

0 Replies

More slaughter in Falluja. What a bloody farce. Kick out the Saddamists, appoint some good guy Iraqis, then kill them because they all look the same.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

hobitbob wrote:
Brand X, care to cite where that screed came from?

Well, if I knew what screed was, you experts in penis sizes use some strange words.

Main Entry: screed
Pronunciation: 'skrEd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English screde fragment, alteration of Old English scrEade -- more at SHRED
Date: circa 1789
1 a : a lengthy discourse b : an informal piece of writing
2 : a strip (as of plaster of the thickness planned for the coat) laid on as a guide
3 : a leveling device drawn over freshly poured concrete

0 Replies

Klustertruck

10 Iraqi policemen killed by US troops www.chinaview.cn 2003-09-12 19:40

　　BAGHDAD, Sept. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- A total of 10 Iraqi policemen were killed by US forces and five others injured at a checkpoint in western Iraq on Friday, a police source said.

　　Earlier witnesses said a dozen policemen were killed in US fire when they were chasing a group of gunmen on a highway near Fallujah, 50 km west of Baghdad.

　　The policemen drove a pick-up chasing a BMW which they believed carried four robbers, and only found themselves shot down by US soldiers at the checkpoint.

　　A crowd of local people later gathered at the cite to protest the killing.

　　On Wednesday, US forces also killed an Iraqi policeman and wounded another after their convoy came under attack near Fallujah.

US troops guarding checkpoints in Iraq often mistakenly caused innocent casualties as they were considered nervous about the unidentified assaults that have killed nearly 70 American soldiers since May 1, when US President George W. Bush announced the major battle in Iraq was over.

　　Last month, five members of an Iraqi family were slain at a checkpoint west of Baghdad when they were trying to drive home before curfew and did not hear the order to stop of US soldiers. Enditem

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

A) Hussein was effectively contained. He made no advances on any of his neighbors in the decade 1991-2001.

During which time his own people suffered greatly. Money from the food for oil program was used to rebuild Saddams palaces, and to sooth the lusts of his family and close friends. I think the advances he made just prior to 91 was an indication on Saddams lust for power.

hobitbob wrote:

B) It is beginning to look like Hussein had indeed destroyed his stock of WMD.

Yet he refused to make this claim, even as coalition forces waited on his doorstep ready to invade and knock him from power.

hobitbob wrote:

C) The Inspection team, led by Blix, was being allowed access that was far superior to previous acess.

Only after the threat from the US manifested itself in the form of 100,000 US service men and women ready to invade. It was a last ditch desperation move. Please don't try to glamorize Saddam. He was/is no hero.

hobitbob wrote:

D) The failure of this round of inspections is directly attributable to the bellicose attitude of the current US government. Bush "ordered" the inspectors out on the eve of invasion. This leads one to conclude that any other option besides invasion was never the goal of the US.

No, this leads one to conclude that after 12 years, and numerous UN resolutions, Saddam STILL refused to accept his defeat and let the UN do it's job.

hobitbob wrote:

E) Castro: The US has tried on numerous occasions to kill or remove him from power. These have all failed (If you want proof, the fact that he is still alive is a good start). Already impoverished, Cuba's government cannot survive Castro's death. Cuba is not a threat.

No one is saying Cuba is a threat, they are saying that Cuba is the only country in the western hemishpere that is not free. You would think that the number of people that are trying to leave Cuba might be an indicator of the living conditions there. Cuba will prosper once Castro passes on.

hobitbob wrote:

F) North Korea: Kim Jong Il is unpredictable. The Administration has not effectively dealt with him until teh past few weeks. Instead of focusing on N. Korean Nuclear capabilities in 2002, the administration was planning their petty war against Hussein. This will likely prove to be a horrible mistake.

N . Korea is posturing and has nothing to back it up. N. Korea has no natural resources in which in can deal with an economic blockade. N. Korea can be dealt with economically. N. Korea IS NOT Iraq.

0 Replies

Why would Bush feel that US national security interest were in jepardy in this small area at this time?
It' almost as if he was looking for or planning a fight and just needed a reason.

August 13, 2001

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

SUBJECT: Waiver of Sanctions for the Export of Select U.S. Munitions List U.S.-Origin Helicopter and Armored Personnel Carrier Spare Parts and Ammunition from the United States to Pakistan

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and consistent with Title IX of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-79), I hereby waive the application of the restrictions contained in sections 101 and 102 of the Arms Export Control Act, as they have been applied under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and determine and certify to the Congress that the application of such restrictions would not be in the national security interests of the United States:

With respect to Pakistan, insofar as such restriction would otherwise apply to the sale of certain specified U.S.-origin helicopter and armored personnel carrier spare parts and ammunition to Pakistan for use in its deployment in Sierra Leone in support of UN peacekeeping operations.

You are authorized and directed to transmit this determination and certification to the appropriate committees of the Congress and to arrange for its publication in the Federal Register.

GEORGE W. BUSH

[End]

This site is managed by the Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

http://www.state.gov/p/sa/rls/pr/2001/4542.htm

0 Replies

Found my own answer ....

Africa

0 Replies

Quote:

hobitbob wrote:
D) The failure of this round of inspections is directly attributable to the bellicose attitude of the current US government. Bush "ordered" the inspectors out on the eve of invasion. This leads one to conclude that any other option besides invasion was never the goal of the US.

No, this leads one to conclude that after 12 years, and numerous UN resolutions, Saddam STILL refused to accept his defeat and let the UN do it's job.

It was the imminent bombardment and invasion which necessitated withdrawing the inspectors. No matter how much the Americans hate the UN they were not going to kill their people on the job. Saddam did not throw out the inspectors, had he done so that might be cause for war. The inspectors themselves pleaded for more time to complete their work, but this was denied them as the war timetable took precedence. If they stayed

a) they might get killed -embarrassing
b) they might report no illegal weapons - again embarrassing
c) they might find illegal weapons and therefore have to be left in place to destroy them.

None of the above was compatible with Bush's invasion plans, plans that had been formulated years ago.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
hobitbob wrote:
D) The failure of this round of inspections is directly attributable to the bellicose attitude of the current US government. Bush "ordered" the inspectors out on the eve of invasion. This leads one to conclude that any other option besides invasion was never the goal of the US.

No, this leads one to conclude that after 12 years, and numerous UN resolutions, Saddam STILL refused to accept his defeat and let the UN do it's job.

It was the imminent bombardment and invasion which necessitated withdrawing the inspectors. No matter how much the Americans hate the UN they were not going to kill their people on the job. Saddam did not throw out the inspectors, had he done so that might be cause for war. The inspectors themselves pleaded for more time to complete their work, but this was denied them as the war timetable took precedence. If they stayed

a) they might get killed -embarrassing
b) they might report no illegal weapons - again embarrassing
c) they might find illegal weapons and therefore have to be left in place to destroy them.

None of the above was compatible with Bush's invasion plans, plans that had been formulated years ago.

In 12 years, the UN inspectors were unable to find anything and were repeatedly misled, lied to, and misdirected. What was going to change in 2 weeks?

0 Replies

The UN, US and Iraq IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know