Think before you answer these questions

mysteryman wrote:

Security Council??? Thats meant as a joke,right?

Certainly not by me!

Quote:

Name one single mission the UN has undertaken that was successful AND did not include the US?

For what reason?

I did not say the US shouldn't have gotten involved -- just that I would have preferred the Security Council give the go-ahead. That is the way things are supposed to work.

Of course, you may be advocating "lying to the country and the world" as an alternative -- but I would disagree with that being an improvement.

Quote:

Even the UN has said that they need US for dupport and to appear legitimate and strong.

I DID NOT SUGGEST THAT THE US NOT GET INVOLVED. JUST THAT THEY NOT GET INVOLVED WITHOUT THE SECURITY COUNCIL'S GO AHEAD!

Quote:

Besides,there were several UNSC resolutions already on the books.

Would you be so kind as to point out the one that says George Bush was designated as interpreter of the resolution -- and final arbiter of how and when it should be implemented?

Short of that, what difference does it make that there were resolutions on the books?

0 Replies

Iraqi Death Toll, Health Perils Assessed by Medical Group

0 Replies

I agree with the others.

0 Replies

Frank,
There are laws (resolutions) on the books that say murder is wrong in the US.Show me where it says the police are supposed to interpret that law and enforce it. You cant use the argument that Bush and the US were not supposed to interpret those resolutions.They were written in clear,concise language,and were very specific.Are you saying that UNSC resolutions are supposed to be meaningless unless the UN decides what they mean?
Also,under the terms on the Gulf War cease fire,Iraq was supposed to account for ALL of their WMD,they didnt.Every country in the UNSC believed that they hadnt,and the UN inspectors even said they didnt.So,you could argue that this was an extension of the Gulf War,because by not abiding by ALL the terms of the cease fire,that opened the door for the world to finish the job.
You still havent answered the question...is it a good thing that Saddam is out of power,knowing what we know? The mass graves,the use of WMD against his own people and against Iran,etc. That is a simple question,and all it requires is a yes or no answer.It isnt a difficult question.
And,if its a good thing,and since the US was the only country that could do it,why are you complaining about how it was done?

Before you say Iraq was no threat to us,neither was Germany or Italy,but on Dec.8 1941 we declared war on both of them.Should we not have done that either?

0 Replies

Hindsight is a wonderful thing to have when you want to evaluate history.

Foresite is a wonderful thing to have to avoid others hindsight.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Frank,
There are laws (resolutions) on the books that say murder is wrong in the US.Show me where it says the police are supposed to interpret that law and enforce it. You cant use the argument that Bush and the US were not supposed to interpret those resolutions.They were written in clear,concise language,and were very specific.

With all the respect in the world, Mysteryman, you do not know what you are talking about here.

The wording of those resolutions was debated almost to death because several of the countries that had to sign on were reluctant to put a carte blanche resolution into motion.

The resolutions for the most part threatened VERY VERY unspecific reactions in the event of non-compliance -- and that is the only way they could have passed.

Three of the five permanent members of the Security Council indicated that they thought action such as the United States was contemplating (and eventually took) was precipitous --and probably unlawful.

Your policeman analogy was silly.

George Bush and the people who pull his strings LIED to us --the people of the United States and the people of the world. It has become obvious that they knew goddam well that they were lying.

If this was so lawful -- and pursuant to resolutions, as you claim, why was there a reason to lie about things?

Quote:

Are you saying that UNSC resolutions are supposed to be meaningless unless the UN decides what they mean?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. And I can only scratch my head in amazement that you are not saying the same thing.

They are UN resolutions. Who else is qualified to decide what they mean?

What if Castro decided to "interpret" a UN resolution? How would you feel about that?

Why should the moron and his handlers be treated any differently?

Quote:

You still havent answered the question...is it a good thing that Saddam is out of power,knowing what we know?

This is not an interrogation -- and you are not a prosecutor. AND YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS.

Quote:

The mass graves,the use of WMD against his own people and against Iran,etc. That is a simple question,and all it requires is a yes or no answer.It isnt a difficult question.
And,if its a good thing,and since the US was the only country that could do it,why are you complaining about how it was done?

Mostly because I'm not a jerkoff -- and it makes sense to complain about how it was done, because I think we have established precedents with this moronic, ill-advised adventure that will haunt humanity in the years to come.

That is why!

Quote:

Before you say Iraq was no threat to us,neither was Germany or Italy,but on Dec.8 1941 we declared war on both of them.Should we not have done that either?

Gimme a goddam break, will ya! If the war had been a football game instead of a war - the score would have been 1098 to 3. Iraq presented as much a threat to the United States as Shirley Temple would have been to Mike Tyson.

Mysteryman, you want to defend the moron for whatever reason.

Good for you. Not only is it your right - it is a thing I admire. One has to admire anyone who will stand up for people like George Bush.

But you really have got to get your ducks in a row if that is your intention, because right now, you are shooting blanks.

Sorry to be so blunt with you today -- but you caught me on a day when I had a 3 hour and 15 minute frost delay this morning. I was not a happy golfer -- and this response of yours didn't do anything to improve my disposition.

0 Replies

Quote:

Sorry to be so blunt with you today -- but you caught me on a day when I had a 3 hour and 15 minute frost delay this morning. I was not a happy golfer -- and this response of yours didn't do anything to improve my disposition.

Geesh Frank - you don't have to bring your frustrations to here, you can always move to a climate where they do not have internet :wink: Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Quote:

You still havent answered the question...is it a good thing that Saddam is out of power,knowing what we know?

I am compelled to respond again, and I believe I answered you already.
But you want a simple yes or no?
If I say "no" there will be a tendency to jump to the IMPROPER conclusion that I want Saddam in power.

If I say "yes" it may precipitate equally improper follow-up questions like

Quote:

...if its a good thing,and since the US was the only country that could do it,why are you complaining about how it was done?

saddam -- bad,
propping him --bad,
keeping him in power when it served us --bad,
removing him BY A PROCESS THAT PUT US IN A WORSE SITUATION THAT HAVING HIM IN POWER -- bad.

Since you added this caveat,

Quote:

knowing what we know

Do you know that one reason mass graves are there were percipitated by US allowing Saddam to surpress the uprisings that US was inciting Kurds and Shiites do against him in the first Gulf war?

Do you know that US companies (are you familiar with Haliburton?)supplied the Chemical and Biological material to Saddam's military programs as late as 2 years ago?

Do you know that US was one of the primary supporters of Saddam hussein for 30 years, and during ALL of the WMD atrocities of Saddam?

Do you know that the real threat to the US, AL QAEDA had no ties with Iraq, until US invaded Iraq, removed Saddam, and created the perfect rallying point for it?

Yes or no? or do you find these simple questions hard to answer without qualifying your answers?

0 Replies

gravy,
I dont find it hard to answer your questions.Yes,I knew all of that.None of that is new information.
But,are you saying that since we gave him the material,we are responsible?

If I give you a car and you run someone ver of your own free will,does that make responsible.
Maybe it does in yours,but not in mine.

Frank,Germany and Italy were no threat to the US.Why did we declare war on them?
That is a legitimate question.If it was ok to declare war on them,even though they had not attacked us and were not a threat,then it must be ok to declare war on Iraq.
After all,declaring war on Germany and Italy was a pre-emptive move,they had not attacked us,had they?
I see no difference.If you are going to attack Bush,then you also have to attack Roosevelt for starting our involvement in WW2.

0 Replies

Mysteryman,

As it is said in Princess Bride:
"You have a truly dizzying intellect"

These a-priori pieces of information would normally prevent such sophistry-infused line of questioning you began.

Quote:

It seems to me that if they are truly opposed to the war,then they should be upset that Saddam is gone.

You can rest assured that this logical construct fails in my case.

Quote:

I ask these because so many people have opposed the war,and I wonder exactly what it is they oppose.

It rather seems your motive (or at least dispostion) is instead to make the statement that simply says "War is good cuz saddam is gone".

It would be a refreshing frank statement of opinion with which I could just disagree, because again it is a failed logical construct.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Frank,Germany and Italy were no threat to the US.Why did we declare war on them?

Germany in particular -- and its ally, Italy, were industrialized and well on the path to WORLD conquest when we declared war on them -- and that was done ONLY after the provocation of a dastardly and direct attack on the United States by one of the Axis nations.

If, after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, we had retaliated by declaring war on Argentina -- wouldn't even you realize that the response was off-base?

Iraq did not attack us.

What is so difficult about that for you to comprehend?

Quote:

That is a legitimate question.If it was ok to declare war on them,even though they had not attacked us and were not a threat,then it must be ok to declare war on Iraq. After all,declaring war on Germany and Italy was a pre-emptive move,they had not attacked us,had they?
I see no difference.If you are going to attack Bush,then you also have to attack Roosevelt for starting our involvement in WW2.

You gotta be kidding, right?

0 Replies

1. Is the fact that Saddam Hussein is gone a good thing?
Yes for George Bush. For the rest of the United States No. Iraq was never a serious threat to U.S.

2.Was it a good thing that we did it,or a bad thing?
Definitely a bad thing. We have set up a precedent that by declaring a country has weapons of mass destruction allows the U.S. to attack it. We must remember that the U.S. has the most weapons of mass destruction. The world can unite and declare the U.S. is the enemy and attack us based on the same reason that we are using for attacking Iraq.

This is as simple as I can put the answers to your questions.

0 Replies

husker wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
To feed a child I decide to kill 4000 people and use their money.

Is it good to feed a child?

Isolating something from the bigger picture is absurd.

Was it good to kill thousands of Iraqis? << example of one such isolation.

There's been over 4000 Iraqis killed by US soilders??

Actually, there's been over 8000. But what's a few thousand innocent deaths between allies? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

How is my question wrong?
I did not say that those opposed to the war wanted Hussein in power. I was asking if that is the case.
Also,I wanted to know if you opposed us (the US) doing it,or if you were opposed to the fact it was done at all.If you are opposed to us doing it,then who should have done it?
There is nothing wrong with the questions at all.I phrased them exactly the way I meant to.

I may have even supported it, if Bush just came out and said, he's a dictator, and a murderer, and it's about time the US stood up for democracy. But instead, they lied, and lied, and lied. And the only reason they DID do it, was because of oil. There's plenty of murdering dictators in the world, but is the US going to go after them? Not unless they've got oil.

So exactly how did this geological miracle occur? How did US oil manage to get under Iraqi soil?

0 Replies

Frank, and mysteryman, the US did not declare war on Germany and Italy, they declared war on the US, by virtue of an alliance with Japan. The US reciprocated.

0 Replies

342 Iraqi's and 404 Americans lost their lives in this war.

Sadam Hussein, on the other hand, murdered 600,000 Iraqi's.

Reading this Iraqi's weblog might enlighten some, about the good or bad of this war.

0 Replies

katya8 wrote:

342 Iraqi's and 404 Americans lost their lives in this war.

Sadam Hussein, on the other hand, murdered 600,000 Iraqi's.

Reading this Iraqi's weblog might enlighten some, about the good or bad of this war.

It does not matter how many Iraqi's Saddam Hussein killed. If he killed a billion, that would not make the way we entered this war any more legitimate.

And exactly where did you get the information that only "342 Iraqis" died in this war.

0 Replies

Quote, "I wonder exactly what it is they oppose?"

I oppose the illegitimate invasion and complete take over of another sovereign country,which violated international law.

0 Replies

Thank you, these are the very reasons why I as a liberal backed this war.

I disagree with Bush's approach, the reasons he offered up, the motivations he had (oil), his failure to do it in a way more acceptable to our now former allies. But I don't disagree with the outcome that the war achieved. Would I've prefered if Saddam was taken out in a more multilateral effect, in a way that didn't piss off the world, by someone with more diplomatic skills than Bush? But we rarely get everything we want. Iraqis are happy with Saddam gone. And both the US and the world are a better place with him gone. That's all that really matter at the end of the day.

And I think this thread is a perfect example of why more diverse viewpoints are needed and how conservatives get ganged up on so quickly and are forced to leave.

0 Replies

Nobody is ever forced to leave!

0 Replies

Think before you answer these questions

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know