0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 12:16 pm
This of course is just opinion, but it is my opinion Blix, seeking to ensure and prolong his perq-filled moment in the spotlight, had an agenda other than that spelled out in the charter given him by The UN. In no way would he serve that agenda should he in fact unequivocably validate either the US or the Iraqi position, hence, he persisted in equivocation.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 12:19 pm
Quote:
And your and your neighboring governments don't.


I never said this please dont put words in my mouth.

Quote:
Yes, none of us here in the states are really afraid of another 911 happening to us personally. We want that damn oil whether we survive to enjoy it or not.


Well I'm certainly concerned about an attack in London. I never suggested these Muslim fanatics aren't real and dangerous...again don't distort what I said.


Quote:
Maybe, just maybe, it is all those who think like you do who are the dimwits.


A possibility, but unlikely. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 12:22 pm
I gotta say I don't happen to think either side of the debate is championed by dimwits to exclusion of other wits.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 12:25 pm
Lightwizard has already found an article about what I was alluding to. The fact is that Hussien began co-operating - albiet reluctantly and haltingly - with inspectors in mid-January and carried through to March, when the first bombs fell. There was a clear disconnect between his actions and the impetus for war, reducing your 'reasonable cause' argument to inanity.

timberlandko wrote:
This of course is just opinion, but it is my opinion Blix, seeking to ensure and prolong his perq-filled moment in the spotlight, had an agenda other than that spelled out in the charter given him by The UN. In no way would he serve that agenda should he in fact unequivocably validate either the US or the Iraqi position, hence, he persisted in equivocation.


Some would call it self-delusion when one makes up unverifiable supports for his arguments after being confronted with contrary facts. Some would say. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 12:26 pm
Can't resist..... Must type on keyboard...... Ahhhhhh...... Confused

Well, now that we have established that everybody and his mother (and the horse you rode in on too) believed that Saddam was a danger and did indeed possess WMD's, let's bring over from the other thread the argument that
Even so, we should be off chasing the putrefying body of Osama bin Laden crushed between the rocks of Tora Bora, instead of destabilizing Iraq.
Uhhh... No.
To quote myself:

Quote:
With the destruction of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq, the United States has removed two Fascist regimes that were directly hostile to the United States.

In doing so, Iran, another hostile state, is now surrounded by nations that do not share its views of hegemony by terrorism; that do not share its views of Islam - Wilayat Al-Faqih, Rule by the Jurist, a new Shia cult invented by Khomeini in 1964 while he lived in Najaf, which is in Iraq; and who do not share Iran's views of the desirability of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Likewise, Syria (and its client state Lebanon) is now surrounded by nations that are inimicable to its interests.
Which is why Syria is sending its Sunni Muslims to murder Shia Muslims in Iraq and Iran is sending its Shia Muslims to murder Sunni Muslims in Iraq.
These are lovely people.
Other countries in the world such as France and Russia, opposed and still oppose these actions because they were having oily intercourse with Saddam. They resent their Oil For Fraud money being cut off.

In the meantime, Saudi Arabia now has to deal with the consequences of its own promotion of Islamic terror and fascism. Again, with Iraq on its border, it is also surrounded by nations (with the exception of Yemen) that find its Wahhabi national cult abbhorrent.
The Wahhabis murdered hundreds of thousandsof Shia Muslims in Northern Saudi Arabia and Southern Iraq in the last century.
They destroyed (the current ruling family of Jordan) the Hashemites who controlled Mecca and Medina.
Saudi Arabia has been put "on notice" by its neighbors through the actions of the United States.
Are these imperfect solutions? Of course. What is a better solution?

Islamic Fascist Death Cultists wish to murder me; they wish to murder my family; they wish to murder my community; they wish to murder my nation; and they wish to murder all humanity that might stand against them.
They must be stopped.
President Bush is attempting to stop them in the most intelligent and useful manner possible.
Any better suggestions?
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 12:31 pm
Moishe3rd wrote:
Can't resist..... Must type on keyboard...... Ahhhhhh...... Confused

Well, now that we have established that everybody and his mother (and the horse you rode in on too) believed that Saddam was a danger and did indeed possess WMD's, let's bring over from the other thread the argument that
Even so, we should be off chasing the putrefying body of Osama bin Laden crushed between the rocks of Tora Bora, instead of destabilizing Iraq.
Uhhh... No.


Your post makes less sense and has less context than this short story:

Sarah opened the door to the oven, and slid the cookie sheet onto the upper rack. Slowly, she reached for the temperature knob, and paused.

She stared at the knob for a few seconds, withdrew her hand, and yelled, "MOM!"

Her mother came running to the kitchen, her bathrobe hanging open, curlers dangling from her unkempt hair. "Yes Sarah, what is it?" she asked.

Sarah frowned sheepishly. "I forgot what temperature to bake chocolate chip cookies at," Sarah said.

"Oh honey," said her mother, "Even jocks know what temperature to bake chocolate chip cookies at."

Sarah's mother laughed and laughed, bathrobe akimbo.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 12:42 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Yes, none of us here in the states are really afraid of another 911 happening to us personally. We want that damn oil whether we survive to enjoy it or not. Shocked
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 12:46 pm
timberlandko wrote:
This of course is just opinion, but it is my opinion Blix, seeking to ensure and prolong his perq-filled moment in the spotlight, had an agenda other than that spelled out in the charter given him by The UN. In no way would he serve that agenda should he in fact unequivocably validate either the US or the Iraqi position, hence, he persisted in equivocation.


And that cynical opinion can harbor an equal and opposite cynical opinion that the Administration was getting information that the intelligence they received was flawed and it's now or never -- cross the bridge of it coming into serious question when they come to it. An equally reasonable scenerio. Neither can be proven but it's coming closer and closer in proving Blix was right and Bush Inc. was not.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 12:57 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Neither can be proven but it's coming closer and closer in proving Blix was right and Bush Inc. was not.


Which is -kind of- proven by the responses of some ( :wink: ), which seem to be written in the stadium when the rug is going to be pulled out from under their feet.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 01:26 pm
LW, I happen to think the contrary of your assertion is proving to be the case.
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 02:18 pm
Oops. My bad.
So, you do take issue with the fact that the Democrats, specifically Clintion, Gore and Kerry, since 1992 considered Saddam Hussein a major threat and considered the probability that he had WMD's to be real and imminent?
I'm sorry.
You contend this idea... How?

IronLionZion wrote:
Moishe3rd wrote:
Can't resist..... Must type on keyboard...... Ahhhhhh...... Confused

Well, now that we have established that everybody and his mother (and the horse you rode in on too) believed that Saddam was a danger and did indeed possess WMD's, let's bring over from the other thread the argument that
Even so, we should be off chasing the putrefying body of Osama bin Laden crushed between the rocks of Tora Bora, instead of destabilizing Iraq.
Uhhh... No.


Your post makes less sense and has less context than this short story:

Sarah opened the door to the oven, and slid the cookie sheet onto the upper rack. Slowly, she reached for the temperature knob, and paused.

She stared at the knob for a few seconds, withdrew her hand, and yelled, "MOM!"

Her mother came running to the kitchen, her bathrobe hanging open, curlers dangling from her unkempt hair. "Yes Sarah, what is it?" she asked.

Sarah frowned sheepishly. "I forgot what temperature to bake chocolate chip cookies at," Sarah said.

"Oh honey," said her mother, "Even jocks know what temperature to bake chocolate chip cookies at."

Sarah's mother laughed and laughed, bathrobe akimbo.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 04:05 pm
IronLionZion wrote:
Except for the fact that Hans Blix asserted Iraq was fully co-operating in November effectively negates your argument.

Since when is Hans Blix an authority on this matter? But just for the fun of it let's assume Hans was correct. Blix negates only his own arguments.

That was November when?

I assume you mean November 2002!

November 2002 was 14 months after 9/11; 13 months after the invasion of Afghanistan. Up until that November Saddam wasn't cooperating. What led Saddam to change his behavior and appear to cooperate? Hmmmm? Could it be that he believed he had by that November successfully hidden the WMD stuff for use on another day.

Sure, then he might have said to 'Ol Hans, bring on your inspectors, you won't find anything. Laughing

FACT
Saddam committed in the 1991 Armistice Agreement to destroy/disassemble all the WMD stuff he had and provide evidence he had accomplished that. Even by Blix's alleged November, Saddam had provided zero evidence that he had destroyed/disassembled all the WMD stuff. In fact, even by Bush's March 2003 Saddam had provided zero evidence that he had destroyed/disassembled all the WMD stuff.

OPINION
The absence of evidence that Saddam and Osama had a "formal relationship" is not evidence that Saddam and Osama did not have a productive informal relationship. Anyone here not aware of the numerous news stories describing various incidents of this informal relationship has not been paying adequate attention. I've posted evidence of their informal relationship myself in Forum VI of this series several times.

A QUESTION
All those of you who continually villify Bush, ought to ask yourselves this question:
How would you have proceded to stop another 9/11? How would you have stopped the financing, training and equiping of 19 more terrorists, armed with plastic box cutters, from hijacking more airliners to use as missles; or prevent airliner, train, ship, truck or automobile baggage from carrying a time or radio controlled conventional explosive bomb designed to go off over, near, or in a heavily populated area?

THEORY
Good offense wins wars, good defense slows losing wars, maybe long enough to mount a good offense.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 04:30 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Quote:
And your and your neighboring governments don't.


I never said this please dont put words in my mouth.


Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT?

I didn't put words in your mouth! It is you who misconstrued my sarcasm and put words in my mouth. My point was that villifying the US 'cause it wants oil for its enterprises and pretending that's the Bush administrations primary motive for attacking Iraq is so damn hypocritical as to bring an honest mind to a temporary functional stand still.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Quote:
Yes, none of us here in the states are really afraid of another 911 happening to us personally. We want that damn oil whether we survive to enjoy it or not.


Well I'm certainly concerned about an attack in London. I never suggested these Muslim fanatics aren't real and dangerous...again don't distort what I said.


You alleged Bush had what amount to dishonorable motives, not self-defense, for attacking Iraq. My response was a sarcastic response to your ridiculous allegations.


Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
[
Quote:
Maybe, just maybe, it is all those who think like you do who are the dimwits.


A possibility, but unlikely. Very Happy


You continue to provide more evidence that my maybe is a likely. Unlikely? Based on what? Your ability to read minds? [Hay, that was more sarcasm] :wink:
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 04:31 pm
from http://www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm

Quote:
The entire phony Iraq crisis weapons of mass destruction, germ labs, dire threats to America were all concocted by neocons as part of their long-term campaign to push America into a Mideast war to destroy Israel's enemies. That, and the lust to control oil, were the two driving forces behind the war
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 04:38 pm
Clinton and Gore didn't go and kill over 10,000 innocent Iraqi's on false information.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 04:44 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Quote:
The entire phony Iraq crisis weapons of mass destruction, germ labs, dire threats to America were all concocted by neocons as part of their long-term campaign to push America into a Mideast war to destroy Israel's enemies. That, and the lust to control oil, were the two driving forces behind the war


Well that settles it then, doesn't it? Here's more from your source:
Quote:
Foreign Correspondent
INSIDE TRACK ON WORLD NEWS
by international syndicated columnist & broadcaster Eric Margolis


FAHRENHEIT 9/11:
LIAR, LIAR, YOUR PANTS ARE ON FIRE!
Copyright: Eric S. Margolis, 2004
5 July 2004

NEW YORK - Michael Moore's blockbuster hit, `Fahrenheit 9/11,' may not be an epochal political film, like `Battelship Potempkin,' or `The Battle of Algiers,' but it certainly ranks as the most exciting and searing American political movie since the superb, eerily prophetic `Wag the Dog.'

In fact, `Wag the Dog' and `Fahrenheit' make perfect bookends encompassing the fraud, dishonesty, and Orwellian manipulation of George W. Bush's failed presidency. Moore keeps turning over Washington rocks, exposing with furious intensity a squirming, slithering underside of deceit and illicit dealings that will outrage thoughtful, educated viewers. Some of the accusations he makes are dead on target; others, questionable, at best.


Which of these guys, Michael Moore or Eric S. Margolis is the more reliable source? Laughing How do you know? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 04:49 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Clinton and Gore didn't go and kill over 10,000 innocent Iraqi's on false information.


Yes, that's true. Crying or Very sad These kindhearted well meaning folks merely sat by while Saddam killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Osama killed hundreds of Americans. "Now let's not over react!" Rolling Eyes

Wait! Come to think of it all that happened based on what Saddam and Osama thought was good information.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 04:52 pm
from http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm

Quote:
Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 04:57 pm
Yes, steve, we americans are so dumb that we want oil more than we want to stay alive and preserve our liberty. [aah, steve, that's more sarcasm]
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 05:02 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I gotta say I don't happen to think either side of the debate is championed by dimwits to exclusion of other wits.


Steve may think otherwise too.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

And it is my opinion that the United States has embarked on a programme of adjusting the world order to suit itself. Its doing this because it must do so, specifically because oil is peaking, and secondly because it can; there being no countervailing power to stop it.

It is my opinion that Bush came into office with a plan to attack Iraq. It is also my opinion that 911 is being exploited by the American regime as justification (in the guise of the so called war on terror) for military action wherever and whenever it is deemed necessary in furtherance of those objectives.

It is also my opinion that Bush is an incompetent fool who is only dimly aware of what he is doing.


In truth, in this he didn't accuse anyone here of being a dimwit. But I did suggest the possibility that some here might be. Shame on me. I apologize, sorta.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.54 seconds on 03/14/2025 at 02:05:02