Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

I'm glad we took action instead of trusting the UN and a mad man...

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's comparable to saying Bill C's lying destroyed the US, or "really" killed humans. I think, technically, he might have created another baby.....except that was not to happen as we all well know by now. Killing over 15,000 (conservative estimate, because nobody knows for sure), by Bush's attack of Iraq is supposed to justify the replacement of one man called Saddam? I think any child would say that was "over-kill." How many more American lives and our billions, plus the increased incidence of terrorism around the world are worth the pre-emptive attack on Iraq that was supposed to be for the destruction of Saddam's WMD's that doesn't exist? And conservatives want to compare this with Bill C's infidelity? It's not wonder the US is now in a sh*t hole.

Think of it this way...If Clinton was such a saint, shouldn't some of his sainthood rubbed off on Gore? Hell, he was second in charge during the glory years, right? Or, could it be that Clinton's lack of morals and integrity spurred a need for change from Clinton's tarnish that ruined Gore so badly he couldn't even win his home state? (I am sure that will get at least one whiny response about the popular election, so you can hold it in...I am aware of what you will say) Clinton is directly responsible for the situation we are in today. You can kid yourself all you want.

Terrorism from al queda? Clinton's fault.
Economic recession? Clinton's fault.
High unemployment? Clinton's fault.
War in Iraq? Bush's fault, but Clinton didn't help the situation...
Environmental problems? Clinton's fault.
Reason my dog sheds so much? Clinton's fault.
Why do the yankees have so much money? Clinton's fault.

Sorry about that..I just got rolling along...

0 Replies

McG's quote, "Do you believe we could have kept the no-fly zone and inspections up indefinitely? The only reason we know of the true nature of Saddam's WMD's is because of the invasion." To have saved over !5,500 lives (over 10,000 innocent one's in Iraq, and over 500 of our service people) would have been worth it. Don't forget, this administration "claimed" they knew where WMD's were being built, but we all know that the "intelligence" provided to the inspectors never panned out - even after "major conflicts over."

0 Replies

I should remind you that the UN inspectors were in Iraq and doing their job. How do you suppose Saddam was going to manufacture WMD's.
McG said

Quote:

. Pakistan is practically giving away nuclear weapons, we found all the plans necessary for construction of WMD's, and we found everything necessary to build WMD's

.

Is the fact that Pakistan is giving away plans for the construction of WMD's? Something that has recently been uncovered. Your justification in hindsight for our invasion of Iraq? Even the dodo in the white house has not claimed that.

0 Replies

Camille wrote:

Scrat wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Integrity, How much "integrity" does it take to invade a sovereign nation.

When the government of the sovereign nation in question only remained in power because it promised to abide by a ceasefire it then spent 12 years breaking, it was a show of integrity to step up and honor our obligation to go in and take him out.

It wasn't OUR obligation, it was the obligation of the UN. There was no direct threat to the US, ever.

If you insist on pretending that the UN rules the world, then according to UN 1441 and 687 it was the obligation of "member states" and those member states were "authorized" to "use all necessary means" to force Iraq to comply with its obligations. Some here want to suggest that those who drafted 1441 and 687 were stupid and poorly skilled at doing such things and that we can't assume that these words mean what they seem to mean. I find that argument absurd.

Of course, the other way to look at this is to recognize that the UN does not run the world, that the US is a sovereign nation and has the right to act in its own best interests when it so chooses. Those nations that disagree with our decisions are welcome to do whatever they, as sovereign nations, deem appropriate to register their displeasure.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Pakistan is practically giving away nuclear weapons, we found all the plans necessary for construction of WMD's, and we found everything necessary to build WMD's. You figure out what he would do with 'em.

Tss, tss - the US is just making Pakistan "major non-NATO ally"!

0 Replies

That is what is referred to as gotcha!

0 Replies

This just gets more and more hilarious -

0 Replies

Scrat
The pretext was that Saddam was not complying with the UN directive. That was blown to hell when Saddam complied. Of course that meant nothing to Bush since he and his brain trust were determined to invade Iraq. The cry became regime change. IMO the regime change required was and is entrenched in Washington.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:
Pakistan is practically giving away nuclear weapons, we found all the plans necessary for construction of WMD's, and we found everything necessary to build WMD's. You figure out what he would do with 'em."
********************************
What this means in practical terms is that Pakistan can now purchase weapon systems from the US. Wink

0 Replies

BrandX

Quote:

I'm glad we took action instead of trusting the UN and a mad man...

We took action because our government is in the hands of an idiotic loose cannon.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Camille wrote:
Scrat wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Integrity, How much "integrity" does it take to invade a sovereign nation.

When the government of the sovereign nation in question only remained in power because it promised to abide by a ceasefire it then spent 12 years breaking, it was a show of integrity to step up and honor our obligation to go in and take him out.

It wasn't OUR obligation, it was the obligation of the UN. There was no direct threat to the US, ever.

If you insist on pretending that the UN rules the world, then according to UN 1441 and 687 it was the obligation of "member states" and those member states were "authorized" to "use all necessary means" to force Iraq to comply with its obligations. Some here want to suggest that those who drafted 1441 and 687 were stupid and poorly skilled at doing such things and that we can't assume that these words mean what they seem to mean. I find that argument absurd.

Of course, the other way to look at this is to recognize that the UN does not run the world, that the US is a sovereign nation and has the right to act in its own best interests when it so chooses. Those nations that disagree with our decisions are welcome to do whatever they, as sovereign nations, deem appropriate to register their displeasure.

I guess I get the feeling that some think the US rules the world and that's not true either. As a member nation the US participated in a democratic vote and the decision was NOT to go to war at that time. Democracy in action.

Nobody has been able to come up with anything where the US was under any direct threat. Acting "in our best interests" would be strengthening the borders, redoing immigration law, taking care of our own citizens. In this case, the "best interest" was to control the oil, payback the big companies with contracts they didn't have to bid on, and to get one for daddy. I see more best interests of GW than anything for America.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Some here want to suggest that those who drafted 1441 and 687 were stupid and poorly skilled at doing such things and that we can't assume that these words mean what they seem to mean.

Some here are merely suggesting that we can't assume those words to mean what you think they mean.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

The pretext was that Saddam was not complying with the UN directive. That was blown to hell when Saddam complied.

In your opinion, were there, or were there not glaring gaps and omissions in the accounting of Iraqs WMD that Saddam handed over to the UN?

0 Replies

Camille wrote:

I guess I get the feeling that some think the US rules the world and that's not true either.

Just in case you are referring to me, I don't think I've said anything like that. I did note that the US is a sovereign nation with a legitimate right to act in its own best interests without leave from any other body or nation.

Camille wrote:

As a member nation the US participated in a democratic vote and the decision was NOT to go to war at that time. Democracy in action.

Can you send me a link to the results of this vote so I can check it out? Thanks.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I should remind you that the UN inspectors were in Iraq and doing their job. How do you suppose Saddam was going to manufacture WMD's.
McG said

Quote:
. Pakistan is practically giving away nuclear weapons, we found all the plans necessary for construction of WMD's, and we found everything necessary to build WMD's
.

Is the fact that Pakistan is giving away plans for the construction of WMD's? Something that has recently been uncovered. Your justification in hindsight for our invasion of Iraq? Even the dodo in the white house has not claimed that.

And I should remind you that was only because of the US armed forces massing for invasion.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Some here want to suggest that those who drafted 1441 and 687 were stupid and poorly skilled at doing such things and that we can't assume that these words mean what they seem to mean.

Some here are merely suggesting that we can't assume those words to mean what you think they mean.

No, some here are merely suggesting that those words can't possibly mean what I think they mean. (Of course, these people don't offer anything to back up their position other than the fact that they think it.)

0 Replies

Rumsfeld speaks...

0 Replies

Speaking of international law experts, here's one.
http://www.aijac.org.au/updates/Mar-03/030303.html

0 Replies

McGentrix

Quote:

And I should remind you that was only because of the US armed forces massing for invasion.

True, however since we were able to accomplish what we were allegedly seeking with just a threat. The question remains why did we invade. Is life so cheap in the eyes our president?

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know