1
   

Are You Watching Any Of The Inauguration?

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 03:13 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
no plans to invade iraq before 9/11 ?
Who we shadow boxing DTOM? Does someone dispute this?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 09:24 pm
no shadow boxing bill. several have disputed it when someone says something like " the administration came into office with plans to invade iraq". then they get hopped on.

it has come up even on this thread, man.

so, i provide evidence that several heavy hitters in the admin talked openly of it way before bush entered office.

it's their words, not mine.

just trying to put the truth to the assertion, and providing backup.
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 10:00 pm
DTOM, some people can't handle the Truth... (habitual Liars and delusional maniacs, for example).

Some people can't abide the Truth at all.

Apologists, minions, flunkies and propagandists see Truth as an adversary.

When warned, in advance, of the inevitable Iraqui quagmire, they scoffed and labeled the dissenters as "unpatriotic"... next, they mobilized the Pep Squad and then... shipped other people off to war.

"Diversionary Tactics"...
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 10:01 pm
Having plans to invade, and having plans to address a neglected problem are not identical.
0 Replies
 
Magus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 10:21 pm
"Why, yer honor, the smoking gun is purely circumstantial evidence!"
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 10:26 pm
He made it public knowledge that he planned to address Hussein and the lagging Resolutions during his first campaign. He implied it could be a diplomatic solution, a military solution...but he would address it.

He did what he said he would do.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 10:42 pm
Magus, as usual you're trying to cover for being poorly informed with idiotic ideological slights. That dog won't hunt.

DTOM Quixote, you are making a pointless point. 1998? Desert Viper was ordered as part of Desert Thunder during Desert Fox in 1998. The invasion was called off a cool 8 minutes before we were set to start hurling Tomahawks on the surface to make way for it. Of course there was plans for an invasion. Clinton would have had to be retarded to not want plans for an invasion... and after the fool called it off at the last second, he let Saddam run amuck for the balance of his term leaving Bush no hard evidence and forcing the CIA to fill in the gap with educated guesses instead of the men on the ground that Clinton and the UN let Saddam get away with tossing. This isn't opinion or any of that hyper-partisan crap you might get from Magus; it's historical fact.
Source worth getting familiar with if you like debating this issue. Idea

Your plan revelation is a non-starter. Of course there was a plan and it damn well should have been used while we were strategically better off instead of playing wag the dog for 4 days and then ignoring the situation leaving the next administration with only guesses at what may have transpired in the last couple years. Get your facts in order if you're going to provide them like it's some kind of scoop. It's okay to disagree with the war, but it's silly to re-write history to try to and justify your disagreement. Idea
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 06:23 am
DTOM's point is well made. The fact that Clinton called off a ground war doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. We don't know why he called it off. The people who were advocating multiple theatre wars before Bush came into office are in positions of decision making authority now and have been in those positions since Bush took office. 9-11 provided them the marketing they needed to sell the war to the American people. If the war was so wonderfully justified, there would have been no need to oversell the it. The fact of the matter is that violating UN resolutions, and even having weapons of mass destruction, have not historically been grounds for invasion or assassination.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 09:26 am
FreeDuck wrote:
DTOM's point is well made. The fact that Clinton called off a ground war doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. We don't know why he called it off.
It makes little difference. The FACT that we came within 8 minutes of executing a war plan constitutes undeniable proof of a need for same.
Btw, DTOM's point was well made... in that DTOM stopped short of drawing faulty conclusions...

FreeDuck wrote:
The people who were advocating multiple theatre wars before Bush came into office are in positions of decision making authority now and have been in those positions since Bush took office.
This is no revelation. It is a FACT that is news to none of us. This is why I called DTOM's well made point; pointless.

FreeDuck wrote:
9-11 provided them the marketing they needed to sell the war to the American people. If the war was so wonderfully justified, there would have been no need to oversell the it.
This is a Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). I agree the war was oversold... but that in no way proves it had to be.
Watch:
Sally bought a new car the other day. The salesman told her it was the highest quality car made this year.

This salesmen's over selling may or may not have even influenced Sally's decision. Suffice to say it would be false to say: Sally wouldn't have bought the car if the salesman hadn't over sold it. Non Sequitur.

Btw, any sales manager worth a nickel will tell you that overselling not only doesn't sell more cars, but can actually sell less. A good salesmen will draw your attention to something undeniably good... and use a heap of well thought out Strawmen to illustrate it. :wink:

FreeDuck wrote:
The fact of the matter is that violating UN resolutions, and even having weapons of mass destruction, have not historically been grounds for invasion or assassination.
Shocked Did you sleep through the cold War? This is simply not true... and it's too irrelevant to quibble about. But come on Freeduck, what then, was Clinton's grounds for Desert Viper? And what was the justification for Desert Thunder? If what you say is true, why was there no complaint from the UN at that time? Are you aware that was a Multi-National Force? Furthermore, where did you get the idea there needs to be a historical precedent anyway? Confused

I suspect you've heard "the War was illegal" so many times, by so many respected persons, that you think an actual law exists, and that we violated it. Not so. If you wish to dispute this, please cite the statute we broke and explain how our actions met the criteria for a finding of guilt. Remember to use only FACT's, because layman opinions have no bearing in a Court of Law. We could play he said, she said till we're old and gray, but neither of us will provide the actual law from the International equivalent to the "State Statutes" or "Federal Statutes"... because there is no such thing.

The very best argument I've ever heard for your "side" is that as the Alpha-Country our actions define International Law because the Natural Law of "Might makes Right" makes it so. A very compelling case can be made for the Alpha to surrender some natural authority to establish an International Authority. It is useless without our cooperation, and we should therefore recognize this as the golden opportunity to take that wonderful step for humankind... before its too late. We won't be the Alpha forever: so our window of opportunity to provide an International Law with the legitimacy of the Alpha's cooperation is limited as well. I do agree we should, but not at the expense of allowing mass-murdering tyrants, who rule at the point of a gun, to be recognized as legitimate. I've probably done a lousy job of paraphrasing that argument... but believe me, it is very compelling.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 10:27 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
The people who were advocating multiple theatre wars before Bush came into office are in positions of decision making authority now and have been in those positions since Bush took office.
This is no revelation. It is a FACT that is news to none of us. This is why I called DTOM's well made point; pointless.


You're right, it is no revelation. So why attack it?

Quote:
FreeDuck wrote:
9-11 provided them the marketing they needed to sell the war to the American people. If the war was so wonderfully justified, there would have been no need to oversell the it.
This is a Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). I agree the war was oversold... but that in no way proves it had to be.
Watch:
Sally bought a new car the other day. The salesman told her it was the highest quality car made this year.

This salesmen's over selling may or may not have even influenced Sally's decision. Suffice to say it would be false to say: Sally wouldn't have bought the car if the salesman hadn't over sold it. Non Sequitur.


Thanks for the lesson on non sequitur, though my statement doesn't exactly fit the definition provided by your link. What it looks to me like you are calling a non sequitur is actually the contrapositive (sort of) of what I've said. What you mean to say is that my statement is logically false because the contrapositive (If the war was oversold then it was not justified) is false. However, I used the word 'need' on purpose. The fact that it was oversold does not necessarily imply that it was not justified, but the fact that there was a need to oversell it does imply a lack of justification. Of course, it is merely my opinion that there was a need to oversell it as opposed to your opinion that there was no need to oversell it, but that the administration overreached for justification because...

Quote:
FreeDuck wrote:
The fact of the matter is that violating UN resolutions, and even having weapons of mass destruction, have not historically been grounds for invasion or assassination.
Shocked Did you sleep through the cold War? This is simply not true... and it's too irrelevant to quibble about.


I must have slept through the part where we invaded and occupied another country for violating UN resolutions or for having WMD. I'm sure you will enlighten me.

Quote:
But come on Freeduck, what then, was Clinton's grounds for Desert Viper? And what was the justification for Desert Thunder?


I don't know but I'm sure you do, so do tell.

Quote:
If what you say is true, why was there no complaint from the UN at that time? Are you aware that was a Multi-National Force?


I don't know and yes. All of this talk about Clinton's called off plan really adds nothing because we don't know the details of it. We don't know what the objective was. Or at least I don't, so I'm not prepared to draw sweeping conclusions based on the fact that Clinton almost invaded with a multinational force.

Quote:
Furthermore, where did you get the idea there needs to be a historical precedent anyway? Confused


Oh, I don't know, we use historical precedents all the time. We use the Hitler precedent to justify a strong defense and a need to be aware of and head off threats from war mongering nations. We use the Vietnam precedent as an example of how stupid it is to fight for ideology. We use the WWII precedent as an indicator of how pure our motives are, etc... Precedent is important. The American people do not generally see themselves as citizens of a nation that invades other nations for any reason other self defense. I'm no lawyer but I know that precedent is a very important factor in making legal decisions.

Quote:
I suspect you've heard "the War was illegal" so many times, by so many respected persons, that you think an actual law exists, and that we violated it.


And I suspect you are reaching again. My position is that it was not justified. I'm no lawyer and I know very little about international law, but I know about the principles this country is supposed to espouse. I know that in a democratic republic such as this one, with an all volunteer military, you need a valid justification to invade another country, and a justification that the people will accept.

Quote:

Not so. If you wish to dispute this, please cite the statute we broke and explain how our actions met the criteria for a finding of guilt. Remember to use only FACT's, because layman opinions have no bearing in a Court of Law.


Ah, judge O'Bill, I did not realize that we were in a court of law or that we were arguing the legality of the war. I thought I was defending my opinion.

Quote:
We could play he said, she said till we're old and gray, but neither of us will provide the actual law from the International equivalent to the "State Statutes" or "Federal Statutes"... because there is no such thing.


Well, that saves me some googling.

Quote:

The very best argument I've ever heard for your "side" is that as the Alpha-Country our actions define International Law because the Natural Law of "Might makes Right" makes it so. A very compelling case can be made for the Alpha to surrender some natural authority to establish an International Authority. It is useless without our cooperation, and we should therefore recognize this as the golden opportunity to take that wonderful step for humankind... before its too late. We won't be the Alpha forever: so our window of opportunity to provide an International Law with the legitimacy of the Alpha's cooperation is limited as well. I do agree we should, but not at the expense of allowing mass-murdering tyrants, who rule at the point of a gun, to be recognized as legitimate. I've probably done a lousy job of paraphrasing that argument... but believe me, it is very compelling.


It is very compelling. Thanks for providing it.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 12:27 pm
okay bill.

guess you're right. yep. right, right right. the plan was in the makin's, every detail worked out. all parts fitting seemlessly, right hand knew what the left was doing.

all the right people at the helm. flawless intel collected, coalated and analyized.

iraq at last, iraq at last. thank god almighty, iraq at last !

now tell me again, where did they find all of those weapons of mass destruction ?

bill, if ya don't want to accept what i'm pointing out, that's cool. but don't marginalize the input and call it "pointless". it's not. you are just choosing to opine that it is. you and i both know that there's more to the story that shows that cheney started his routine immediately after gulf I.
and that those i highlighted, along with others, have been bent on iraq for nearly a decade.

pretty sure we both have read the same materials, so if ya don't care to accept the glaring conclusions, okay. just don't play the game that i'm some poor, stupid, misguided fool.

that's far more insulting than simply making an ad hominem attack.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 12:45 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
The people who were advocating multiple theatre wars before Bush came into office are in positions of decision making authority now and have been in those positions since Bush took office.
This is no revelation. It is a FACT that is news to none of us. This is why I called DTOM's well made point; pointless.


You're right, it is no revelation. So why attack it?
I didn't think I did. I thought I pointed it out in a humorous way... but we apparently don't share the same sense of humor.

FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
FreeDuck wrote:
9-11 provided them the marketing they needed to sell the war to the American people. If the war was so wonderfully justified, there would have been no need to oversell the it.
This is a Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). I agree the war was oversold... but that in no way proves it had to be.
Watch:
Sally bought a new car the other day. The salesman told her it was the highest quality car made this year.

This salesmen's over selling may or may not have even influenced Sally's decision. Suffice to say it would be false to say: Sally wouldn't have bought the car if the salesman hadn't over sold it. Non Sequitur.


Thanks for the lesson on non sequitur, though my statement doesn't exactly fit the definition provided by your link. What it looks to me like you are calling a non sequitur is actually the contrapositive (sort of) of what I've said. What you mean to say is that my statement is logically false because the contrapositive (If the war was oversold then it was not justified) is false. However, I used the word 'need' on purpose. The fact that it was oversold does not necessarily imply that it was not justified, but the fact that there was a need to oversell it does imply a lack of justification. Of course, it is merely my opinion that there was a need to oversell it as opposed to your opinion that there was no need to oversell it, but that the administration overreached for justification because...
Our disagreement remains perfectly reasonable. That piece of justification is a Non Sequitur... but if you'd prefer a more precise definition for the logical fallacy look up Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). :wink:

FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
FreeDuck wrote:
The fact of the matter is that violating UN resolutions, and even having weapons of mass destruction, have not historically been grounds for invasion or assassination.
Shocked Did you sleep through the cold War? This is simply not true... and it's too irrelevant to quibble about.


I must have slept through the part where we invaded and occupied another country for violating UN resolutions or for having WMD. I'm sure you will enlighten me.
Think Cuban Missile Crisis. Idea We didn't want the Soviets to match our killing power distance-wise so we surrounded the "Sovereign Nation" of Cuba and threatened to end life as we know it if we didn't get our way. We were within minutes of actually starting WWIII on several occasions with the only other force that could possibly give us a fight. Contrary to popular opinion, the Soviets never moved to their highest level of readiness (their version of Def Con Three)... but we did. (To my knowledge, no other Nation has ever reached this level of readiness. Idea) Now fortunately for everyone on earth, the Russians had the good sense to realize that only a fool fights in a burning house. We didn't seem to care. Now you could describe this as the most reckless behavior in the history of humankind or you could call it Freedom's greatest stand (it's probably both). Were we justified then? Depends on your perspective... and whether you agree with "Give me liberty or give me death". The point is; American arrogance isn't new. American willingness to stick our beaks in, isn't new. Yes, there are precedents for pre-emption but this is a largely unregulated area anyway, and lack of precedence would have no bearing on legality anyway. In the absence of Agreed-to and Enforceable International Law, disputes default to the Natural Law of Might Makes Right. Idealistically speaking; this is hideously unfair. Realistically speaking; it is an undeniable truth.

FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
But come on Freeduck, what then, was Clinton's grounds for Desert Viper? And what was the justification for Desert Thunder?


I don't know but I'm sure you do, so do tell.
I've previously provided links with a snapshot... and you seem to have chosen to stop reading short of understanding the history. In short: we can't know precisely why he called off Desert Viper at the last second... but there can be no doubt about why he'd ordered it in the first place: It was a response to Iraq's repeated refusals to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. Again, this isn't opinion... it's FACT.
Source
FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
If what you say is true, why was there no complaint from the UN at that time? Are you aware that was a Multi-National Force?


I don't know and yes. All of this talk about Clinton's called off plan really adds nothing because we don't know the details of it. We don't know what the objective was. Or at least I don't, so I'm not prepared to draw sweeping conclusions based on the fact that Clinton almost invaded with a multinational force.
The link I've provided above, I've now given you several times and it gives a brief, factual snapshot of it. The called off portion is only a segment of what was called ON. It "adds nothing" only if you are unwilling to read the brief summary of FACTs or are willing to deny their accuracy.

FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
Furthermore, where did you get the idea there needs to be a historical precedent anyway? Confused


Oh, I don't know, we use historical precedents all the time. We use the Hitler precedent to justify a strong defense and a need to be aware of and head off threats from war mongering nations. We use the Vietnam precedent as an example of how stupid it is to fight for ideology. We use the WWII precedent as an indicator of how pure our motives are, etc... Precedent is important. The American people do not generally see themselves as citizens of a nation that invades other nations for any reason other self defense. I'm no lawyer but I know that precedent is a very important factor in making legal decisions.
FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
I suspect you've heard "the War was illegal" so many times, by so many respected persons, that you think an actual law exists, and that we violated it.


And I suspect you are reaching again. My position is that it was not justified. I'm no lawyer and I know very little about international law, but I know about the principles this country is supposed to espouse. I know that in a democratic republic such as this one, with an all volunteer military, you need a valid justification to invade another country, and a justification that the people will accept.
Your justification argument, you're entitled to. Most of the world seems to agree with you. But if I reached on legal-justification, this isn't worth pursuing.

FreeDuck wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Not so. If you wish to dispute this, please cite the statute we broke and explain how our actions met the criteria for a finding of guilt. Remember to use only FACT's, because layman opinions have no bearing in a Court of Law.


Ah, judge O'Bill, I did not realize that we were in a court of law or that we were arguing the legality of the war. I thought I was defending my opinion.
I claim no legal expertise either. I use this challenge because it effectively destroys vague misconceptions about International Statute Violations, that although popular with us laypeople, don't exist.

FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
We could play he said, she said till we're old and gray, but neither of us will provide the actual law from the International equivalent to the "State Statutes" or "Federal Statutes"... because there is no such thing.


Well, that saves me some googling.
I don't know if that's sarcasm or not, but that's exactly the point... and you taking my word for it is gratifying... and tells me you don't ignore everything write.

FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:

The very best argument I've ever heard for your "side" is that as the Alpha-Country our actions define International Law because the Natural Law of "Might makes Right" makes it so. A very compelling case can be made for the Alpha to surrender some natural authority to establish an International Authority. It is useless without our cooperation, and we should therefore recognize this as the golden opportunity to take that wonderful step for humankind... before its too late. We won't be the Alpha forever: so our window of opportunity to provide an International Law with the legitimacy of the Alpha's cooperation is limited as well. I do agree we should, but not at the expense of allowing mass-murdering tyrants, who rule at the point of a gun, to be recognized as legitimate. I've probably done a lousy job of paraphrasing that argument... but believe me, it is very compelling.


It is very compelling. Thanks for providing it.
If you really like it, I can dig up a thread where Craven, others and I batted that ball around in what I thought was a terribly interesting conversation.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 12:52 pm
DTOM, you're misreading me completely. I don't disagree that Cheney wanted the invasion since right after Gulf War I. My point is; no has disputed that here. I don't fault your arguments at all. I called you a shadow boxer and DTOM Quixote as attempts at humor. Sorry you didn't take them that way. The fact is; I wanted Iraq addressed before Bush took office too, so suggesting Cheney did is no revelation at all to me or anyone like me. That's all.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:25 pm
O'Bill, I don't want to drag this out, but a few quick points.

RE:Cuba -- Cuba is right off the coast of the USA (in other words, a lot closer than Iraq) and the Bay of Pigs fiasco is certainly a precedent. One that , like others, should have prevented us from making the mistake of invading Iraq.

And, you've just made a wonderful argument that the US is the most dangerous country on the planet in terms of a threat to world peace.

RE:Non sequitur -- your expanded example doesn't quite fit either, but whatever.

RE: Reading your links -- I have. They are very factually detailed about the actions but say very little about the reasoning behind them.

RE: Reaching -- not on the legal justification, on your suspicions about how I develop my opinions.

I hope that you can be satisfied now, O'Bill. Cheers.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:46 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
And, you've just made a wonderful argument that the US is the most dangerous country on the planet in terms of a threat to world peace.
That was intentional, couldn't you tell? :wink:

FreeDuck wrote:
RE: Reading your links -- I have. They are very factually detailed about the actions but say very little about the reasoning behind them.
Confused Weak. You are perfectly capable of digging deeper if you don't prefer not knowing the truth. Besides, which part of the following quote is unclear to you anyway?
Quote:
In December 1998 Operation Desert Fox was launched in response to Iraq's repeated refusals to comply with UN Security Council resolutions.
There is no ambiguity here and feigning otherwise on the third or fourth go'round is a shameless strategy.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 02:31 pm
O'Bill wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
RE: Reading your links -- I have. They are very factually detailed about the actions but say very little about the reasoning behind them.
Confused Weak. You are perfectly capable of digging deeper if you don't prefer not knowing the truth. Besides, which part of the following quote is unclear to you anyway?
Quote:
In December 1998 Operation Desert Fox was launched in response to Iraq's repeated refusals to comply with UN Security Council resolutions.
There is no ambiguity here and feigning otherwise on the third or fourth go'round is a shameless strategy.


No, that's not exactly what I'm talking about. The link and you both provide the factual cause and effect. I'm not arguing with that. You asked earlier why the need for this or that, and to me the questions of why come down to the human factor. I'm not feeling terribly energetic enough to run down the reasons behind planning a ground invasion and then not carrying it out. I'm sure there is more to it than we could discuss in an online forum.

And this is the last time I beat this to death, and maybe I'm just sensitive, but when you imply that someone is 'feigning', 'pretending', that they 'prefer not to know the truth', or that they are 'shameless' depending on who you are talking to that could be taken as an insult. I know that's just who you are and I'm sure your employees have slashed your tires at least once for it (I had a manager like you once) but make a little bit of effort to be nice, huh? There's a debate forum if you just feel like ripping someone a new one, but I don't think you'd take those tactics to a cocktail party, eh? You can make your points without the extra slams, so why include them?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 03:14 pm
FreeDuck, I'm sorry I've offended you again. I am making an effort to be nice. :wink: When I go to length to, IMO, make a point crystal clear only to have it dismissed as ambiguous, repeatedly, I find that insulting... because it seems like this could only happen intentionally, carelessly or out of ignorance. Ignorance is certainly forgivable, but not on the 3rd or 4th go'round... so I tend to sharpen the edge on points to drive them in further. There are several ways you can avoid this; ranging from ignoring it to not ducking facts that don't fit your argument to not addressing me at all. Telling me I'm not nice because of the way I respond to what I define as not nice won't do it.

Btw, when employees (I don't have any now) would violate rules, there was no excuse, because I make extremely concise rulebooks and if you take potential ignorance out of the equation that leaves careless or intentional. I don't play that game at work and consequently my team required virtually no supervision at all and learned to appreciate the lack of self-important middle managers because I generally don't require any. In a one-right-way environment, you're either on the right page or you're replacedÂ… and the team learns to appreciate it immensely. And, no, my tires have never been slashed (though I am mindful of where I park :wink:).
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 04:11 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
FreeDuck, I'm sorry I've offended you again. I am making an effort to be nice. :wink: When I go to length to, IMO, make a point crystal clear only to have it dismissed as ambiguous, repeatedly, I find that insulting... because it seems like this could only happen intentionally, carelessly or out of ignorance. Ignorance is certainly forgivable, but not on the 3rd or 4th go'round... so I tend to sharpen the edge on points to drive them in further. There are several ways you can avoid this; ranging from ignoring it to not ducking facts that don't fit your argument to not addressing me at all. Telling me I'm not nice because of the way I respond to what I define as not nice won't do it.


O'Bill, I'm not ducking your facts, you just haven't connected the dots, IMO. For example, if you want to talk non sequiturs, it doesn't follow that just because an invasion almost happened once that it was and remains justified.

Anyway, I'm done beating this up, like I said. Might want to keep in mind that if it seems like people are being dense, and you know for yourself that they are not dense, then maybe something is up with the communication. That certainly is a two way street, but you're driving on it too.

Cheers to you, O'Bill.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 04:41 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
DTOM Quixote


but to be fair, this was pretty funny...
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 05:30 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
DTOM Quixote


but to be fair, this was pretty funny...
Thank you for that. Once I thought of it, I just had to use it! Sorry again for any offense.

FreeDuck wrote:
For example, if you want to talk non sequiturs, it doesn't follow that just because an invasion almost happened once that it was and remains justified.
No, it sure doesn't. But, it most certainly justifies a war-plan doesn't it? That was what DTOM provided; a War Plan. So, I used the link to illustrate an undeniable need for a war plan. No Non Sequitur there.

While you're perusing that page and the links on it, you might have learned much more.

Since we killed somewhere between 600 and 2000 Iraqis in 1998, expressly for the purpose of enforcing UN Santions/punishing for violations of same... with no complaint from the UN... obviously, Bill Clinton was in charge of enforcing these sanctions. Since it was the President of the US, NOT the President of the UN's plan and decision to call off the the plan, again without objection from the UN, one can reasonably assume Clinton had the authority to do so.

This means that the United States has been enforcing the UN sanctions all along so claims that they weren't responsible for doing so are obviously false. Prior to Saddam's removal by the US, the UN never retracted the sanctions against Iraq and never even proposed one to restrict the actions of the United States. They could have, but didn't. While some members of the UN and even Kofi (who's kid was in bed with Saddam, btw) himself have expressed views that it was wrong, nothing official has ever been proposed.

One could argue that's because they wouldn't do anything about it anyway, but that really would be a hoot... Since they couldn't or wouldn't even stop Saddam from murdering over a million Iraqis on their watch. Papa Bush was wrong when he didn't finish the job. Bill Clinton spent two terms denying this while Saddam Hussein murdered Millions of people. According to UNICEF, that stolen grocery money Saddam and Kojo Annan and friends were dividing up, resulted in more than 500,000 dead Iraqis... if you only count the babies Crying or Very sad aged 5 and under Crying or Very sad . Think about that...

It's fair that we disagree on whether or not Clinton should have attacked, though you've admitted to not even knowing why he would... so I can't imagine where your opinion comes from other than blanket Anti-War thoughts (but I don't want to reach so tell me if you feel like it).(I'll remind you that over 1,000,000 Iraqis were starved to death by the thieving monster by then Sad).

Cheers to you, FreeDuck
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/12/2024 at 10:17:09