The Invasion of Iraq was Justified - From Another Thread

Just too bad the president wasn't as keen and relentless as Brandon9K in setting records straight.

2/3 of Americans (75% of his supporters) were left duped, when he failed to set the record straight on Iraq having NOTHING to do with 9/11. He let them wollow in misinformation his administration created by letting the insinuations persist

It served his purpose at the time, along with hardly "very real" WMD doomsday scenarios, completing his one-two punch for making war a misinformed-person's "necessity".

perception is reality, might makes right, some animals are more equal than others, TruthSpeak...

(edited for clarity)

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Will somebody please tell me how you put a user's name in place of "quote" when one is creating a quote? I'd sure as heck appreciate it...

For the first quote, you click the "QUOTE" button on their post.

For subsequent quotes on the same post, you have to copy the syntax the program has created as you carried out the first step.

0 Replies

Judge: So what exactly happened?
Defendant: Well, your honor, I killed him.
Judge: And why did you do it?
Defendant: I was afraid that if I didn't kill him, he would kill me.
Judge: Had he threatened to kill you?
Defendant: Well, no, not really.
Judge: Had he ever attacked you in any way?
Defendant: No, your honor.
Judge: Had he ever threatened to physically attack you in any way?
Defendant: No sir.
Judge: Was there something about him physically that intimidated you?
Defendant: No, definitely not. As you can see, I'm a big, brawny guy. And he was small and relatively weak.
Judge: Well then, did he have friends that threatened or intimidated you?
Defendant: No, your honor. He didn't really have many friends.
Judge: Did he have any weapons?
Defendant: I was afraid that he might have.
Judge: But did you ever see any weapons? Did he ever threaten you with any weapons?
Defendant: No, your honor. I sent some friends of mine over to his house several times to look for them though.
Judge: And ... ?
Defendant: They didn't find anything.
Judge: And when you killed him ...? Were any weapons found at that time?
Defendant: No sir.
Judge: So he didn't actually have any weapons?
Defendant: Well, I think he kept them well hidden. I know that he used to have some.
Judge: Used to? When was that?
Defendant: Oh, about fifteen years ago. He had some then for sure.
Judge: For sure? What makes you so sure?
Defendant: Because I sold them to him.
Judge: But I thought you were afraid of him?
Defendant: I was.
Judge: I see. Did he live near you?
Defendant: No. He actually lived all the way on the other side of town. We never really had occasion to see each other.
Judge: So your paths didn't really cross on a regular basis?
Defendant: No, sir. Our paths didn't really cross at all.
Judge: So this guy never ventured over to your side of town? And he never threatened you in any way, and never attacked you in any way, either personally or through a surrogate, and yet you felt threatened enough by him that you felt justified in killing him? Is that about right?
Defendant: That is correct, your honor. Like I said, I was afraid that if I didn't kill him, he would kill me.
Judge: I see here that, according to the police report, you were found in the victim's home, standing over his dead body.
Defendant: That is correct.
Judge: So he didn't come looking for you -- you went looking for him? Is that correct?
Defendant: Yes, sir. I wanted to get to him before he got to me.
Judge: I see. Is there anything else you would like to add?
Defendant: Just that a year or two ago, I was assaulted.
Judge: By this same guy?
Defendant: No. By a different guy from a different neighborhood. That's what I told everyone, anyway.
Judge: And was this other guy a friend of the guy you killed?
Defendant: Oh, no. They hated each other.
Judge: So that assault had nothing to do with you feeling threatened by this other guy?
Defendant: No, not really.
Judge: Okay, then. This is clearly a case of self defense. You are free to go, sir.
Defendant: Thank you, your honor.

0 Replies

That is excellent.

0 Replies

obviously an activist judge.

0 Replies

Dys, you always make me laugh...

0 Replies

McTag:

AHHhh!!! Thanx!! The quote button. Of course. You mean that obvious button sitting right in front of my face.

> sound of the slapping of my forehead <

0 Replies

Thank you kindly, gravy...

gravy wrote:

Just too bad the president wasn't as keen and relentless as Brandon9K in setting records straight.

2/3 of Americans (75% of his supporters) were left duped, when he failed to set the record straight on Iraq having NOTHING to do with 9/11. He let them wollow in misinformation his administration created by letting the insinuations persist

It served his purpose at the time, along with hardly "very real" WMD doomsday scenarios, completing his one-two punch for making war a misinformed-person's "necessity".

perception is reality, might makes right, some animals are more equal than others, TruthSpeak...

(edited for clarity)

And we all know who the masters of perception are these days. As one Bush aide confided to Ron Suskind back in 2002, "We create our own reality." Put another way, these people are not grounded in true reality, but rather, in their alternative self-created reality. This behavior can only be described as "psychotic", using any definition of the word I've ever seen. Call it what you will, but creating a more convenient, alternative reality is nothing more than good old-fashioned lying, and we already knew these people were serial liars.

I have always said that when (not if) fascism takes a hold of this country, that it will happen in a most cunning and tenuous fashion. Once the alternate reality is firmly in place, the nihilistic and narcissistic
powers in charge will be able to do whatever they deem fit in tightening their grip on the American psychi.

With that said, one only need to look back on EVERY quote offered by Powell, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, and Bush, as they justified their reasons for invading Iraq, and sit there in utter shock at the audacity, arrogance, and egregious chicanery by this criminal administration. And they ARE criminals. We just can't go after them in this alternate reality...

They would never allow it.

0 Replies

Yes. Criminals. War criminals and liars.

0 Replies

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050301/dangle.gif

0 Replies

gravy wrote:

Just too bad the president wasn't as keen and relentless as Brandon9K in setting records straight.

2/3 of Americans (75% of his supporters) were left duped, when he failed to set the record straight on Iraq having NOTHING to do with 9/11. He let them wollow in misinformation his administration created by letting the insinuations persist

It served his purpose at the time, along with hardly "very real" WMD doomsday scenarios, completing his one-two punch for making war a misinformed-person's "necessity".

perception is reality, might makes right, some animals are more equal than others, TruthSpeak...

(edited for clarity)

Regardless of what anyone in or out of the administration said about it, the invasion of Iraq was necessary, because of the need to determine once and for all whether Hussein had destroyed his WMD and stopped his programs. We simply cannot fool around with letting someone like Hussein acquire weapons like this. Had Hussein wanted to, he could have provided inspectors with enough evidence shortly after the end of Gulf War 1.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Judge: So what exactly happened?
....
Defendant: Thank you, your honor.

Bad analogy. If WMD are allowed to proliferate freely to the point that many, many counrties have them, we will all die, or most of us, anyway. Therefore, it is necessary at least to keep them out of the hands of a small percentage of people all the way to one end of the evil spectrum. They will end up being used anyway, even if they only proliferate to a lot of relatively responsible countries, but at least by keeping them out of the hands of madmen, their use can be delayed. There is something of a difference between a nuke or bioweapon on the one hand and a gun on the other. When Hussein annexed and invaded Kuwait and we stopped him, his surrender included a promise to eliminate his WMD and programs verifiably. Having failed to get this, 12 years later we invaded. The UN may print endless toothless warnings none of which is ever backed up, but warnings ought not to be given if no one is going to enforce them.

0 Replies

Whether Hussein had WMD or not, and he may have chosen to pretend he had to enhance his reputation as a threat in the region (bearing in mind his enmity toward his neighbour Iran, ans Iran's enmity toward his regime), the USA had no right to invade anywhere without a UN mandate- which it applied for but was denied.

Hussein never threatened the US.
He had no weapons or delivery systems to do that.
No threat, no "real and present danger", no legality.

0 Replies

Quote, "1. We did not invade Iraq to persuade Hussein to stop behaving badly as in your analogy. We went in to disarm him.
Hussein had created and was trying to perfect weapons so powerful that one use of one could kill hundreds of thousands of people or even more, unlike a gun which can kill one person with each bullet."

FYI, The US of A owns such WMDs; we admit to having them. On the other hand, your accusations about Saddam doesn't hold water/pess. Colin Powell showed pictures to the UN Security Council where Saddam supposedly had his WMDs and development trailers. None were ever found after over a year of looking for them. Ever try to find that pot of gold at the end of a rainbow? Same thing. It's all a mirage that only exists in the head - of some people that wishes to justify our preemptive aggression against a sovereign country - that posed no threat to ANY AMERICAN. They did not have the WMDs or the means to deliver them. Saying they could have shared them with terrorist organizations is a non-sequeter. It goes nowhere fast.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Whether Hussein had WMD or not, and he may have chosen to pretend he had to enhance his reputation as a threat in the region (bearing in mind his enmity toward his neighbour Iran, ans Iran's enmity toward his regime), the USA had no right to invade anywhere without a UN mandate- which it applied for but was denied.

You are saying that even if Hussein did have WMD and presumably was developing more, we had no right to invade. If he had still had them, he is the sort of person who might have used one. For instance, one might have shown up inside an American city. The prospect of a madman with doomsday weapons, and the prospect of a million Americans being obliterated does give us the right, since everyone has the right to self-preservation. Also, he is at least friendly with terrorists who hate us. Didn't he used to pay off the families of suicide bombers? I would certainly not want them armed with WMD.

McTag wrote:

Hussein never threatened the US.

For someone like Saddam Hussein to possess weapons so powerful that one use of one can kill hundreds of thousand of people or even more is a very big threat. Just as convicted criminals have no right to own guns, Hussein had no right to own doomsday weapons. Anyway, didn't he try to assassinate Bush senior in 1993? That is kind of threatening. Not that the latter is the motive for invasion.

McTag wrote:

He had no weapons or delivery systems to do that.
No threat, no "real and present danger", no legality.

Your mention of a delivery system is hilarious. It is blatantly obvious that components of a WMD could be smuggled into the target city, so who needs a delivery system? All the anthrax guy needed was a stamp and an envelope. Are you living in the 1950s or something? The threat was immense. A bioweapon or nuke unleashed here would make 9/11 look like a tea party.

Anyway, contrary to your presentation, I am under the impression that it is very murky whether the UN resolution authorized force. However, whether it did or didn't, people have been making war for millenia without giving foreign countries veto rights, and I don't think we should start.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

All the anthrax guy needed was a stamp and an envelope. Are you living in the 1950s or something? The threat was immense. A bioweapon or nuke unleashed here would make 9/11 look like a tea party.

Speaking of the anthrax guy (probably an American): Is he already caught? Because a doomsday weapon in the hand of a madman, you know.... justifies annihiliation of the government!

0 Replies

Who said anything about "veto rights?" We have all the rights to defend ourselves from foreign attack. It does not give us the right to justify an aggressive attack on another sovereign nation on the basis of false intelligence.

0 Replies

preemptive attack = self defense?

If that were true, poor USA!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
1. We did not invade Iraq to persuade Hussein to stop behaving badly as in your analogy. We went in to disarm him.
Hussein had created and was trying to perfect weapons so powerful that one use of one could kill hundreds of thousands of people or even more, unlike a gun which can kill one person with each bullet.

FYI, The US of A owns such WMDs; we admit to having them.

So what is your point? We aren't saying that no one may have them.

cicerone imposter wrote:

On the other hand, your accusations about Saddam doesn't hold water/pess.

I am assuming that you are referring to "Pez" the candy that comes in a variety of automatic dispensers.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Colin Powell showed pictures to the UN Security Council where Saddam supposedly had his WMDs and development trailers. None were ever found after over a year of looking for them. Ever try to find that pot of gold at the end of a rainbow? Same thing.

Regardless of what Powell did or didn't say, Hussein had had them, hidden them, lied about them, and used them. There was more than enough uncertainty and danger to make invasion necessary.

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's all a mirage that only exists in the head - of some people that wishes to justify our preemptive aggression against a sovereign country

Well, your use of sovereign is kind of odd here. The usual reason why it is undesirable to invade sovereign countries is that you are interfering with the right of the inhabitants to control their own land, determine their own course, etc., but that doesn't apply here since Iraq was just a bunch of thugs running a country by force and arresting anyone who dared to dissent.

cicerone imposter wrote:

- that posed no threat to ANY AMERICAN.

There was great uncertainty, caused by Hussein, about whether he had disposed of his WMD and stopped the programs. He could easily have created incontrovertible evidence to show the destruction of the weapons, assuming they were destroyed, but he did not. WMD in Hussein's hands, or even a modest chance of it would be an immense danger to everyone.

cicerone imposter wrote:

They did not have the WMDs or the means to deliver them. Saying they could have shared them with terrorist organizations is a non-sequeter. It goes nowhere fast.

He did have the means to deliver them. Are you saying that even if he had them, he couldn't smuggle the components into our country? Of course he had the means to deliver them. Oh, and, yes, he could have shared them with terrorists, and we all know what they would like to do to us.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
All the anthrax guy needed was a stamp and an envelope. Are you living in the 1950s or something? The threat was immense. A bioweapon or nuke unleashed here would make 9/11 look like a tea party.

Speaking of the anthrax guy (probably an American): Is he already caught? Because a doomsday weapon in the hand of a madman, you know.... justifies annihiliation of the government!

No, he is not, which is exactly my point. Among the numerous dangerous characteristics of these weapons is the fact that they can be used with anonymity, so Mutual Assured Destruction which we had with the Soviets doesn't work.

0 Replies

The Invasion of Iraq was Justified - From Another Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know