0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 10:33 am
WhoodaThunk wrote:
McTag wrote:
Most of the other right-wingers who used to favour this thread with their opinions about how this invasion was done for the best of reasons and the highest of motives have now faded away. Most now realise most of the truth I think, and find it hard to face.


I probably qualify as one of those right-wingers, McT. Although it may seem I have faded away and/or realized the "truth," I do still monitor these threads periodically, but with my eyes wide open. I admire the skill with which several here still attempt to press the good fight, but I long ago realized the futility of discourse with those who see neocon boogeymen behind every shrub. (No -- I chose not to use the term "bush" as that seems to activate the froth & foam response from so many here.)

Having been twice banned from these airwaves for heated exchanges on this subject with certain "pillars" of the community (and threatened with outright excommunication) I've found it safer to watch from afar. I will admit I marvel at the freedom with which some here slander those with right-leaning opinions and seem to enjoy total impunity in doing so. Perhaps I simply travel in the wrong circles.

I also admit it is frustrating to continue to be denied PM privileges (mysterious security risks and an eligibility formula that changes daily -- ???) as a means of communicating outside the public board. (Hotmail accounts are suggested as alternatives ... Rolling Eyes )

But ... please let it be known that I have not "faded away" or that I "realise most of the truth ... and find it hard to face."

I've simply accepted the limitations of having a right-of-center opinion here at stepford.com.


You must of been around before I started coming around. If you wouldn't mind, would you go over once again why this war was justified in simple terms.

Why was Saddam more of a threat than anyone other bad corrupt leader in the world at the time we invaded Iraq?

Did no other leader possess the potential to give arms to terrorist?

Did no other leader possess the potential develop WMD and Nuclear weapons?

Did no other leader suppress and torture it's citizens at the same magnitude as Saddam Hussien did when we invaded Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 11:07 am
Not answering for anyone else--

But, Saddam's behavior had situated him in the third round of inspections in a what? 10 year period? and--he was dodging the inspectors.

He had no intentions toward full disclosure.

Like a bad child, when he saw Bush massing in the Gulf, he acted more like he was complying with inspectors, but what ...person actually believed once Bush began removing the threat, Saddam would coninue compliance with inspectors?

Do you remember the scientist, who was dragged screaming from the UN caravan?

Who will say they trust Saddam Hussien's veracity?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 02:13 pm
Does the government spending a hundred million and coming up with nada count for anything?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 03:29 pm
revel wrote:
why this war was justified in simple terms.

Al Qaeda had declared war on the US.
Al Qaeda had murdered thousands of Americans.
Al Qaeda had threatened to murder more Americans.
Al Qaeda had established training bases and camps in Iraq, after the US invaded Afghanistan.
Saddam neither complied with nor responded to our request to extradite the leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq.
American leadership feared future al Qaeda trainees would murder thousands more Americans.
American leadership didn't like that.
American leadership chose to invade Iraq in addition to invading Afghanistan in order to remove al Qaeda training bases from both countries.


Why was Saddam more of a threat than anyone other bad corrupt leader in the world at the time we invaded Iraq?
Saddam was at least an equal threat. We lacked the means and ability to attack them all.

Did no other leader possess the potential to give arms to terrorist?
Saddam was at least an equal conventional weapons threat. Saddam had established thousands of ordinance depots throughout Iraq.

Did no other leader possess the potential develop WMD and Nuclear weapons?
Saddam was at least an equal WMD threat. Saddam had once allegedly developed and allegedly used up WMD bacterial and chemical toxins prior to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Iran and North Korea were greater Nuclear weapons threats.

Did no other leader suppress and torture it's citizens at the same magnitude as Saddam Hussien did when we invaded Iraq?
Saddam was at least an equal. Saddam suppressed, tortured, maimed, and murdered hundreds of thousands of his citizens before our invasion of Iraq. Remnants of Saddam's regime have been and are murderering and maiming hundreds of Iraqi citizens weekly, since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 03:33 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Does the government spending a hundred million and coming up with nada count for anything?

It counts for something. It wasn't the first time that has happened. It probably won't be the last time. Keep counting.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 03:58 pm
You guys must have done really bad things to get barred. Shame on you. Most of the irrational, eyeballs-out, mouth-foaming invective I've seen comes from the Right, I've found. That's where the crazies are.

Has anyone over there heard of George Galloway, the british MP? I hear he has been invited to address a Senate committee on the subject if Iraq and his alleged involvement in OFF. I'm wondering if any of that is being reported over there.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 04:01 pm
revel wrote:
So far military might alone is not working to put a dent into the drive of the insurgency. The military has declared all of Iraq a combat zone. Call me faint of heart if you want but to me this says more bloodshed with more accidental killing of civilians who are caught in the crossfire.
You are probably right about more bloodshed. However, the number of Iraqi citizens killed accidentally by the US is small compared to the number of Iraqi citizens killed and will be killed deliberately by their fellow Iraqis, the BAQM (i.e., Baathis-al-Qaeda-Murderers).

In the end we still have just as much insurgents as we did before because more replaces the ones that were lost. I just see it all as terribly sad.

I am not saying we should leave the country, I don't advocate that until the newly elected government says so or at least a majority of the Iraqis say so. But I don't think they are going to say so because now they are targets for being mixed up with Americans. I assume that to have been the goal of Mr. Bush since he invited them to come.

If we leave I don't think the newly elected Iraqi government or the Iraqi police can defend themselves and then the country will fall into chaos and more than likely the extremist will take over the country. That could well be worse than the regime of Saddam Hussein for the United States.

Unlike you I don’t believe that the Islamic extremist fighters that come from all over the world will ever just give up and let Iraq be a success.
I neither believe nor have I ever written that I believe that the Islamic extremist fighters will ever give up. They must be exterminated like any other highly virulent virus before the Iraqis can at least gain control of their own lives.

If they were going to do that they would have done so after the elections and after the government was formed. Instead they intensified their attacks.

During WW11 the cause was just and we had allies. The Iraq war was not in any way the same. Despite your stubborn insistence Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 in any way. I am not going argue that with you, but just take it as a given that you disagree.
We do not disagree. What you wrote here is True! Not only do I not argue this point now, I have never argued this point. The 9/11 murderers were trained in Afghanistan. But only two-months after we invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, al Qaeda established training bases and camps in Iraq inDecember 2001. That made Iraq no less a future danger to Americans than Afghanistan was a past and present danger to Americans.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 04:01 pm
Lash wrote:
Not answering for anyone else--

But, Saddam's behavior had situated him in the third round of inspections in a what? 10 year period? and--he was dodging the inspectors.

He had no intentions toward full disclosure.

Like a bad child, when he saw Bush massing in the Gulf, he acted more like he was complying with inspectors, but what ...person actually believed once Bush began removing the threat, Saddam would coninue compliance with inspectors?

Do you remember the scientist, who was dragged screaming from the UN caravan?

Who will say they trust Saddam Hussien's veracity?


Key words: UN inspectors, UN resolutions. Not US. Nothing to do with USA.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 04:10 pm
McTag wrote:
Key words: UN inspectors, UN resolutions. Not US. Nothing to do with USA.

But this had plenty to do with the USA:
Quote:
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, i.e., The 9-11 Commission Report,
9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
[CHAPTERS 1, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1] Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda et al fomented the following mass murders of Americans:
1. 10/1983 US Marine Corps Headquarters in Beirut--241 dead Americans;
2. 2/1993 WTC in NYC--6 dead Americans;
3. 11/1995 Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh--5 dead Americans;
4. 6/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran--19 dead Americans;
5. 8/1998 American Embassy in Nairobi--12 dead Americans;
6. 12/2000 Destroyer Cole in Aden--17 dead Americans;
7. 9/11/2001 WTC in NYC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania Field--approx. 1500 dead American citizens, 1500 dead citizens of other countries
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 04:53 pm
ican711nm wrote:
McTag wrote:
Key words: UN inspectors, UN resolutions. Not US. Nothing to do with USA.

But this had plenty to do with the USA:
Quote:
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, i.e., The 9-11 Commission Report,
9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
[CHAPTERS 1, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1] Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda et al fomented the following mass murders of Americans:
1. 10/1983 US Marine Corps Headquarters in Beirut--241 dead Americans;
2. 2/1993 WTC in NYC--6 dead Americans;
3. 11/1995 Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh--5 dead Americans;
4. 6/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran--19 dead Americans;
5. 8/1998 American Embassy in Nairobi--12 dead Americans;
6. 12/2000 Destroyer Cole in Aden--17 dead Americans;
7. 9/11/2001 WTC in NYC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania Field--approx. 1500 dead American citizens, 1500 dead citizens of other countries


The usual fatuous nonsense. Key word missing: Iraq

Iraq had nothing to do with these attacks.
Individual Iraqis had little enough to do with them, either.
The conditions and justification for a UN-led invasion were absent, far less a US-led one.
That is why this invasion was a crime.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 05:25 pm
McTag wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
McTag wrote:
Key words: UN inspectors, UN resolutions. Not US. Nothing to do with USA.

But this had plenty to do with the USA:
Quote:
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, i.e., The 9-11 Commission Report,
9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
[CHAPTERS 1, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1] Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda et al fomented the following mass murders of Americans:
1. 10/1983 US Marine Corps Headquarters in Beirut--241 dead Americans;
2. 2/1993 WTC in NYC--6 dead Americans;
3. 11/1995 Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh--5 dead Americans;
4. 6/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran--19 dead Americans;
5. 8/1998 American Embassy in Nairobi--12 dead Americans;
6. 12/2000 Destroyer Cole in Aden--17 dead Americans;
7. 9/11/2001 WTC in NYC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania Field--approx. 1500 dead American citizens, 1500 dead citizens of other countries


The usual fatuous nonsense. Key word missing: Iraq

Iraq had nothing to do with these attacks.


The usual bunkum dumpum. Key word missing: Afghanistan

Afghanistan had Question nothing Question to do with these attacts.

Keywords present: al Qaeda.

al Qaeda had training bases in Afghanistan.

Afghanistani government had plenty to do with these al Qaeda attacks.

Keywords present: al Qaeda.

al Qaeda had training bases in Iraq.

Iraqi government would have had plenty to do with al Qaeda attacks.

That is why both these invasions were acts of self-defense.

That is why your opposition to either of these invasions marks you an accomplice.

That is why your opposition to either of these invasions is a crime.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 05:50 pm
McTag wrote:
You guys must have done really bad things to get barred. Shame on you. Most of the irrational, eyeballs-out, mouth-foaming invective I've seen comes from the Right, I've found. That's where the crazies are.


McT: I'd be happy to cite a few examples of mouth-foaming invective from the Left, but it seems those threads have been "locked" by the powers-that-be. In their absence, you might scroll back a few hours for the "horsesh!t and hellfire" lecture. I believe a similar tirade with my name above it would have served as grounds for receiving my final walking papers.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 05:53 pm
McTag wrote:
Has anyone over there heard of George Galloway, the british MP? I hear he has been invited to address a Senate committee on the subject if Iraq and his alleged involvement in OFF. I'm wondering if any of that is being reported over there.


This was discussed near the end of the 7.0 edition of this thread. I'm too lazy to cut & paste it, but I know you're a smart guy and can find it yourself. Smile
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 07:10 pm
McTag wrote:
Lash wrote:
Not answering for anyone else--

But, Saddam's behavior had situated him in the third round of inspections in a what? 10 year period? and--he was dodging the inspectors.

He had no intentions toward full disclosure.

Like a bad child, when he saw Bush massing in the Gulf, he acted more like he was complying with inspectors, but what ...person actually believed once Bush began removing the threat, Saddam would coninue compliance with inspectors?

Do you remember the scientist, who was dragged screaming from the UN caravan?

Who will say they trust Saddam Hussien's veracity?


Key words: UN inspectors, UN resolutions. Not US. Nothing to do with USA.


Key fact: There is no UN without the US. It'd be an overindulgent parlor game in our absence. You need to know that.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 07:30 pm
Lash wrote:
McTag wrote:
Lash wrote:
Not answering for anyone else--

But, Saddam's behavior had situated him in the third round of inspections in a what? 10 year period? and--he was dodging the inspectors.

He had no intentions toward full disclosure.

Like a bad child, when he saw Bush massing in the Gulf, he acted more like he was complying with inspectors, but what ...person actually believed once Bush began removing the threat, Saddam would coninue compliance with inspectors?

Do you remember the scientist, who was dragged screaming from the UN caravan?

Who will say they trust Saddam Hussien's veracity?


Key words: UN inspectors, UN resolutions. Not US. Nothing to do with USA.


Key fact: There is no UN without the US. It'd be an overindulgent parlor game in our absence. You need to know that.


Yes, Lash, but if the U.S. were out of the U.N. it would be much easier for British MP's like Galloway to skim U.N. funds without having to change those pesky dollars into pounds.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 07:39 pm
<nods at Whooda>

Well, really, what money would they have to steal if we weren't there?

The pittance left wouldn't be worth the wrist strain.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 07:41 pm
Pssssssst ... Lash ... look under the table. Plenty o' money there.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 02:29 am
Lash wrote:
McTag wrote:
Lash wrote:
Not answering for anyone else--

But, Saddam's behavior had situated him in the third round of inspections in a what? 10 year period? and--he was dodging the inspectors.

He had no intentions toward full disclosure.

Like a bad child, when he saw Bush massing in the Gulf, he acted more like he was complying with inspectors, but what ...person actually believed once Bush began removing the threat, Saddam would coninue compliance with inspectors?

Do you remember the scientist, who was dragged screaming from the UN caravan?

Who will say they trust Saddam Hussien's veracity?


Key words: UN inspectors, UN resolutions. Not US. Nothing to do with USA.


Key fact: There is no UN without the US. It'd be an overindulgent parlor game in our absence. You need to know that.


I hear what you're saying, but since when is the USA the executive arm of the UN?
And if it needs a UN resolution to act (and these were often quoted in the "justification") but didn't get it, but went ahead anyway, what does that leave us with?

Illegality.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 02:37 am
WhoodaThunk wrote:
McTag wrote:
Has anyone over there heard of George Galloway, the british MP? I hear he has been invited to address a Senate committee on the subject if Iraq and his alleged involvement in OFF. I'm wondering if any of that is being reported over there.


This was discussed near the end of the 7.0 edition of this thread. I'm too lazy to cut & paste it, but I know you're a smart guy and can find it yourself. Smile


I was referring to developments in the last few days. Galloway has been invited to appear before the committee, and he has taken them up on their offer. He is a good speaker, and the exchanges should be robust.

I don't know where the truth lies on this one, but it is refreshing that the committee has time to devote to foreigners, since american fiscal activity in that country has evidently been so proper .
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 05:51 am
Quote:


Trigger-happy US troops 'will keep us in Iraq for years'
By Sean Rayment
(Filed: 15/05/2005)

British defence chiefs have warned United States military commanders in Iraq to change their rules for opening fire or face becoming bogged down in a terrorist war for a decade or more.

The Telegraph has learnt that the warning was issued last month in response to a series of incidents that led to the deaths of Iraqi civilians, mainly at checkpoints, after soldiers opened fire in the mistaken belief that they were being attacked by suicide bombers.

US soldiers secure the site of an explosion at busy market in Baghdad
US soldiers secure the site of an explosion in Baghdad

The warning is said to have taken the form of advice from senior officers who accompanied Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the General Staff, on a recent trip to southern Iraq and Baghdad to visit British troops.

A conversation took place between officers on the differences between British and American rules of engagement, during which British commanders expressed their concerns over the use of US tactics.

They attempted to explain that in their experience of post-war counter-insurgency operations it paid to adopt a low-key and less aggressive stance.

Iraq factfile

American officers were told that when the British Army had made mistakes, such as in Londonderry in Northern Ireland in 1972 when troops shot dead 13 civilians during a civil rights march, the political and military consequences had been disastrous.

In the past month alone in Iraq there have been more than 130 car bombings and 67 suicide attacks that have killed more than 400 people. The attacks have led to renewed fears among coalition officials that American and Iraqi forces are losing the fight against the insurgency.

According to senior British officers, US military operations are typified by "force protection" - the protection of troops at all costs - that allows American troops to open fire, using whatever means available, if they believe that their lives are under threat.

By contrast, the British military has a graduated response to a threat and its rules of engagement are based on the principle of minimum force. Troops also have to justify their actions in post-operation reports that are reviewed by the Royal Military Police, and any discrepancy can lead to charges including murder.

A British officer said that some of the tactics employed by American forces would not be approved by British commanders.

The officer said: "US troops have the attitude of shoot first and ask questions later. They simply won't take any risk.

"It has been explained to US commanders that we made mistakes in Northern Ireland, namely Bloody Sunday, and paid the price.

"I explained that their tactics were alienating the civil population and could lengthen the insurgency by a decade. Unfortunately, when we ex-plained our rules of engagement which are based around the principle of minimum force, the US troops just laughed."

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy and Cookie Policy.
XML RSS feeds available





Source
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 0.05 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 12:26:46