1
   

What Will We Have Won?

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 02:58 am
roverroad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
They could have delivered them. All they had to do was take them apart, smuggle the pieces into an American city, and re-assemble them.


What makes you think they would have done that? This is a country that has never even threatened us. Iraq has been more friendly to us that some countries we call allies, should we invade them next. Just having weapons isn't an international crime. Every country has the rite to defend themselves. And is always amazes me that the very weapons that we were concerned about we have in our own arsenal and more! Hell, we gave them to Iraq... We have used them too! Should someone be justified in coming in to disarm us? Why not, because we are special?

I am first of all pointing out that your statement that they have no capability to deliver is incorrect. It is incorrect because of the suitcase bomb scenario I mentioned.

Your other questions certainly deserve an answer, but I simply lack the time at this moment.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 03:41 am
edgarblythe wrote:
I didn't storm off in a huff. I see the rigidity of your statements to others. You leave no room for discussion. I will always be here, just not going to wrangle endlessly while you say the same thing over and over and then accuse others of not wanting a discussion.

To state that you don't want to engage a particular individual in debate is your right. However, to claim the right to answer an individual's posts, and tell him that he's wrong, but the freedom from having to support any of your statements is merely dishonest.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 04:01 am
El-Diablo wrote:
We will know that I-rack is temporarily a democratic nation with more opporunities and freedoms....


However how that affects me and my family/community/state/country I don't know. But it's for a good cause. I think.


It probably is a good cause. But wasn't Vietnam also a good cause? The US was trying to prevent communism in that country-and failed. And today, tourists go to Vietnam on holidays. Vietnamese people go overseas on holidays- I know because I've met them. They also emigrate from Vietnam to other countries- I know because I've met alot of them. Those that emigrate go back to visit their families-I know because I know some that do it now. So what exactly did over a million people die for in that war.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 07:39 am
Anyone that doubts the preponderance of evidence of WMD's prior to the invasion of Iraq is doing nothing more than ignoring the evidence. It doesn't matter that it has been proven right or wrong now. Using what we know now and applying it to what we knew then is a pointless tactic with no merit.

The US was right to invade then, and we are right to stay now. Anti-war people will continue to be anti-war people and no amount of discussion or debate will ever change that.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 08:38 am
But you're asking us to heed evidence that was created and propagandized by this administration.
That's like asking Germans for proof of the inherent evil in the Jews. They have no other authority to appeal to other than that which is provided by a "trusting" government agency.
If there truly was overwhelming evidence of a successful and threatening WMD program, it does not explain why so many past American allies were hesitant to hop on the back of the coalition's bus.
Just like so many intellectuals on this board are skeptical of statements such as "reports of..." and "allegations about...." and "allegedly....", and "intelligence gathered by anonymous sources...", many leader of free nations had more faith in the (and say all you want about the organization) UN than they did in the Shrub's blatent bias toward Iraq.

When faced with a clear, present and imminent threat, rational and logical mi ds make sound decisions. When faced with hypothetical scenarios (like "suitcase bombs being imported from Iraq/Saddam to destroy America) and hysterical conjecture, irrational individuals will accept at face value any facts that support their prejudice or philosophy.

Upon seeing the satellite images of "portable biological WMD labs", many of us called bullshit immediately...and every time the terror alert was raised, some of us didn't allow our puppet strings to knee jerk us into hysteria.

Brandon makes an appeal to the mountains of "evidence" in favor of an invasion, yet fails to acknowledge that all the intelligence he still maintains was legitimate has in all instances turned out false. You simply can not expect to gain any respect from rational individuals when you continually appeal to invalid premises to support an equally invalid conclusion.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 08:41 am
You tell 'em Wilso.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 08:48 am
candidone1 wrote:
On the contrary. What was asked was "What will we have to hold in our hands as proof of victory?"
To which you predictably cut and pasted from your "response to the Iraq war" template.
What BVT was asking is since the administration continually prods the American people to support this conflict, and has once prematurely announced that the war was over, qualitatively or quantitatively, subjectively or objectively, what constitutes a "victory".
If you respond again from said template, let me put this in in advance; Saddam is gone and WMD myths have been debunked. Does this constitute an American victory? If so, why is there still an occupational American military presence in Iraq?


I dispute your claim that the WMD myths have been "debunked." The legitimate question that remains is "what happened to the WMD." Beyond that, there is still an American military presence in Iraq because the military force of the new Iraqi goverment is not yet up to the task of maintaining control without the assistance of the US military.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 08:48 am
edgarblythe wrote:
There was no possibility of WMDs in Iraq at the time of the attack. ....


Perhaps BPB/BVT said it best: "Horseshit."
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 08:48 am
edgarblythe wrote:
The link is not in reply to you, but blueveinedthingamabob.

Anybody watching the news during the months preceding the attack had ample opportunity to see that what I said is true. If the Bush people said, the WMDs are in such and such place in Iraq, the inspectors were allowed to go there and search to their hearts content, until Bush said get those inspectors out of there. It was on all the news channels. Surprised you didn't notice.


My immediately prior response is apropos here as well.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 08:49 am
candidone1 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

My personal merits or demerits are irrelevant and can't be used to discredit my ideas, no matter how much you wish to avoid debating my ideas themselves.


But my dear firend, it is you precious "ideas" (or, "idea") that I am attmpting to discredit.
That you and this current administration believe that there was a real possibility that Hussein had WMD was based on a prejudiced and biased response to any such questions he could have come up with vis a vis WMD.
A flawed premise simply can not result in a valid conclusion.


In response to any and all inferences that the belief that Saddam had WMD (a question which I do not think has been settled conclusively, particularly since we know he did have them, and there is a good chance he spirited WMD away to Syria), was solely held by the Bush Administration, I remind you of the joint resolution of Congress, Public Law 102-1:

Quote:
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 107-243);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
LINK

Do you need to be reminded of the beliefs of all of the Democrats in the United States that also held that belief? I can provide you with those. Just let me know.

canadadry wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Now either debate the idea itself or concede defeat.


This is not a thread in which I am attempting to emerge victorious Brandon. It is aparent to me and everyone on this board that your mantra has been well rehersed and propaganda has become true belief.
The loser is not going to be me, for it is you who fails on every occasion to be bothered by any facts on the matter.
I do not lose anything when that happens.


It is apparent to me and everyone on this board that Brandon's previous responses in this thread are spot on, and your stubborn refusal to admit even the most obvious facts is telling.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 08:49 am
roverroad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I said that by invading we gained certainty that Iraq had no WMD.


So, what did that get us? Because we invaded we got assurance of something? When the whole time Iraq was never a threat to us even if they did have WMDs... It just makes no sense... The average Joe on the street knew Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States. Even if they did have WMD's, they could never have delivered, and that was common knowledge before the war.


What makes sense to you? Sitting back and taking the word of madman Saddam that he's in compliance? Sitting on our hands and trusting that he's not continuing to play the same games with the UN inspectors he'd played for a decade? That didn't make any sense then, and still doesn't.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 08:49 am
roverroad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
They could have delivered them. All they had to do was take them apart, smuggle the pieces into an American city, and re-assemble them.


What makes you think they would have done that? This is a country that has never even threatened us. Iraq has been more friendly to us that some countries we call allies, should we invade them next. Just having weapons isn't an international crime. Every country has the rite to defend themselves. And is always amazes me that the very weapons that we were concerned about we have in our own arsenal and more! Hell, we gave them to Iraq... We have used them too! Should someone be justified in coming in to disarm us? Why not, because we are special?


This is a country that tried to assassinate our president. This is a country that had repeatedly violated the no fly zones, and fired upon our military aircraft in violation of the terms of the Gulf War 1 treaty. Iraq having certain weapons absolutely was a crime.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 08:51 am
candidone1 wrote:
But you're asking us to heed evidence that was created and propagandized by this administration.
That's like asking Germans for proof of the inherent evil in the Jews. They have no other authority to appeal to other than that which is provided by a "trusting" government agency.
If there truly was overwhelming evidence of a successful and threatening WMD program, it does not explain why so many past American allies were hesitant to hop on the back of the coalition's bus.
Just like so many intellectuals on this board are skeptical of statements such as "reports of..." and "allegations about...." and "allegedly....", and "intelligence gathered by anonymous sources...", many leader of free nations had more faith in the (and say all you want about the organization) UN than they did in the Shrub's blatent bias toward Iraq.

When faced with a clear, present and imminent threat, rational and logical mi ds make sound decisions. When faced with hypothetical scenarios (like "suitcase bombs being imported from Iraq/Saddam to destroy America) and hysterical conjecture, irrational individuals will accept at face value any facts that support their prejudice or philosophy.

Upon seeing the satellite images of "portable biological WMD labs", many of us called bullshit immediately...and every time the terror alert was raised, some of us didn't allow our puppet strings to knee jerk us into hysteria.

Brandon makes an appeal to the mountains of "evidence" in favor of an invasion, yet fails to acknowledge that all the intelligence he still maintains was legitimate has in all instances turned out false. You simply can not expect to gain any respect from rational individuals when you continually appeal to invalid premises to support an equally invalid conclusion.


Created and propagandized by this administration? That's BS. You are once again using current intelligence and applying it to past intelligence. It was wrong (although the missing WMD's are still missing). That's it. The reason we know that now is DIRECTLY a result of the invasion.

The pre-war intelligence from so many governments, not just the US, is the reason why the UN had so many resolutions about WMD's in Iraq. The pre-war intelligence, past uncooperation by Saddam, missing WMD's and the threat posed by terrorism were too great to leave alone. No amount of anti-war rhetoric will change that.

The intelligence WAS legitimate. At the time.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 08:54 am
McWhitey wrote:
It was wrong (although the missing WMD's are still missing).


I will have my cake, i will . . . and i shall eat it, too . . . so there . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 08:58 am
McWhitey wrote:
It was wrong (although the missing WMD's are still missing).


The other day, upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again to day
Oh how i wish he would go away.



Oh Lord, you are a veritable fund of unintended hilarity . . .
0 Replies
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 09:01 am
Ticomaya, those no fly zones were on their home soil by the way. They were defending themselves from us... As far as them trying to assassinate our president, well we tried to assassinate their president, so we still were never provoked.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 09:01 am
McGentrix wrote:

Created and propagandized by this administration? That's BS.


Then where did the mountain of evidence come from? If, as you say,
McGentrix wrote:
The intelligence WAS legitimate. At the time.

then it never was in fact legitimate.
You are in a clear contradiction.
That I once believed in Santa Claus and saw him in the malls, had my parents tell me about him, and saw telltale signs of cookie crumbs on the fireplace does not make the belief true at the time.
It is a true belief, but empirically speaking, it was and always will be a false and invalid belief.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 09:02 am
Keep making excuses for Saddam. Maybe you will a nice cozy place in the next life as a result.
0 Replies
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 09:03 am
Ticomaya wrote:
What makes sense to you? Sitting back and taking the word of madman Saddam that he's in compliance? Sitting on our hands and trusting that he's not continuing to play the same games with the UN inspectors he'd played for a decade? That didn't make any sense then, and still doesn't.


It makes a hell of a lot more sence than going to war!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 09:03 am
McWhitey wrote:
Maybe you will a nice cozy place in the next life as a result.


A little more coherence, if you please.
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 0.03 seconds on 06/30/2024 at 10:12:00