PeterMP Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 You might be thinking on Hans Blix. I read his book. It was a quick read and I recommend to to anyone who is curious about the basic details of the 2002-2003 UN inspections. Dr. Blix claims Iraq was fully cooperating with the inspections until Dubya pulled the US inspectors, in effect, kicking all UN inspectors out of Iraq and breaking UN resolutions that clearly state the US has an obligation to share all intelligence on alleged Iraqi weapons locations (Bush did not) and that the UN security council has exclusive rights to enforce the UN resolutions. So anybody who claims Bush was enforcing UN resolutions is obviously extremely unfamiliar with even the basic outlines of said resolutions. To follow up this post I'm sure some chronologically challenged Republican is going to contradict me with a hundred Hans Blix quotes from the 1998 inspections. Iraq did not cooperate in 1998. But they did in 2002-2003 according to Dr. Blix. Read "Disarming Iraq." What about we actually look at his testimony at the UN: "Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace. " "turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course." http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/ The deadline had passed for them to comply. This included more than just complying with access, but for them to actually voluntarily hand over information (e.g. cooperation with substance). In his final report to the UN (which was based on the deadline set in resolution 1441), Blix found that Iraq had not cooperated in the manner that was required by 1441. This of course is backed up by the fact that they were promising to release a report dealing with their anthrax facilities just after our invasion deadline. Blix supported further insepctions, but he didn't make the arguement that Iraq had in fact complied w/ resolution 1441. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFanAnt Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Islamic terrorism simply cannot be left unchecked anymore. Hoping the UN or economic sanctions or incentives will make the problem get better has been proven false. The war was a botched job. That doesn't remove the necessity of the job. Islamic terrorism? What about Capitalistic Imperial Terrorism? It's funny, because many people think the reason we went to war and are now occupying Iraq is because of terrorism. And why not?...after all, that was the lies that we were fed in order to be gung ho about illegaly invading Iraq...right? Everyone knows the Saudi's and the Bushes go hand in pockets with each other, so why is it so hard to see that what we are doing is fighting the Saudi's battles? They are making ssooooooo much money, they're building new cities out of nowhere (like Dubai) because of this war. Disagree? Why do you think we are paying more for gas and making less? And guess what?! IRAN IS NEXT!!! Not only was it wrong to invade Iraq, it was LUNACY! And now we are thinking of doing the same to Iran because of 'Islamic extremist terroism'. Oh, and btw, lets not even mention the local terrorists who are on this thread who want to nuke every country that this nation's incompetent leaders deam a threat to our national security. :doh: Did anyone learn from planet of the apes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Most definetely, without a doubt. Regardless of what's happening now, it was for the right reasons. What I find funny, is the same people who want us to invade Dafor and do something there, are same people who want us out of Iraq. Just makes me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Everyone knows the Saudi's and the Bushes go hand in pockets with each other, so why is it so hard to see that what we are doing is fighting the Saudi's battles? They are making ssooooooo much money, they're building new cities out of nowhere (like Dubai) because of this war. Did anyone learn from planet of the apes? I had no idea that Dubai was in Saudi Arabia. Learn something new every day, I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 No, the war should have never happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I want to apologize. I am a Democrat, and I voted on the thread before reading the instruction asking the Democrats not to vote. My mistake. There is one less "no" vote that there appears to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 The Iraqi war shocked the World as it was done so fast and furious. Then the politicians stepped in and as with Germany/Korea:it'll be a while. I've argued previously it was worth it: The amount of people being killed + the kids under 5 dying + the electricity + the water and everything else we've fixed.. they will be good for a LONG time to come. And yes we should have fixed Darfur: how embarrassing we as a world let it stare at us with black eye... And yes the UN should put its foot on NK until the GULAG's are shut down, millions being killed ....the Nukes are a big deal maybe, the Gulag's are here and now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I want to apologize. I am a Democrat, and I voted on the thread before reading the instruction asking the Democrats not to vote. My mistake. There is one less "no" vote that there appears to be. :doh: Make that two, I'm a dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 :doh: Make that two, I'm a dumbass. :doh: Make that three (and judging from the posts in this thread, probably several more).You should probably re-title the thread: "REPUBLICANS ONLY: Do you think the Iraq War was the right thing to do?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 31, 2008 Author Share Posted January 31, 2008 :doh: Make that three (and judging from the posts in this thread, probably several more).You should probably re-title the thread: "REPUBLICANS ONLY: Do you think the Iraq War was the right thing to do?" That's ok. I wanted to leave it open to Democrats who could be considering voting for a GOP candidate.In the debate the other night, every GOP candidate except Paul said that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. That was 4 to 1. Not exactly what the poll in this thread suggests, even with trying to account for false positives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I want to apologize. I am a Democrat, and I voted on the thread before reading the instruction asking the Democrats not to vote. My mistake. There is one less "no" vote that there appears to be. I did the same thing. Sorry Zguy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 What I find funny, is the same people who want us to invade Dafor and do something there, are same people who want us out of Iraq. Just makes me laugh. That irony goes both ways, especially for the neo-conservatives that support it. Because as it stands this war couldn't be more liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 That irony goes both ways, especially for the neo-conservatives that support it. Because as it stands this war couldn't be more liberal. Ok you got me, why liberal?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Ok you got me, why liberal?? I'm guessing because it was ambitiously interventionist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I'm so dazed and confused by the whole clustermuck that I can't possibly even remark sensibly on anything Middle East anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Ok you got me, why liberal??Invading countries to enhance the strength and security of the United States = conservative.Invading countries to save foreign peoples oppressed by dictators and sticking around to build schools, provide food, and establishing democracy = liberal. The Iraq War might have started out with conservative intentions, but what we're doing now is definitely what a liberal would do. Liberals say, "we should help the oppressed people in Darfur," but conservatives could counter, "what about the oppressed people in Iraq?" Conservatives say, "we must stay in Iraq to help rebuild the country and establish a stable democracy, but liberals could counter, "what about building a democracy in Sudan?" ...it's really all bass-ackwards... but that's what happens when conservatives try to implement liberal foreign policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 And yes, I'm thinking of voting for McCain. Hold that thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 The knowing what we know now leaves me undecided. I supported it at the time and still believe it was the right choice at the time,of course with hindsight you could also go back and correct errors that have made the effort harder/longer. Naturally I support our present efforts as well. DJTJ...I must be a lib, I would support going into Darfur but is has to be w/o restraint on the military's actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I have been both registered GOP and DEM over the past 22 years and now am a registered independent. The WAR WAS IN AFGHANISTAN, Bin laden alive and well living NOW SAFELY in the triblal regions of PAKISTAN/AFGHANISTAN BORDER region. Bush Cheney and the neocon cooked up BS intel on Iraq screwed up our ability to KILL the ****suckers who today are still laughing at us and continue to get away scott free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Do you think the Iraq War was the right thing to do? If your idea of "the right thing to do" is: ~creating a world government founded on the trillions shafted annually through the unconstitutional income tax and the killing of millions of people to control worlds oil supply while using terrorism threats as the underlying tool to hold off the layman the answer is yes..... :laugh: ------------------------------------- I picked no btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I have been both registered GOP and DEM over the past 22 years and now am a registered independent. The WAR WAS IN AFGHANISTAN, Bin laden alive and well living NOW SAFELY in the triblal regions of PAKISTAN/AFGHANISTAN BORDER region. Bush Cheney and the neocon cooked up BS intel on Iraq screwed up our ability to KILL the ****suckers who today are still laughing at us and continue to get away scott free Sounds easy, but putting a large force into Afghanistan is military suicide. Especially if Iraq is still under Hussein's rule. One quick look at a map of the region and you'll see why it is better to fight there with smaller less conventional forces. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 In another thread, someone had posted a link to a video that tried to prove Bin Laden isn't even a real person :laugh: Wouldn't surprise me.....they had a pinch of evidence too so it made ya think.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 1, 2008 Author Share Posted February 1, 2008 Sounds easy, but putting a large force into Afghanistan is military suicide. Especially if Iraq is still under Hussein's rule. One quick look at a map of the region and you'll see why it is better to fight there with smaller less conventional forces. ~Bang Which doesn't seem to be working with any lasting effect either. The Taliban is regaining power day by day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I'm an independent who's hoping I don't have to choose between Clinton and McCain. I voted 'no'. Knowing what we know now, there was no urgency to invade Iraq. There are a thousand 'ifs' I could list here, but clearly the invasion, as it happened, is one of the biggest mistakes the US ever made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Sounds easy, but putting a large force into Afghanistan is military suicide. Especially if Iraq is still under Hussein's rule. One quick look at a map of the region and you'll see why it is better to fight there with smaller less conventional forces. ~Bang Funny thing is, we had too many troops for Afghanistan, but not enough for Iraq ... wasn't there an in-between-sized country for us to invade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.