twa Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Thank you for proving my point. Are you playing dumb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Are you playing dumb? We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq, able to go anywhere they wanted with almost zero notice to the Iraqis. How is this not cooperation? Because they weren't quick enough in shuffling paper? That hardly constitutes an act of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq, able to go anywhere they wanted with almost zero notice to the Iraqis. How is this not cooperation? Because they weren't quick enough in shuffling paper? That hardly constitutes an act of war. According to Blix and other UN officials Saddam did not fully cooperate, Did he cooperate some?..sure Did he fully comply?...NO,not even close:rolleyes: He willfully held up any resolution of the WMD issue in direct defiance of the UN resolution....in addition to dragging his feet on destroying proven missile systems ordered destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 According to Blix and other UN officials Saddam did not fully cooperate,Did he cooperate some?..sure Did he fully comply?...NO,not even close:rolleyes: . That's not what Blix says in the book. Or in the quote you provided. He willfully held up any resolution of the WMD issue in direct defiance of the UN resolution....in addition to dragging his feet on destroying proven missile systems ordered destroyed Don't even act like you care about UN resolutions. You don't. Bush also broke the UN resolutions which say the USA has an obligation to share all alleged Iraqi weapons sites with the UN inspectors (Bush did not, hmmm I wonder why) and that only the UN security council has the authority to enforce the resolutions. Bush kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq so we could invade. Hilarious that you are complaining that Iraq made slow progress when it was your boy dubya who eliminated progress altogether after unilaterally refusing to cooperate. To sum up: Me: Iraq was cooperating with the inspections. You: no they weren't. Me: OK prove it. I read Hans Blix's book in which he quite clearly states Iraq was cooperating. You: Oh yeah!?! Well I have a quote that says Iraq was cooperating. Therefor I am right. -rolls eyes at MJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 The quote Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei said that although Iraq has cooperated in providing access to sites, it had not provided the information inspectors need to verify its claim that it has no banned weapons and long-range missiles to deliver them. Do you disagree Iraq was required to provide the above info? Is not providing what is required cooperating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I was never a big critic of many of Bush's policies with respect to the war on terrorism (which, contrary to what some believe, is a real war). However, for those of you who praised Bush's policies and said Obama would make this country vulnerable to attack because he is a bleeding heart liberal, how does that crow taste? Maybe Obama is different that who you thought he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I want you to look me in the virtual eye and tell me that the people of Iraq are better off under Saddam than now. Seriously. Think about this. If it was you and those were your choices. What would you chose? That conversation is between you and someone else, but I'm always intrigued by this argument. We didn't go into Iraq for humanitarian reasons at all. We went in primarily for us, not for them. That's what the Bush administration told us. We were protecting ourselves from terrorists (somehow) and Saddam's (fictional) nuclear program by invading. In other news, we also didn't fight WWII in order to save everyone from Japan and Germany. We were saving ourselves. Liberating the islands and Western Europe were military missions carried out for military reasons, not humanitarian reasons. Even the rebuilding in Europe and Asia were carried out in order to avoid the mistakes of WWI. Again, we were protecting ourselves. And that's also the only logical explanation for the Iraq War. Especially when you consider the fact that there are several other humanitarian situations in the world that are far worse, perpetuated by monsters even worse than Saddam. Monsters who, in at least one case, not only have WMDs but have demonstrated that they work and have explicitly threatened to attack the US! What more do you want? Fire up the damned tanks! Or... don't? For some reason? 'Cuz we have to take out this less dangerous guy instead? So the humanitarian argument doesn't hold up, even in light of Saddam's other purported traits (fictional tie to 9/11, fictionally viable nuclear development program). The humanitarian angle obviously isn't really why we went, even according to our own leaders at the time. It's not even fully convincing from a numbers perspective -- as has been pointed out earlier. For the record, $2+ trillion dollars would have the potential to substantially end disease and famine for millions in the worst parts of Africa for the next God knows how many years. The rest of our lives, probably, given the kind of permanent water/food/medical distribution infrastructure those $2+ trillion could build in places like Sudan -- if we wanted to get involved, of course. I'm amazed that people would just give away the opportunity to reboot the worst places on Earth, spanning an entire continent, just to get rid of Saddam for reasons that nobody seems to fully understand or agree on. When water supplants oil as the world's most coveted resource -- and in many places it will within our lifetimes -- the past 6 years will appear to have been even more foolishly wasted than they appear today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Saddam and his sons were terrible people I know a person that worked on the Iraqi survey group and the things she saw she had to leave the project because she could not sleep after seeing what saddam and his sons were doing to poeple. Before you chastize Bush even Sadam thought his Nuclear was along alot futhur then what it was. Bush got bad intel there is no doubt about it and acted on it. If 9/11 had happen and then recieved the intel wouldn't you act on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 That conversation is between you and someone else, but I'm always intrigued by this argument.We didn't go into Iraq for humanitarian reasons at all. We went in primarily for us, not for them. That's what the Bush administration told us. We were protecting ourselves from terrorists (somehow) and Saddam's (fictional) nuclear program by invading. In other news, we also didn't fight WWII in order to save everyone from Japan and Germany. We were saving ourselves. Liberating the islands and Western Europe were military missions carried out for military reasons, not humanitarian reasons. Even the rebuilding in Europe and Asia were carried out in order to avoid the mistakes of WWI. Again, we were protecting ourselves. And that's also the only logical explanation for the Iraq War. Especially when you consider the fact that there are several other humanitarian situations in the world that are far worse, perpetuated by monsters even worse than Saddam. Monsters who, in at least one case, not only have WMDs but have demonstrated that they work and have explicitly threatened to attack the US! What more do you want? Fire up the damned tanks! Or... don't? For some reason? 'Cuz we have to take out this less dangerous guy instead? So the humanitarian argument doesn't hold up, even in light of Saddam's other purported traits (fictional tie to 9/11, fictionally viable nuclear development program). The humanitarian angle obviously isn't really why we went, even according to our own leaders at the time. It's not even fully convincing from a numbers perspective -- as has been pointed out earlier. For the record, $2+ trillion dollars would have the potential to substantially end disease and famine for millions in the worst parts of Africa for the next God knows how many years. The rest of our lives, probably, given the kind of permanent water/food/medical distribution infrastructure those $2+ trillion could build in places like Sudan -- if we wanted to get involved, of course. I'm amazed that people would just give away the opportunity to reboot the worst places on Earth, spanning an entire continent, just to get rid of Saddam for reasons that nobody seems to fully understand or agree on. When water supplants oil as the world's most coveted resource -- and in many places it will within our lifetimes -- the past 6 years will appear to have been even more foolishly wasted than they appear today. I believe we needed to remove saddam for a number of reasons. The threat of WMD reaching terrorists is a damn good one. He still had the scientists and he sure as hell was supporting terrorists and sending them after us. These are proven facts. But when someone starts talking about the supposed harm we have done by removing a ruthless dictator who was guilty of starting multiple wars, genocide, rape, REAL torture, harboring and supporting terrorists including groups associated with al Qaeda, targeting american interests, paying suicide bombers families as an incentive to attack Israel and obstructing peace, and attempting the assassination of a US president, I damn sure will point out that the Iraqi people and mankind as a whole is better off because we removed him from power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Cool Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strike on Yemen Terrorists Cruise Missiles Launched Thursday Hit Two Suspected al Qaeda Sites; Major Escalation of US Efforts Against Terrorists http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236 Interesting things going on there in the proxy war,the Saudi's seem a bit distressed lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 That should be it's own thread IMO. Although it was interesting to go back and read this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 That should be it's own thread IMO. Although it was interesting to go back and read this one. I'm too lazy, but the events in Yemen have been rather interesting despite the stranglehold put on the media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Obama on Yemen: President Obama made a brief reference to Yemen, saying, "Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships." George W Bush... "On September 11 2001, America felt its vulnerability even to threats that gather on the other side of the Earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat from any source that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America." They are the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 They are the same And yet you supported Bush vehemently and rail against Obama at every opportunity. I guess you're more of a Republican than I give you credit for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 But W also said “I’m not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 And yet you supported Bush vehemently and rail against Obama at every opportunity. I guess you're more of a Republican than I give you credit for. And in your support for all war you are much more of a neo-con than you give yourself credit for. neo-con whats really funny about you MJ is that you claim I am a republican because I supported Bush 5 years ago, yet you dont think you are by supporting Bush's ideology on war today. Your'e the definition of a neo-con republican that you lay onto others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 There are undeniably similarities, however, I think it's important to note that most of us libs and conservs understood the need to strike back against the guys trying to hurt us. The initial invasion of Afghanistan was hugely supported. It was the pre-emptive war against Iraq which made many uncomfortable. It was torture and secret prisons that made many queasy. It was the easy dismissal of Americans privacy rights that set us on edge. Obama is guilty of continuing some of Bush's ill conceived tactics. The fight against terror is not one of them. We do need to remain vigilant and determined. I don't always know what that means though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 I expect Obama to do no different than a coach coming into a Good team. tweak it a bit, but don't screw it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 And in your support for all war you are much more of a neo-con than you give yourself credit for.neo-con Coming from a guy who voted for neo-cons twice and supported the invasion of Iraq, this is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Coming from a guy who voted for neo-cons twice and supported the invasion of Iraq, this is funny. Yep, I was a neo-con 5 years ago, You are one today. neo-con Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Say, here's a thought. Its OUR war. And no matter who we try to blame for it, we never seem to blame the ****ing enemy. Because they didn't just start the war because they didn't like Bush, or Obama, they started because they don;t like ALL of us. The terrorist factions we fight STILL want to kill you and me. I know it seems strange that there might be someone else to blame other than the political party we don't like. They're called the enemy. And they want to kill you. And if you don't think so, I would suggest to pull everyone out, and count the days until they do it again. Then we can wonder who's to blame for letting it happen. Again. And hey, that will give us plenty to argue about, eh? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Say, here's a thought.Its OUR war. And no matter who we try to blame for it, we never seem to blame the ****ing enemy. ~Bang I think there's also another level of truth in this. You broke it. You bought it. We can't just up and go and if we need to stay there are bound to be uncomfortable and wrong things happenign b/c that's the nature of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Say, here's a thought.Its OUR war. And no matter who we try to blame for it, we never seem to blame the ****ing enemy. Because they didn't just start the war because they didn't like Bush, or Obama, they started because they don;t like ALL of us. The terrorist factions we fight STILL want to kill you and me. I know it seems strange that there might be someone else to blame other than the political party we don't like. They're called the enemy. And they want to kill you. And if you don't think so, I would suggest to pull everyone out, and count the days until they do it again. Then we can wonder who's to blame for letting it happen. Again. And hey, that will give us plenty to argue about, eh? ~Bang I didnt realize we were at war with Yemen now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 When have we not been at with Yemen. I remember Taft delivering blistering speeches to rally us against the Yemenites. Yemen is one of the most evil places that ever existed. They are like a secret lair for Dr. Doom. Ask yourself this, how can we all know about Yemen but so little about it. They must be up to something. Something bad. Besides, feminists hate Yemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 When have we not been at with Yemen. I remember Taft delivering blistering speeches to rally us against the Yemenites. Yemen is one of the most evil places that ever existed. They are like a secret lair for Dr. Doom. Ask yourself this, how can we all know about Yemen but so little about it. They must be up to something. Something bad.Besides, feminists hate Yemen. Is there an over/under on how many countries we will attack that didnt attack us before this is all over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.