 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Jan 09 - 04:48 PM The tough questions here are the ones I asked when I started this thread and to date none of you war-mongers have come close to answering... Why??? Because it would reveal that you were (and still are), ahhhhh... ...wrong!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 24 Jan 09 - 12:59 PM Tough questions sure knock the wind out of the Liberal blowhards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 10 Jan 09 - 04:53 AM Why did there have to be a linkage between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein Gervase?? With regard to the security of the United States of America, both Al-Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq were two completely seperate issues. Since the war Al-Qaeda has had many mentions and since 11th September, 2001 to date thay have got fewer and fewer. Because of their handling of their "Jihad" in Iraq, where in an "infidel rich" target environment, they were seen to baulk at attacking armed "infidel invaders" and instead killed thousands of fellow muslims in an attempt to foment a civil war in Iraq - That Gervase did not go down too well in the "muslim world". Even Al-Qaeda's No.2 admitted defeat in Iraq. Ah yes all those Jihadists clustered on the borders - well Gervase, most of them died, figures stand at between 30 to 40 thousand of them so far. Afghanistan Gervase, I think 2009 and 2010 and going to bring very torrid times for the Taleban. Remember that road transportation exercise that ISAF undertook a couple of months ago to transport the components of the third turbine to the Kajaki Dam. The Taleban lost 250 men attacking the decoy convoy, injuries to ISAF amounted to one man with a broken hand he got while freeing a vehicle that become bogged down. Oh Carlton-Smith was perfectly correct in that there is no military victory to be had in Afghanistan - but that is as true for the Taleban as it is for ISAF and the Afghan Government forces. At the moment ISAF and the Afghan Security Forces stand a damn sight better chance of lasting the course until the Taleban realise that. The second round of free elections are coming up in both Iraq and in Afghanistan, let's see how they go. As to how things would have been better if the US had stayed at home: - Going on his average Saddam would have killed 617,580 Iraqi's possibly more (see below). - Libya would now have a nuclear weapon. - Syria would still be occupying Lebanon and be well on its way to acquiring a nuclear weapon capability. - The Second Iran/Iraq war would now be in its third year. This would be the only way Saddam had of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or a nuclear weapons capability. - World oil prices would have gone through the roof at the start of the conflict between Iraq and Iran because of loss of supply from the the middle-east region. - Terror attacks upon western european countries and the USA would have continued with growing intensity as the co-operation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies round the world would have remained at pre-911 levels. - Dr.A.Q.Khan's network would have remained undetected and would still be in business. - The opportunity for an international terrorist group to acquire, or be supplied with, WMD, or WMD technology would be five or six times what it is now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Jan 09 - 12:56 AM Gervase: Now that Mr Kendall has flaked out on answering the tough question about Rwanda, maybe you can answer this one because it relates to what you and he said: So, how many Rwandans have died because The USA stayed out of that nations business? And is that an acceptable figure? Amos: I am glad you finally fessed up to the fact that the truth you "bring" is not always the truth. To be to fair, I don't think you would have presented it if you had read through the post but you seem to be in such a rush to post piles of negative bullshit as if volume makes up for accuracy. Anyhoo, starting wars and causing the deaths of thousands of people is wrong in some instances such as Hitler and the Japs did. However in some circumstances it is not wrong such as in Kosovo and the Balkans. Do you think Saddam Hussein should have been left alone when he invaded and occupied Kuwait? Do you think the US should have stayed out of that nations business? Bobert: Still dancin' and not a single answer out of you. This thread is another one of your stink bombs and when the stink blows back on you, all ya got left is personal attacks to prop up your shaky arguments and strange ideas. Got any input on Kuwait or Rwanda or are personal attacks your forté? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 09 - 09:05 PM Welcome to the world of Sawz, Capt'n... This is the way the boy/girl is... But seein' as he/she used to be "Old Guy" here I'd bet he/she is a he... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 09 Jan 09 - 08:45 PM Sawzaw, old saying, "Never argue with someone whose opinion you don't respect." Now, if I gave a rat's ass what you think I might stick around, But you obviously don't understand plain English and I've wasted enough of my time trying to explain to you what is historical fact. You have a computer, look it up.You won't get the argument you seem to enjoy, but you might learn something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 05:40 PM And 200. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 09 - 05:32 PM You ain't shown jack, bb,... All you have done is your usual blow-hard act thinking that if you posted enough stuff that you would blow the House-of-Truth down... You are jsut a war mongin' word twister... I have quoted Blix... You have not addressed that but changed the topic to Blix did not say "that Saddam was acting in a way (blah, blah, blah...)"... That is a Mckey Mouse argument... You just pick ***un-"Quotes"*** out of thin air and expect everyone to dance at yer feet like you are some great knower of all that is true... You are just a belligerant blowhard who is too friggin; proud and partisan to admit that you are wrong... You have never addressed the fact the Blix said in his report that the cooperation was the """"most important"""" part of the report... Why??? Because it doesn't support yout narrow little minority view so you just invent stuff that sounds fluffy and then say that Blix didn't say exactly that??? You must think that everyone here is a friggin' retard??? I see thru yer little junior high school tricks and so does everyone else... Grow up... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 05:31 PM BB, 27th October: Took a quick count of signs from Sterling Va to the Beltway ( at MD/VA border: 25 McCain 12 Obama I counted "clusters of more than one sign obviously in the same yard as 1 sign each cluster- 2 clusters for McCain, one for Obama As good as the polls, I guess- showing a landslide for McCain! Tongue in cheek, maybe, but there you go! And Teribus - had anyone any reliable linkage between Al Queda and Saddam before the war? No, thought not. And since the war there have been plenty of incidents around which the name Al Queda has been muttered. However, it would probably pay you (and most journalists) to look at Al Queda. It is not a constitutional body, with a defined 'head' and operational arm. The name in Arabic simply means 'the base'; by and large it operates on a disparate basis, inspiring rather than micromanaging incidents. The London and Madrid bombers, for example were not, of themselves 'Al Queda', yet they were inspired by Al Queda, and the figureheads of the movement were happy to claim credit for the attacks. And Low's prediction is certainly true - there is a clear jihadist connection between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, with plenty of young hotheads packing the borders at the height of the war desperate to take up arms against the 'infidels'. Most of those were thankfully unsuccessful in getting a tour in Iraq, but do you really think they've now gone back home and taken up origami and macrame? And, if if you want dates for Low, Perle, the MoD report and the others I could dig them out. You could, of course, Google them yourself if it makes such a difference. Do report back. And Afghanistan is not proving to be a walk in the park. Annihilation may be some way off. As you're keen on Canadian punditry what of Richard Blanchette? Or, closer to home, Mark Carleton-Smith. Yet again the phrase 'lions led by donkeys' comes to mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 09 Jan 09 - 05:30 PM BB looks like you better had - Bobert has a problem with reading in as much as he doesn't seem to be capable of it. If memory serves me correctly Dr. Hans Blix reported something to the tune that the co-operation required was a two part process and that while Iraqi Authorities seemed to be co-operating fully on one part they were still not co-operating on the other. This led him on to complain that UNMOVIC's mission in Iraq was not one of hide and seek. Bobert of course does not want to hear or read any of this because it does not tally with the phenomenon known as the "BOBERT FACT", which can be anything that Bobert choses to spout. Examples of Bobert Facts: - The heads of Saddam's sons being displayed on sticks on the lawn of the White House. - 3000 Patriot missiles per day raining down on Baghdad. - 1 million Iraqi civilians have been killed, when ever the source he quotes clearly states that theirs is only an estimation of how many MAY HAVE DIED. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 04:32 PM Bobert, I have already shown that Hans Blix DID NOT SAY that Saddam was acting in a way that would lead to a resolution of the problem. Do I have to go over the whole thing again???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 09 - 04:21 PM Gervase, I find it interesting that the war-mongers her have steered this thread away from my original premise that the war was unnesessary because Hanz Bliz had inspectors on the fround in Iraq and that Hanz Blix stated on January 27th to the UN that the Iraqis were cooperating with those inspectors in letting them inspect where-ever the inspectors wanted... That alone shreaded any justification for the invasion... And you are right... Isreal is in violation of UN resolutions as we speak... pdq, Get a sense of humor... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:33 PM "Was this how you were able confidently to predict a McCain landslide?" Care to show any such prediction on my part? Making up things does not prove your point- it proves you have no respect for the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: pdq Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:30 PM In addition, both Iraq and Afghanistan had elections that were more fair and honest that several of our "united" states: New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri and Louisiana. Also, the recent attempt to install Al Frankenfraud in the US Senate suggests that Minnesota is part of that club too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 09 Jan 09 - 01:15 PM "In the opinion of most, the war was an illegal and costly mistake which has made the world less safe and cost too high a price." – Gervase Just to point out that just because that happens to be the opinion of most (It may, or may not be) does not necessarily make it true, or fact. The threat posed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein to the United States of America, her allies in the middle-east and elsewhere and the interests of the United States of America and her allies, was not something invented and dreamt up by George W. Bush or any other member of his administration. The Head of State of any country does not require permission from anybody to act in the best interests of their nation's security, especially not such a weak and vacillating an organization as the United Nations. "In your opinion the world is a safer place. I think you'll find yourself in rather a minority there." – Gervase. Again only BB's opinion, but one shared after careful and independent studies by the University of Uppsala in Sweden and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Now let's have a look at some of those quotations you saw fit to post: ""The war in Iraq ... has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world ... Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act."" – MOD Briefing Paper "The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." - US National Intelligence Estimates "a potent global recruitment pretext" for jihadists and says that the invasion "galvanised" al-Qaeda and "perversely inspired insurgent violence" there." - Institute for Strategic Studies "the war in Iraq provided terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills... There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." - David Low, the US national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "In the House of Commons in October 2003, before the invasion, Tony Blair himself said, "The assessment I received was that the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests came from al-Qaeda and related groups, and that this threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq...When I took the decision that military action would be required to ensure that Iraq complied with United Nations Security Council Resolutions, I had to weigh all the factors, including the possible short term risk of increased terrorism, against the longer term risks of rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction." And we know all about the WMDs now, don't we?" I note that you have only provided a date, albeit an incorrect one, for Blair (Well surely that must have been October 2002 as by the October 2003 the invasion was all done and dusted.) Now take a look at what came of those dire predictions Gervase: • Heard anything of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq lately?? • Heard anything of Al-Qaeda full stop lately?? • In Iraq the Islamic Jihadists were drawn into fighting battles not of their choosing and they have died in their thousands • In Afghanistan the Taleban have died in their thousands and are viewing the prospect of annihilation if they continue to confront the forces ranged against them The quote and prediction above from David Low was made on the premise that the Jihadists would be victorious – they weren't, they died in places like Fallujah and other places in Anbar and Diyalla Provinces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 12:04 PM Ah, so you are a man with privileged access to arcane knowledge. Was this how you were able confidently to predict a McCain landslide? I can see that I will have to bow to your greater knowledge on international law and on matters military as well. Tell me one thing, though - does it ever get lonely, being the only person in a column of troops who is in step? But, gosh, to think that a post on the internet has changed someone's mind! Is this a first? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:22 AM Gervase, you can blather on about the war being illegal until the cows come home, but it is only your opinion, and caries no more weight than YOUR belief that the moon is made of green cheese. As Data Manager for Clementine, I know better. The moon is NOT green cheese. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 11:13 AM Bruce, you can blather on about the war being legal until the cows come home, but it is only your opinion, and caries no more weight than your belief that the moon is made of green cheese. Greater minds even than yours are firmly of the opinion that the war was illegal. To refresh your memory on what happened... 1441 was only passed unanimously because members were assured that there would not automatically be military action if Iraq failed to heed it. The US ambassador to the UN stated: "This resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12." The Uk ambassador to the UN also told the Security Council, " If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities." When it became clear that the US and UK would not get nine out of the 15 votes need to carry the day they abandoned their 'second resolution' plan. By which time, of course, the war was already in the later stages of planning. The war may have been, for you, desirable (funny how some people get their jollies, isn't it?), but it is rash to claim that it was either legal nor prudent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:48 AM legal. The CEASEFIRE was being violated. UNR1441 was Saddam's last chance to comply- and the UN states that he did not. ( though there were numerous earlier violations, the failure to comply with the "LAST AND FINAL" chance to comply with the cease-fire was in and of itself sufficient to allow combat operations.) Cease fire is now null and void. WAR resumes, as authorised in 1992 by the UN. Saddam is no longer attacking or threatening UN authorized forces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: pdq Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:29 AM "Lets you and me meet up with T and Sawz behind the barn fir a little good ol' fashioned fist fight... You can pick which one you want... ~ Bobert Way over the line. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 10:18 AM Legal? The use of force by a state is prohibited by Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. The only exceptions are with Security Council authorisation or in self-defence against an armed attack by another state under Article 51. The was no authorisation, and self-defence is not an issue. Kofi Annan has said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." Lord Goldsmith, the UK's Attorney General, advised that the war would probably be illegal for several reasons including the lack of a Security Council resolution, although he appears to have hurriedly changed his mind when it became clear that the invasion would go ahead regardless of the legal situation. Richard Perle, no dove, has stated that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone." In your opinion the world is a safer place. I think you'll find yourself in rather a minority there. To quote from an MoD-commissioned briefing paper, "The war in Iraq ... has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world ... Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act." The US National Intelligence Estimates concluded, "The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." The Institute for Strategic Studies calls the war, "a potent global recruitment pretext" for jihadists and says that the invasion "galvanised" al-Qaeda and "perversely inspired insurgent violence" there. David Low, the US national intelligence officer for transnational threats, said the war in Iraq provided terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills... There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." In the House of Commons in October 2003, before the invasion, Tony Blair himself said, "The assessment I received was that the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests came from al-Qaeda and related groups, and that this threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq...When I took the decision that military action would be required to ensure that Iraq complied with United Nations Security Council Resolutions, I had to weigh all the factors, including the possible short term risk of increased terrorism, against the longer term risks of rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction." And we know all about the WMDs now, don't we? We won't talk about individual elements of the war and occupation, like Abu Ghraib. But suffice it to say that Bush's 'hearts and minds' doctrine is a little shaky. I could go on, but I doubt you'd listen. we did finish it A little premature aren't we? Mission not quite accomplished yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 09:13 AM "Your point, from what I can ascertain, is that all of that is irrelevant because you can Google enough material to suit your minority viewpoint." You ascertain incorrectly. IMO, the world is now a safer place, we had reasonable justification for our actions, and the war was as legal as any war can be. Yes, it was costly- but a single WMD in the wrong hands would be orders of magnitude more costly. Amos: We did not start the war ( Saddam invaded Kuwait) but we did finish it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 09 Jan 09 - 09:05 AM Sawz: AMerica has not been cut off from its oil suppliers. As for intestinal fortitude, do you have enough to state that starting wars and causing the deaths of thousands of people is wrong? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 09:01 AM My point is that you're making a lot of noise, flinging posts around like a mad woman's piss, but not really advancing your cause. In the opinion of most, the war was an illegal and costly mistake which has made the world less safe and cost too high a price. Your point, from what I can ascertain, is that all of that is irrelevant because you can Google enough material to suit your minority viewpoint. Well congratulations. I remember the first time I learned how to use a search engine. Fun, isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 08:13 AM No other "Last and final" chance UNR is involved, nor have those nations BEEN IN VIOLATION of a signed agreement for 12 years. Refusal to SIGN a treaty is a lot different than signing and then refusing to comply. Capiche? So, what the hell is YOUR point? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 08:10 AM How naughty. The USA has refused to accept the current verification protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention beacause it "does not suit US interests". Israel has so far declined to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. Israel is also in breach of numerous UN resolutions (including this week's 1860, which the US did not veto). So, your point is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jan 09 - 07:07 AM "any other country to which the USA takes a dislike?" How about violation of the "last and final " UNR to comply with the cease-fire terms that IRAQ signed up to? Hardly "any other country" That is like saying that it is wrong to put someone in jail ( or execute them) after they are found guilty because it means you might jail or kill "any other" person, regardless of their actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 09 Jan 09 - 02:47 AM So, how many Iraqis have died. And is that an acceptable figure? If regime change is a legitimate use of power (and where is the international law that says it is?), then why not North Korea, Zimbabwe, Venezuela or any other country to which the USA takes a dislike? Given the lack of hard evidence even at the time, what was so special about Iraq - other than the fact that the PNAC and other neo-cons had already marked Saddam's dance card before 9/11 and saw it as a heaven-sent opportunity to try out a shiny new policy that would bring an end to the world's problems and see the USA emerge as the once and future hyperpower? I'm sorry chaps, but your arguments are not persuasive, and your 'facts' are as subjective and selective as those of any flat-earther, creationist or holocaust denier, or indeed anyone clinging to an untenable position. Still, it's nice to know that the world is now a safer place! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 09 Jan 09 - 02:09 AM Just to put your 1 million dead Iraqis into context Bobert. The Second World War saw the first ever use of strategic air power. The allies predominantly the US and the UK built up vast fleets of heavy strategic bombers. RAF Bomber Command flew sorties against Germany from 1939 until May 1945, the US 8th & 15th Air Forces from about 1943 until May 1945. According to German figures all this bombing resulted in the deaths of just under 600,000 Germans. Now are you trying to tell me the US in Iraq killed almost double that figure in less than 2 months??? Sorry I don't buy it. Bobert, you have no arguements, facts or figures to back up your ridiculous contentions. When confronted with substantive fact you resort first to personal attack and now as evidenced on this thread threats of physical attack. What a sorry piece of work you are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 08 Jan 09 - 11:35 PM This whole thread is a Bobert troll for Tbus. Now Mr Kendall the history teacher wants to claim someone else is trolling so he does not have to answer the "tough" questions about what he said. Hey, I like history, teach me and fill in the missing information. Or maybe you can write some that supports your statements. Maybe you can answer this easy question: Should dictators be stood up to or should they be left alone to gain power? Bobert: You must revere Democrats they way you try to cover for them and shift all the blame to Bush. Were they stupid or something? Were there any other reasons for the war? Would you prefer that Hussein was still there, running the country? And why stop at mi8llion Iraqis? Why not mi16llion Iraqis? Just keep blowing the number up until you prove your point? You are the first person I have seen that is so touchy and defensive that he wants to beat up someone for asking him questions about what he himself stated. Agree with Bobert or suffer. Are questions really that threatening? You put on your ballerina slippers and tutu and try to dance around questions about your "facts" and when that don't work, you want to do some violence on the guy that asks the questions. Truth never hurt anybody, it just deflates their ego. You can point out my mythoogy any time you want. But back up the guy that says America should not get involved countries business. Yeah, leave him alone and threaten the guy that questions him about it. As for Amos, he does not have the intestinal fortitude to state whether America has been cut off from it's suppliers or not but he knows all about coconuts, the area he has real expertise in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 08 Jan 09 - 09:15 PM Yeah, Amos is right... Go low... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:47 PM Dese guys dey got haids like Coco-nut, Capting!! Det all green and hard!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:22 PM Well, Capt'n... Lets you and me meet up with T and Sawz behind the barn fir a little good ol' fashioned fist fight... You can pick which one you want... Don't much matter to me which one I get but I'd like to start with Sawz and then maybe do a switch-a-roo... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 08 Jan 09 - 08:05 PM Let's just stop feeding the trolls, Bobert.They just want a row. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 08 Jan 09 - 06:39 PM How about the mi8llion Iraqis that went down with Saddam, T??? Seems they didn't do too well either... Yo, Saws... Any post to me that begins with insinuating that I revere Democrats is bogus and I don't read any further... If you want to attack me start out with something that isn't pure unaltered mythoogy and I might read on... But beginning yer post with a lie ani't gonna interest me one bit... BTW, go back and read what I was sayin' during the mad-dash-to-Iraq and you'll see I had no more love for Dems then than do I now... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 08 Jan 09 - 01:43 AM Iraq a mistake Bobert?? If it was then the only person who made a mistake with regard to Iraq was Saddam Hussein. From the perspective of the United States of America their decisions and actions taken between September 2002 and March 2003 were fully justifiable and correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 07 Jan 09 - 10:27 PM Ok you have revised your war statement. Was it wrong to ship munitions to England? Should we have been afraid to do so and intimidated by a dictator? Keep in mind that the beloved FDR was lying his ass of to the American public about being involved. Why did "Roosevelt stopped all shipments to Japan. He ordered them out of Indo China, then, the final straw, he froze their assets in this country."? Does it have anything to do with standing up to dictators? Weren't we telling Japan to stay out of China's business? What happens when tyrants and dictators are ignored and left to conquer weaker countries? Do they get sated after a while and quit? Or do we eventually become the weaker country and a target for conquest? We had troops in South Korea after WW2. Why? Because of a UN commitment and obligation to defend South Korea. Is that not in your history books? As for Darfur and Rwanda which are fully on topic even if you did not mention them, all you need to do is answer yes or no. Was not getting involved in Rwanda was the right thing to do? Is staying out of Sudan's business the right thing to do? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:46 PM You are still not listening! When you took to nit picking I was forced to clarify my statements. Forget my original post and listen to this: America did not start WW 1, WW2 or Korea. This is what we DID do. WW1 we shipped munitions to England aboard the Lusitania after stern warnings from Germany that any ships doing so would be sunk. We set ourselves up to get into it with Germany. WW2. Roosevelt stopped all shipments to Japan. He ordered them out of Indo China, then, the final straw, he froze their assets in this country. That they could not tolerate. They would rather die than lose face. We did not fire the first shot, but we sure as hell asked for it! Korea. We had troops in South Korea after WW2. Why? When Dean Acheson stated that there was nothing in that area that we cared about, the North Koreans decided to reunify Korea by force and they invaded on the 25th of June, 1950. We didn't have to be in harm's way, but, we were, by our own will. I did not address Rowanda , Darfur or Sudan. All I can say about that is, there is no way that we can be the world's Policeman, nor should we. President Washington warned us about foreign entanglements, and President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. Did we listen? Even if we had the means to stop the killing around the world by imposing our will on everyone, where would we get the right? Now, Sawzaw, if this is still not enough for you, that's just too bad. I'm out of here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:32 PM Mr Bobert: Do you believe that the WMDS that your revered Democrat heroes swore existed was the only reason for the Iraq war? If Wmds were the only reason to go to war and it turned out that there were no WMDs you might have a leg to stand on but even that leg would be so wobbly and weak that you need prop it up with unsubstantiated claims that intelligence was cooked up LBJ style. He said She said in a book they are pedaling don't feed the bulldog. Even your own shiny new VP, Joe the Fumbler, who, as chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, knew more about the intelligence than anybody in congress voted for bill and he even appropiated money to pay off snitches to rat Saddam's WMDs. A rather elaborate hoax wouldn't you say? Was this Congressperson duped by GWB's cooked up intelligence when he made this statement?: "Mr. President, we should all hope for a genuine diplomatic solution to this stand-off, but no one should doubt our resolve to use force if it becomes necessary. We have little choice in this matter. Important principles and vital national interests are at stake. First and foremost, an Iraq left free to develop weapons of mass destruction would pose a grave threat to our national security. The current regime in Iraq has repeatedly demonstrated its aggressive tendencies toward its neighbors. It has also displayed a callous willingness to use chemical weapons to achieve its aims." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 07 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM Kendall: I appologize for questioning your manhood and morality. Now please reinforce your morality and manhood by giving direct answers to a few questions namely: Should America have intervened in Rwanda or was staying out of their business the right thing to do? Should America stay out of Sudan's business or should we but out? "How many people would still be alive if the USA would just stay out of other countries business?" And also how "We have started every war that we have ever been a part of and this latest is the most transparent of them all" How did America start WWI WWII and the Korean war? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Greg F. Date: 29 Dec 08 - 12:48 PM And who started them???? Waaaah!!! But MOMMY! He hit me First!!!! Or maybe this was intended as an allegory for the Israeli-Palestinian situation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 29 Dec 08 - 11:09 AM I didn't name any names. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Beardedbruce Date: 29 Dec 08 - 09:26 AM "but I do need to say that personal attacks will end the discussion. " And who started them???? I can be safely told how evil and bloody I am, but cannot reply??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 29 Dec 08 - 09:18 AM Of course he had WMDs. He used them on the Kurds just because they were plotting to take him out. Ok, we have to start somewhere, how about when the Actor supplied him with the gas he used to kill Kurds? He was our fair haired boy until Bush 1 and his Ambassador told Saddam that we didn't care what he did over there. He saw Kuwait as a part of Iraq that he wanted back, and he had the green light to take it. Just like when Dean Acheson told the North Koreans that there was nothing in SE Asia that we cared about, they took that as a green light to reunite Korea by invading the south. Voltaire was right. I'm not going to stick my nose into your difference of opinion with Bobert, but I do need to say that personal attacks will end the discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Dec 08 - 06:20 AM Kendall, "He was ordered to get rid of his WMDs. He did. He sent them to Syria," So you are even willing to admit he had them? THAT will get you in more trouble with the anti-bushites than "cross(ing) the Bush mafia". "but what I don't understand is why do you insist on starting in the middle?" I started with the invasion by Iraq of Kuwait, and the ceasefire terms of that conflict- which Saddam did not comply with for at least 12 years- and when given a "LAST AND FINAL" chance to do so, did not- according to the Blix reports from Novemeber 2002 through January 2003. If you call that the middle, let me know where I should start- the 1921 treaty that created Iraq ( breaking up the Ottoman Empire after WW I), perhaps? "Iraq was never a threat to us until we invaded them. " I disagree. IGNORING the threat to our allies ( NOT just Israel, but all of those we have treaty obligations with) Saddam had already threatened the US, and had both the means (IRBMs with WMD warheads(chemical) that could have been launched from ships outside of US waters) and had continued combat operations against US forces that were trying to enforce the ceasefire ( check how many fights the "No-fly zone patrol craft were in). I object strongly to the idea that Bobert can pass moral judgement upon me, for my support for what I think to be the correct action, yet complains when I give him back the same. I know he believes himself to be correct- but if that is sufficent, Hitler thought the same. So who is he to decide FOR OTHERS what they should think, especially when he makes no attempt to understand the basis for those decisions that others make as to what to support? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: kendall Date: 27 Dec 08 - 06:56 AM BB, I don't want to get into a pissing match with anyone, but what I don't understand is why do you insist on starting in the middle? I repeat, we had no business invading Iraq in the first place. All the crap flows from there, not from his supposed refusal to comply with the UN resolutions. He was ordered to get rid of his WMDs. He did. He sent them to Syria, but he could not let Iran know that he was without them. Iraq was never a threat to us until we invaded them. Were they a threat to Israel? Doubtful. Israel has proved in the past that they are not to be messed with, and they don't need no "steenking" permission to take out a threat to their existence. If you cross the Bush mafia you are branded a traitor or a homo, even if you are a loyal republican. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: akenaton Date: 27 Dec 08 - 03:57 AM and bloody well written........full of passion!! Try writin' one to P/vine....:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: akenaton Date: 27 Dec 08 - 03:54 AM Hey Bob....All this soul searchin' on the Les thread must be bearin' fruit! That was a lovely post, thought provoking and very "Christian" in the best sense of the word.....and that's not meant as a slight against Bruce either!...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: freda underhill Date: 27 Dec 08 - 03:19 AM bb, why my Jewish friends seem to support the invasion of Iraq is that Saddam had been sabre-rattling against Israel. Some months before the invasion, retired four-star US Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark acknowledged in an interview: "Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." Bush and Condoleeza Rice have also acknowledged the importance of protecting Israel from an Iraqi strike. The US invasion of Iraq has cost many tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Around the world, it has generated unmatched distrust and hostility toward the US. In Arab and Muslim countries, it has fueled intense hatred of the United States, and has brought many new recruits to the ranks of anti-Western terrorists. Iraq is now a major training ground for extremists and is implicated in the major bombings in Madrid, London, and Glasgow. Whether Israel has been made safer by this is highly unlikely. freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Dec 08 - 09:19 PM Sorry, Bobert. I disagree with your view. IMHO, to have not forced Saddam to comply would have been the greater evil, and caused far more death of innocents in the long run. I make no claim to know your soul, and why you disagree with me: How can you judge me when you refuse to even try to understand what I have been saying? |
