No, THIS is what going crazy must feel like. by AURaptor

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Damned if you do,damned if you don't. Personally, I think our biggest mistake was not doing ENOUGH , early on and then thinking things would chill out. Once it became obvious that that wasn't going to happen, politics kicked in, from both sides. Those who voted for the war are now crying about it. Please. If you're not going to lead, then get the hell out of the way. Sadly, everyone just wants the spot light.

No the biggest mistake was wanting it now now now. The biggest mistake was thinking you can bully the rest of the world into falling into line. The whole endeavour was destined to lead right where it's going while there was no real multi-national support and while the regional powers weren't in support. The reason the first Gulf War wasn't as big a fuck up as this one, was precisely because it was a joint effort and the regional powers were on board.

This time around though all you had was George Bush saying "my way or the high way", not to Iraq, but the people whose support he needed but was both too inept and too disinterested to actually try to garner. That's why its a fuck up.

So you are absolutely right, not enough was done, not enough was done by the coalition to actually make it a coalition rather than a team of countries that did what Bush told them to. Not enough by half to make this anything more than America throwing it's military weight around, and it could have been more than that, but it's not.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
No the biggest mistake was wanting it now now now. The biggest mistake was thinking you can bully the rest of the world into falling into line. The whole endeavour was destined to lead right where it's going while there was no real multi-national support and while the regional powers weren't in support. The reason the first Gulf War wasn't as big a fuck up as this one, was precisely because it was a joint effort and the regional powers were on board.

Not really. In 1991 we were using a different strategy. One that involved carpet bombing and artillery barrages that produced widespread damage to civilian infrastructure, whihc was something we were trying to avoid in 2003. Furthermore, in 1991 we left without actually achieving any real goal other then to force Hussein out of Kuwait, as opposed to actually removing Hussein from power. Had we used a humanitarian strategy and removed Hussein from power in 1991, the war would have been just as complicated. Multi-national support has nothing to do with that.

Secondly, the multi-national support in 2003 was larger then it was in 1991, with 49 nations supporting the 2003 invasion, as opposed to about 30 nations in 1991. Only a UN mandate is different. In 1991 the UN mandated the invasion of Iraq, in 2003, it did not. However the difficulty with getting a UN mandate in 2003 had nothing to do with a lack of multi-national support for the invasion obviously, but rather with the fear that France and Russia would seek to veto the action. So by claiming that absence of a UN mandate constitutes no international support for the 2003 Iraq war is essentially granting France and Russia the ability to define what international support means, which is nonsense.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Secondly, the multi-national support in 2003 was larger then it was in 1991, with 49 nations supporting the 2003 invasion, as opposed to about 30 nations in 1991.

Bollocks. This time around it was basically the US and the UK and a bunch of nations that said "sure we'll sign our name there so it looks like someone supports you".

Quote:
So by claiming that absence of a UN mandate constitutes no international support for the 2003 Iraq war is essentially granting France and Russia the ability to define what international support means, which is nonsense.

Where as we all know that distinction lands at the feet of the US alone?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:47 AM

DAVESHAYNE

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed

You mean to find all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? We went, we looked, they don't have any. Time to come home.

David

"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:02 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by daveshayne:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed

You mean to find all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? We went, we looked, they don't have any. Time to come home.

David

"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de

No, that's not right. It was Saddam's links to the al-Queda terrorists, wasn't it? Or it was his DESIRE to have WMD? Or his ongoing WMD research program? Or his DESIRE to have an ongoing research program? His role in 9/11? Or wasn't it to spread democracy in the Middle East? or to remove a tyrant who was nasty to his own people, to liberate them? or to fight the terrorists in their own neighborhood, so they'd be too busy to cause trouble over here?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Secondly, the multi-national support in 2003 was larger then it was in 1991, with 49 nations supporting the 2003 invasion, as opposed to about 30 nations in 1991.
Bollocks. This time around it was basically the US and the UK and a bunch of nations that said "sure we'll sign our name there so it looks like someone supports you".

In reality however in both invasions ~90%-95% of the troops came from only three countries with most countries in the coalition providing less then one percent of the invasion complement. In both cases the US/UK contributed the vast majority of the invasion force, 94% in 2003 and 85% in 1991.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In reality however in both invasions ~90%-95% of the troops came from only three countries with most countries in the coalition providing less then one percent of the invasion complement. In both cases the US/UK contributed the vast majority of the invasion force, 94% in 2003 and 85% in 1991.

In reality though I'm not talking about merely the troops. In reality I'm talking about the support being real rather than traded by predominatly third world nations, none of which were the local powers. In reality I'm talking about real support rather than on paper to look good support. In reality.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:55 PM

Wrong.

For 50+ years we meddled, and meddled, playing favorites, playing pattycake with scum, propping up tyrants, throwing down moderates, and it lead exactly where folks with sense said it would.

We threw down Mossedeigh for the Shah, they threw down the Shah, and sent in Khomeni, so we propped up Hussien, etc etc.

And who propped up and practically built Osama ?

And for a fact we're the primary financiers of the Isreali war machine.

These chickens came home to roost, that's all, and whatever scumbag we prop up in Iraq on the way out is likely to either turn on us when we hang em out to dry, or be thrown down and replaced by someone else who despises us, whether it happens now, or a couple years from now, the end result is the same - it boomerangs on us every single time, and what do we learn from it ?

Not a damned thing.

Time we learned the merit of leaving the hell alone.

On a side note - one of our more blatant recent actions unfortunately legitimizes Iran's storming and hostage taking of OUR consulate in 1979.

We stormed theirs in Iraq recently and did exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reasons.

So much for the moral high ground.

In Hindu lore, there is the myth of the monkey trap. The monkey spies a bottle with a banana inside it. The neck of the bottle is just big enough for the monkey's empty hand to slide in. The monkey grabs the banana and, whoops! He finds he cannot extract his hand and the banana. To retrieve his hand he must let go the banana.

The whole middle east is a monkey trap to us, all we need to do to solve the problem is let go, but the greedy stupid bastards in power cannot accept that, and so all our blood and treasure is spilled in futile efforts to change a reality that will not be changed.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
In reality though I'm not talking about merely the troops. In reality I'm talking about the support being real rather than traded by predominatly third world nations, none of which were the local powers. In reality I'm talking about real support rather than on paper to look good support. In reality.

The majority of the countries involved in both cases were not third world nations. The fact is that many countries supported both the the 1991 and the 2003 invasion, and in both cases the majority of the countries provided only token support. So if the 1991 gulf war had multi-national support, so did the 2003 war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The majority of the countries involved in both cases were not third world nations. The fact is that many countries supported both the the 1991 and the 2003 invasion, and in both cases the majority of the countries provided only token support. So if the 1991 gulf war had multi-national support, so did the 2003 war.

You're kidding yourself.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:33 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The majority of the countries involved in both cases were not third world nations.

What? I'm sorry, I thought you said the majority of the countries in the 2003 coalition weren't third-world. I suppose you can weasel and say that just because someone's not powerful doesn't make them third-world, but by your statement you're implying that we had a coalition behind us that was made up of countries of more than minimal importance.
Some of our more prominent members in 2003:

Singapore Philippines
Afghanistan Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan Georgia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia Solomon Islands
Mongolia Palau
Tonga Eritrea
Ethiopia Uganda
Rwanda Angola
Estonia Latvia
Lithuania, etc.

[Edited to add: Those were supposed to be in columns, with spaces in between. Oh well.]

Only 3 members of the G8, one of whom has withdrawn (Italy, and Canada had less than 10 troops in Iraq and who are no longer there anyway, therefore I'm discounting them, before someone says, but what about Canada). On a larger list, the only regional power providing support is Kuwait, probably from a sense of obligation.

On the other hand, the 1991 invasion had support from most of the G8 (Canada, France, Germany, US, UK, Italy) as well as mass regional support -Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey.

I'm curious how you'll discount this evidence that the two coalitions are in any way equal, or that the 2003 coalition is in any way superior to the 1991 coalition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Forces
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:36 PM

Thanks Seven, but it's really not worth it. He'll just end up implying you're a nazi.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:41 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Well, you said I was a terrorist in the other thread - which is it? Terrorist or Nazi?!?!

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Well, you said I was a terrorist in the other thread - which is it? Terrorist or Nazi?!?!

You mean you can't be both? Commie-Nazi-Terrorist-Jew?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:50 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Damned if you do,damned if you don't.

It's human nature to envy the one at the top.

Whether it's the most stuff, the most power, the best looks -- everyone wishes they had it, too.

For the better part of the last six decades, the U.S. has been the top dog.

As a side note, the U.S. didn't become top dog by choice, but rather by blessing of default -- as all of the other dogs at (or near) the top of the pile beat the crap out of each other (in their own yards, nonetheless), essentially decimating themselves, and leaving the U.S. as the only one still standing with the majority of their resources, infrastructure and economy intact.

However, history clearly demonstrates that power and wealth is temporal -- no one stays at the top forever. As such, I've no doubt that the day will eventually come when another dog will be sitting pretty at the top of the pile, and the U.S. relegated to a less enviable position.

Whether such a change occurs in this generation, or not until well beyond the lifetimes of everyone in this forum, I am fairly certain that it will happen. When it does, I believe the rest of the world will espouse two, very different sentiments...

Initially, I'm guessing that much of the globe will express unmitigated glee at the downfall of the U.S. They'll be giddy in celebration. "Hah,hah! The American taskmaster has fallen!!" (insert ecstatic, drunken revelry here)

After a while, however, I imagine that it will dawn on many of them that the nation who single-handedly has given more to the rest of the world (its enemies, included) has stopped sending the checks, and sadly, the era of global welfare will have ended.

They will also likely realize (in relative short order) that the nation which could consistently be depended upon to bail their posteriors out of the fire was conspicuously missing. "Oh dear! There's no one standing between that nasty neighbor and me anymore!! And I don't like the way they're eyeing-up my resources/wealth/citizenry/take your pick..."

For all of the U.S.'s faults (and yes, we've had plenty) the U.S. could've played the card the Soviets had in Eastern Europe, and occupied all of Western Europe with satellite, puppet regimes. They could've pulled out of Europe altogether, and let Stalin march to the Atlantic (and then some). They could've ignored a lot of their neighbor's "little problems", for which they consistently and willingly shed the blood of their youth for causes which (in no way) had any bearing on the way we lived our lives back here in the good old U.S.A.

In summary, I can only hope (for the sake of those who have been the ungrateful recipients of America's good will) that when that day does come, that whoever succeeds the U.S. to the top of the pile will demonstrate at least a fraction of compassion and generosity that the U.S. has over the past six decades. After all, there's no guarantee that the next top dog has to be a Truman or Marshall. He (or she) could just as well be a Nero, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin.

Sometimes one never realizes how good one has it until it's gone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
It's human nature to envy the one at the top.

Or to put it another way:

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
I believe the general loss of trust and respect the international community is beginning to feel for the US is entirely their fault and problem.

I gather they're just jealous.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=26749

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The majority of the countries involved in both cases were not third world nations.

What? I'm sorry, I thought you said the majority of the countries in the 2003 coalition weren't third-world.

Yeah, that’s what I said. Even if I were to take your list of supposedly Third World nations in the coalition, that’s still not a majority. But some of the countries in your list aren’t Third World. Mongolia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Singapore are not Third World.

There’s no doubt that the coalition that we had in 1991 was much more powerful, but then we also believed that Iraq was much more powerful as well, and the strategy we were using was different. And it was discovered rather quickly that the military force that was brought to bear on Iraq in 1991 was orders of magnitude overkill. In 2003, we intentionally kept the force small, because our strategy called for a small footprint. But there’s no doubt that the 2003 war had multi-national support. That’s a fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 2:30 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yeah, that’s what I said. Even if I were to take your list of supposedly Third World nations in the coalition, that’s still not a majority

Not a majority of what, the coalition? Yes it is. I provided you a list half of the 'coalition'. You're seriously going to claim that those countries provide any real power in the coalition, or any real support? Now you're stretching.

Quote:
But some of the countries in your list aren’t Third World. Mongolia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Singapore are not Third World.

Ah, okay. You're going to do exactly what I figured, and play the "textbook definition of Third World" card. Fine. Those countries may not be considered 'developing nations without a large population base,' and they're technically 'Second World' (there, does that make you happy?). But you can't refute the larger issue - that those are not countries of any serious standing in the world, and you know it.

Quote:
There’s no doubt that the coalition that we had in 1991 was much more powerful,

Then that's what you should have said earlier. You implied that the 2003 coalition is just as powerful and is of the same quality as the 1991 coalition, and that the 2003 coalition is filled with members of substance. It isn't.

Quote:
But there’s no doubt that the 2003 war had multi-national support. That’s a fact.

You also want to parse down to "our mission is different so we had a different force" as well as "it has nations, so it is multi-national." We have a different force because we couldn't get anyone to sign on to our hairbrained idea of nation-building. As far as the multinational goes, I'll say this: You can make fun of France and Germany all you want, but they're a sure sight better to have on your side as support than Rwanda or Estonia.

Oh, and one other thing - I'm curious what your take is on the fact that we had zero regional support this time, as opposed to last time.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 3:20 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
No the biggest mistake was wanting it now now now.

What part of 10 GORRAM YEARS did you NOT get ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 3:49 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
But there’s no doubt that the 2003 war had multi-national support. That’s a fact.

And there's no doubt that opposition to the 2003 war had multi-national support. That's also a fact.

But don't let me get in the way, it's been a while since I've last seen a bout of 7% vs Finn, and their discussons are usually great fun!

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:38 PM

REDLAVA

You would think that having almost every major player in the world being against us going into Iraq would have been a reason for Bush to rethink his plans in the first place. But no.

Knowing that Bush will still be President for another two years is what going crazy feels like.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:54 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And where'd that lead us? Well, it lead us exactly where we said it would. War. But now, it seems there's a collective amnesia going on, all across the world. It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed

Auraptor, perhaps the amnesia problem is yours. You seem to be forgetting that UN inspectors were within weeks of declaring Iraq in substantial compliance. That the UN never voted for invasion. That many nations around the world opposed it right from the start.

You also seem to be forgetting the Admin's big hoo-ha about smoking guns and mushroom clouds, chemical weapons deployed "east west south north somewhat" of Baghdad, the links between Saddam and 9-11 and all the other... bullshit... that successfully stampeded most people to support the war. And what you REALLY forgot is al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. You've totally taken your eye off the ball.

How does it feel to have your hard drive erased remotely? A little like going insane?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What part of 10 GORRAM YEARS did you NOT get ?

You and I both know that the whole episode from GWB setting things in motion to the invasion took no time at all. Don't give me this 10 Years bullshit.

That's just selective reading of history.

EDIT (FOR BDN's benefit): Although I didn't change anything I had previously posted in any way shape or form I added the last sentence for clarification.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 28, 2007 1:58 AM

JORUNE

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Damned if you do,damned if you don't.

In summary, I can only hope (for the sake of those who have been the ungrateful recipients of America's good will) that when that day does come, that whoever succeeds the U.S. to the top of the pile will demonstrate at least a fraction of compassion and generosity that the U.S. has over the past six decades. After all, there's no guarantee that the next top dog has to be a Truman or Marshall. He (or she) could just as well be a Nero, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin.

Sometimes one never realizes how good one has it until it's gone.

I think part of the experience of being an Imperial Power is looking back at what you have done and making an honest assessment of the mistakes you have made.

While the British Empire spread ideals of liberty and democracy that were anathema to other European powers it also committed acts that were probably evil in action while preaching that it was morally superior. The two most obvious examples are the great famines in Ireland and India where a fanatical belief in the free market, local rivalries and wilful ignorance from the centre just added to the tragedy.

It takes time for the mainstream to realise this and in the inward looking US media I'd guess it will take a long time. The post war agreement with the US and the UK was designed to ensure the end of the British Empire and cement the rise of American power. I believe the notional handover of power between China and the US will be similarly designed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:45 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
And where'd that lead us? Well, it lead us exactly where we said it would. War. But now, it seems there's a collective amnesia going on, all across the world. It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed
Auraptor, perhaps the amnesia problem is yours. You seem to be forgetting that UN inspectors were within weeks of declaring Iraq in substantial compliance. That the UN never voted for invasion. That many nations around the world opposed it right from the start.

You also seem to be forgetting the Admin's big hoo-ha about smoking guns and mushroom clouds, chemical weapons deployed "east west south north somewhat" of Baghdad, the links between Saddam and 9-11 and all the other... bullshit... that successfully stampeded most people to support the war. And what you REALLY forgot is al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. You've totally taken your eye off the ball.

How does it feel to have your hard drive erased remotely? A little like going insane?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

It's mere speculation that the UN was going to do anything other than they had been doing. That's pointing out that Iraq had not complied w/ U.N.resolutions, nor was it about to.

Actually, the UN DID vote for the use of force, as mentioned in the previous resolutions. There was no need for any additional voting on this issue.

The administration made no direct links between Saddam and al Qaeda for 9/11, but it was right to suspect there MIGHT be some cooperation in the future. Anyone who was for the war on that false premise wasn't paying attention.

al Qaeda is still the focus in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq. No one took their eyes off anything.

Hard drive erased ? WTF are you babbling about ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Not a majority of what, the coalition? Yes it is. I provided you a list half of the 'coalition'. You're seriously going to claim that those countries provide any real power in the coalition, or any real support? Now you're stretching.

There were 49 total countries in the coalition. You listed 20 countries that you defined as “Third World.” The last I checked, 20 is not a majority of 49.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Ah, okay. You're going to do exactly what I figured, and play the "textbook definition of Third World" card. Fine. Those countries may not be considered 'developing nations without a large population base,' and they're technically 'Second World' (there, does that make you happy?). But you can't refute the larger issue - that those are not countries of any serious standing in the world, and you know it.

Yes, it makes me happy. And I’m not going to refute, nor have I argued against, the fact that most countries in the 2003 Coalition (or the 1991 for that matter) are not world powers. Honduras, Bahrain, Senegal, Czechoslovakia, Niger, Oman, UAE, Pakistan, Kuwait, Syria, Egypt, Bangladesh and Morocco are Second World powers involved in the 1991 Coalition. But a nation doesn’t have to be a Second or Third World country to have little world military significance (and several Second World nations are not militarily insignificant), and that’s largely the reason why in both Coalitions the vast majority of the force strength came from only the few countries in the Coalition that actually do.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Then that's what you should have said earlier. You implied that the 2003 coalition is just as powerful and is of the same quality as the 1991 coalition, and that the 2003 coalition is filled with members of substance. It isn't.

I implied no such thing. I responded to the statement that there was no multi-national support in the 2003 coalition, not to any equality in the military power represented by the two coalitions.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
You also want to parse down to "our mission is different so we had a different force" as well as "it has nations, so it is multi-national." We have a different force because we couldn't get anyone to sign on to our hairbrained idea of nation-building. As far as the multinational goes, I'll say this: You can make fun of France and Germany all you want, but they're a sure sight better to have on your side as support than Rwanda or Estonia.

In a fight, I’d rather have France and Germany, then Rwanda or Estonia, but if France and Germany have other plans, then I might have to do with Rwanda and Estonia. It is harder to get nations to sign onto a war in which they might have to actually fight, then one in which they know they will not. But there were lots of reason why the 1991 coalition was larger. Most nations knew that the 2003 war was for real, not just a big demonstration of US air power as had been the case in 1991, so there was a greater reluctance to getting involved. Had we decided to hang around and topple the regime in 1991 as the military leaders wanted to, that giant coalition might have crumbled. But that wasn’t the only reason. Some countries, like France, Russia, Jordan and some people in the UN bureaucracy had very lucrative oil, weapons and illicit contracts with the Hussein regime which they wanted to protect. Other countries like Egypt feared that a US/UK backed Iraq would become the principle beneficiary of all that political and financial aid that Egypt enjoyed as one of the US’s major Arab allies. It was also true that the 1991 coalition was just a huge waste of resources, but we didn’t know how powerful Iraq really was, and we vastly underestimated the effectiveness of Western airpower and the US simply had a much larger army in those days. It wasn’t as big of a deal for the US to commit over half a million servicemen to the 1991 war. And even more important, perhaps, we didn’t want that large of a force anyway; we didn’t want to do the kind of damage that we did in 1991.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Oh, and one other thing - I'm curious what your take is on the fact that we had zero regional support this time, as opposed to last time.

Once again those reasons are varied. Some like Egypt didn’t want to ultimately compete with a more favorable US ally that might emerge in a US/UK backed regime in Iraq. Some like Saudi Arabia feared that supporting a Western “Christian” effort to topple an Arab/Muslim regime would inflame political unrest among an Islamist population. And most importantly was a failure of US/UK diplomacy in the region. Most Arab countries saw the US’s language of creating a liberal democracy in the Middle East that might spread to other regimes as an implied threat. Not that any of these countries, necessarily, believed that the US would target them; it wasn’t anything that blatant, but just the general Western contempt for Middle Eastern tyranny that would make the US/UK imply that these governments need to be replaced with more liberal governments. The irony here is that many people criticize the US for supporting tyrannical Arab regimes, but the reality is that, often, you have to pander to the guys in power if want those countries on your side, and the US/UK were not able to make that work in this case.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:23 PM

REDLAVA

Here is the coalition of the willing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

If my calculations are correct there were roughly 21,000 troops deployed NOT including UK and the USA at the beginning of operations. And it is 48 countries actually, Cost Rica withdrew. And at least ten of those countries had fewer than 100 personnel in the theater. And I say "personnel" because most of the troops sent by the countries were medics, engineers and such not combat troops.

Not much help if you ask me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:53 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by daveshayne:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed

You mean to find all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? We went, we looked, they don't have any. Time to come home.

David

Oh, sure. And then be blamed for leaving Iraq in a revisiting of The Killing Fields, like we saw in Cambodia, circa 1970's. Do you REALLY want that to happen again for humanity?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 3:27 AM

Lemme be blindingly, blazingly blunt here.

I. Do. Not. Care.

They ain't us, and it's us we need to worry about with our shattered economy and crumbling infrastructure - these things matter to me, the fate of poor sodders who don't live here ain't my damn problem.

To hell with gallivanting about the world trying to solve everyone elses problems while ours fester, and be damned to doing off our ruinous tax burden which the military sucks down like a 454 chevelle towing a mobilehome.

To be blisteringly crude, we got more important concerns HERE.

Might be a bit offensive to say it, but it's true nonetheless.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 4:32 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
...and it's us we need to worry about with our shattered economy and crumbling infrastructure

Umm, what dimension are YOU living in ? Shattered economy ? Save for a few spots in the midwest, most of the country is having to deal w/ a roaring economy. So much so that 15+ MILLION illegals have made their way HERE to work.

Go figure.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 5:28 AM

ANTIMASON

illegals pouring into the country is not exactly an accurate barrometer for economic success.. rather its the 'canary in the coal mine'; the only reason America is seeing gain is because the corporations have leveraged our economy with the third world, to take advantage of the ripe for the pickin global slave labor available. if it appears as though our economy is 'roaring'.. thats because AMericans have to work 2 jobs to survive, so naturally un-employment is low, and corporations bottom lines are exploding, via the trade agreements which favor the expanding global socialist model of state sponsored indentured servitude.

if you examine the dollar carefully, you will notice that it 'floats' relative to other currencies because its backed by practically NOTHING but the faith of the American people. ive quoted numerous times before, but it was well known among our early founders that this type of system is criminal, and will single handedly do more damage to America then "standing armies". IMO, America will never be secure until we abolish the Federal Reserve and its fractional reserve banking system, and remove the private interests who currently control our political system through our monetary policies. just as a little tidbit of historical info.. every empire in history which has gone off the gold standard(especially in war time) eventually collapsed... because essentially fiat money is pumped into the economy, valueless, and circulates and decays the system from within. this 'trust' in the dollar will eventually become grounded in reality, and probably revealed for being the greatest robbery and scam ever perpetrated on the citizens of the US

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 5:51 AM

DAVESHAYNE

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Oh, sure. And then be blamed for leaving Iraq in a revisiting of The Killing Fields, like we saw in Cambodia, circa 1970's. Do you REALLY want that to happen again for humanity?

No. On the other hand we aren't stopping the death squads from doing their work by being there - on the contrary we put into power and are propping up the government that condones and shields them.

David

"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 7:14 AM

Quote:
Save for a few spots in the midwest, most of the country is having to deal w/ a roaring economy.

Oh yeah, and that housing market is just BOOMING, isn't it ?

Put the Kool-Aid down and look at the world around you for once.

We got roads around here that are impassible cause there ain't no money to fix em, our tech infrastructure in my area is based on ONE analog trunk leftover from Ma Bell that maybe works ok 60% of the time, which no one can fix or replace cause it's too expensive to dig it up where it is, main street is starting to look like beirut what with all the businesses closing, we've lost the towns only gas station, the pool hall closed up shop about two months ago, and now more than 30% of the remaining businesses are on the very verge of collapse because no one has any money to spend on anything but the very barest of necessities and no time to spend at leisure anyhow working two and three jobs to pay the bills after the government rapes their income for it's own use...

Not to mention the extreme lack of job security what with the auto-industy outsourcing everydamnthing and on top of it "spinning off" front companies to hang those pension obligations on, which conveniently 'collapse' into 'bankruptcy' and default, thus freeing them from said obligations and in turn get reabsorbed by the main company in the first place, less those pesky promised pensions, of course...

Not to mention said industry falling on it's face thanks to the complete IDIOCY of trying to sell cars nobody wants at prices nobody can afford.

I'm hangin on by my fingernails my own damned self, trying to drive a cab what with falsely inflated gas prices and oil companies raking in record profits while screaming about how poor they are and how bad they need my tax dollar to subsidize them - and they get it in all three damn directions, from my income, and at the pump they score a goddamned double cause they get a kickback cut of that gas tax as a freakin subsidy AND they rape me on the price, and then more from my income to support their decried poverty ?
While they rake in record profits ?

And it's not like I can sell and split, cause the housing market is completely tanked cause nobody can hardly afford to pay the mortgage, much LESS buy a new home.

And that's in a fairly well-off district, try goin downtown in Detroit or Flint, and try to tell me about that economy, moron.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 11:12 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Oh yeah, and that housing market is just BOOMING, isn't it ?

Umm....yeah, as a matter of fact, it has been. How many straight quarters of positive growth has the US economy experienced ?

Quote:
We got roads around here that are impassible cause there ain't no money to fix em, our tech infrastructure in my area is based on ONE analog trunk leftover from Ma Bell that maybe works ok 60% of the time, which no one can fix or replace cause it's too expensive to dig it up where it is, main street is starting to look like beirut what with all the businesses closing, we've lost the towns only gas station, the pool hall closed up shop about two months ago, and now more than 30% of the remaining businesses are on the very verge of collapse because no one has any money to spend on anything but the very barest of necessities and no time to spend at leisure anyhow working two and three jobs to pay the bills after the government rapes their income for it's own use...

Sounds like your local leaders have screwed you. Leave. I'd say come down South, where the economy is booming and life is great, but I can do w/ out your sour attitude.

Quote:
I'm hangin on by my fingernails my own damned self, trying to drive a cab what with falsely inflated gas prices and oil companies raking in record profits while screaming about how poor they are and how bad they need my tax dollar to subsidize them - and they get it in all three damn directions, from my income, and at the pump they score a goddamned double cause they get a kickback cut of that gas tax as a freakin subsidy AND they rape me on the price, and then more from my income to support their decried poverty ?
While they rake in record profits ?

Falsely inflated gas prices, eh? Blame your state for that. Sounds like sales taxes are killing your industry ( btw - gas here is $1.92 for reg unleaded ) Do you know the difference between Profit and Profit margin ? Oil companies are doing us a favor, believe it or not.

Quote:
And it's not like I can sell and split, cause the housing market is completely tanked cause nobody can hardly afford to pay the mortgage, much LESS buy a new home.

You are the product of your own choices. What else can I say ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 11:46 AM

Well, you could start by copping an insanity plea.

Cause either you're completely off your rocker, or you live in bizarro world.

-F

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 11:55 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Oh yeah, and that housing market is just BOOMING, isn't it ?
Umm....yeah, as a matter of fact, it has been. How many straight quarters of positive growth has the US economy experienced ?

I just love when peeps point to numbers posted on a screen or in a newspaper to prove s**t....reality can't be measured by them through simple observation of one's environment, or the environment of others.

The blue pill Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 29, 2007 7:21 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Well, you could start by copping an insanity plea.

Cause either you're completely off your rocker, or you live in bizarro world.

-F

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

Your penchant for drama and hyperbole is impressive. It's easy for you to dispute the facts when you don't specify about how far back you want to look. The recent history, housing starts were way up, and have since cooled off. As expected. There can't be a continuous boom with out a cooling off period before it starts back up again. But the economy doesn't turn on a dime just over a few weeks or months. W/ respect to the economy under Bush, it's undeniably boomed back after the dot com bust/9-11-01 attacks. Sorry, but you're simply in denial.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:01 AM

FLETCH2

Raptor --- If it doesnt involve pink bunny rabbits in tuxedo's playing Mantavani then no, it's not what going crazy feels like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Auraptor, I would appreciate direct and on-point answers to my questions and comments. Thanks.

Quote:
Auraptor: And where'd that lead us? Well, it lead us exactly where we said it would. War. But now, it seems there's a collective amnesia going on, all across the world. It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed.

Signy:Auraptor, perhaps the amnesia problem is yours. You seem to be forgetting that UN inspectors were within weeks of declaring Iraq in substantial compliance. That the UN never voted for invasion. That many nations around the world opposed it right from the start. You also seem to be forgetting the Admin's big hoo-ha about smoking guns and mushroom clouds, chemical weapons deployed "east west south north somewhat" of Baghdad, the links between Saddam and 9-11 and all the other... bullshit... that successfully stampeded most people to support the war. And what you REALLY forgot is al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. You've totally taken your eye off the ball.- Signy

Auraptor: It's mere speculation that the UN was going to do anything other than they had been doing. That's pointing out that Iraq had not complied w/ U.N.resolutions, nor was it about to. Actually, the UN DID vote for the use of force as mentioned in the previous resolutions. There was no need for any additional voting on this issue.

I'm curious Auraptor. Do you remember what the UN resolution actually said? Specifically, did the UN vote to authorize use of force against Iraq? You may refer to this to refresh your memory. www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

Quote:
The administration made no direct links between Saddam and al Qaeda for 9/11, but it was right to suspect there MIGHT be some cooperation in the future. Anyone who was for the war on that false premise wasn't paying attention.

Please read the following transcripts and then tell me that Bush did not directly link al Qaida and Saddam.

"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making, poisons, and deadly gases."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/

“The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.”
www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409c.asp

Quote:
al Qaeda is still the focus in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq. No one took their eyes off anything.

How many troops are in Afghanistan? How many in Iraq? Why did ObL escape tora Bora?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Still waiting, Auraptor.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 6:09 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
I'm curious Auraptor. Do you remember what the UN resolution actually said? Specifically, did the UN vote to authorize use of force against Iraq? You may refer to this to refresh your memory.

Which resolution ? There were 17 of them. Are you talking about 1441 ? Ya might want to go back and check 678 and 687, which are also relevent.

Resolution 687, passed in 1991, is the centerpiece here. This is the resolution passed after the United States had liberated Kuwait and while our troops were poised to advance to Baghdad to take care of business with Saddam. Saddam agreed to a plan whereby he would surrender or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, and all implements, machinery and whatnot associated with those weapons programs, forthwith. Saddam's first obligation under Resolution 687 was to provide the UN with a "declaration on the locations, amounts and types of all (WMDs) and agree to urgent, on-site inspection(s)" as specified in the resolution.

Saddam's deadline under 687 was fifteen days. He didn't make it. In fact, in 2002 ... about 4000 days past his 15-day deadline, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 putting Saddam on super-secret probation and giving him one last chance to do what he was supposed to do eleven years earlier.

Wait! I forgot Resolution 678! Forgive me! Resolution 678, you see, is specifically incorporated into both Resolutions 687 and 1441 by reference. Resolution 678 was passed in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. This resolution told Saddam to get the hell out, and authorized "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660 merely demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Iraq didn't. George H.W. Bush made him.) So ... even if you went to a government school; hell, even if you vote for Democrats you can see that under Resolution 678 the United States, a Member State of the United Nations, has the authority under that resolution, and under 687 and 1441 to kick Saddam to the curb.

Thus endeth all claims that the United States violated international law by invading Iraq. We weren't violating international law, we were enforcing it.
- Neal Boortz http://boortz.com/nuze/200401/01122004.html

And Bush never said there were any direct ties between Iraq and al Qaeda per the 9/11/01 attacks! Your little post does not dispute that one iota.

Why did OBL escape? He escaped becaue it's mountainous terrain which he and his associates are very familiar with ,and likely had help from the local folks.

Troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan are at the level which the ground commanders have asked for. I'm guessing currently 135,000 in Iraq, and I'd have to research for Afghanistan. Your point ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Resolution 678, passed in 1990, is the centerpiece here.

So in order to justify invading Iraq, GWB reached back to a 13-year-old resolution? What are you trying to say? That the UN in 2003, while actively conducting an aggressive search of Iraq, wanted an invasion that interrupted it's own work? Or are you saying that the USA was enforcing UN resolutions despite what the UN wanted that year? Which is it? UN wanted the invasion? UN didn't want the invasion and the USA did it anyway?

Quote:
And Bush never said there were any direct ties between Iraq and al Qaeda per the 9/11/01 attacks! Your little post does not dispute that one iota.

The Resolution on Iraq said :" Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ... 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." Since this is part of the resolution on Iraq it seems to me that including 9-11 in this statement implies that Iraq was part of the 9-11 attack.

Quote:
Troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan are at the level which the ground commanders have asked for. I'm guessing currently 135,000 in Iraq, and I'd have to research for Afghanistan. Your point ?

heh What do you think?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:45 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:

posted by SignyM-

The Resolution on Iraq said :" Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ... 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." Since this is part of the resolution on Iraq it seems to me that including 9-11 in this statement implies that Iraq was part of the 9-11 attack.

speaking of the never ending war on freedom.. even Nick Rockefeller admits that the 'war on terror' is phony, a fraud, intended to dupe only those who deserve to be decieved and mislead. anyone still believing the lie can watch somewhat of a video expose' on Rockefellers comments, from director/activist Aaron Russo here - http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/290107rockefellergoal
.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No response from Auraptor yet.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'd like tp point out that no UN resolution allows one country to wage war on another 'under cover of authority'.

That's why the UN must specifically vote to send troops before any attacks are launched.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:55 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Resolution 678, passed in 1990, is the centerpiece here.
So in order to justify invading Iraq, GWB reached back to a 13-year-old resolution? What are you trying to say? That the UN in 2003, while actively conducting an aggressive search of Iraq, wanted an invasion that interrupted it's own work? Or are you saying that the USA was enforcing UN resolutions despite what the UN wanted that year? Which is it? UN wanted the invasion? UN didn't want the invasion and the USA did it anyway?
Quote:
And Bush never said there were any direct ties between Iraq and al Qaeda per the 9/11/01 attacks! Your little post does not dispute that one iota.
The Resolution on Iraq said :" Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ... 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." Since this is part of the resolution on Iraq it seems to me that including 9-11 in this statement implies that Iraq was part of the 9-11 attack.
Quote:
Troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan are at the level which the ground commanders have asked for. I'm guessing currently 135,000 in Iraq, and I'd have to research for Afghanistan. Your point ?
heh What do you think?

I'm not TRYING to say anything that the U.N. didn't. ANY MEMBER NATION could use force against Iraq if it failed to abide by the resolutions passed and agreements it made. It failed, we used force. It's REALLY that simple.

or harbored such persons or organizations Yep, Iraq definatly was harboring and assiting terrorist too. Guess they picked the wrong time in history to back up Islamo nazis, huh? Sucks for them.

P.S. - Some of us work for a living and don't camp out by their keyboard all day long. If I don't reply w/ in a few minutes, chill. It does nothing for your argument to act like a 4 yr old and whine " no reply yet, no reply yet, no reply yet" .

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Did you read Rue's comment? I was going in that direction and got beat to the punch. It sounds to me like what you're saying is that we went ahead and invaded Iraq despite the UN.

Also, you conveniently forget this phrase: "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,"

Why would that particular phrase show up on a resolution about Iraq? Or, let me put it this way: Wouldn't the resolution have made much more sense WITHOUT that phrase if Iraq truly didn't have anything to do with 9-11?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:25 AM