No, THIS is what going crazy must feel like.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:21
VIEWED: 13100
PAGE 1 of 2
For 10+ yrs, we tried. Tried diplomatically. Tried the multi-lateral approach. Tried working w/ the U.N. The U.N. even says...nope, Iraq isn't doing it's part. Which is funny, because it was th U.N. which was involved in the biggest bribe scandal of all time, but that's not the point.
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, although the many and obvious reprecussions were mentioned... sometimes loudly, other times,...not so much.
So, today there are folks, lying or fogetting about what got us here to this point, and they are rallying for and end to war. Ok ,fine. But then what ? Sure, Saddam's gone. And his two sons. Mission accomplished. Right ? Only the ensuing bloodbath which is sure to follow ( everyone says it'll happen, right ) will just open up howls by others standing on the side lines for something else to be done. Something ? WTF ?? BY WHO ? Certainly no one else has the goods to even try to step in, or they'd have done so already. And we don't want the big bad USA doing anything else....that's why everyone is so pissed off as it is right now!
Funny, it's not the terrorist anyone cares about. Cutting/ sawing off heads of innocents. Naww...that's just muslims being muslims, right ? In any other context, that'd be seen as a most racist remark. But not here. No. We'll overlook that sort of generalization , at least in this case.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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".
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.
Quote:Where as we all know that distinction lands at the feet of the US alone?
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote: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".
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're kidding yourself.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You mean you can't be both? Commie-Nazi-Terrorist-Jew?
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Well, you said I was a terrorist in the other thread - which is it? Terrorist or 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Or to put it another way:
Originally posted by cartoon:
It's human nature to envy the one at the top.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What part of 10 GORRAM YEARS did you NOT get ?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote: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.
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
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
Quote: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.
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.
Quote: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.
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.
Quote: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,
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Umm....yeah, as a matter of fact, it has been. How many straight quarters of positive growth has the US economy experienced ?
Oh yeah, and that housing market is just BOOMING, isn't it ?
Quote: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.
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...
Quote: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.
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 ?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:Umm....yeah, as a matter of fact, it has been. How many straight quarters of positive growth has the US economy experienced ?
Oh yeah, and that housing market is just BOOMING, isn't it ?
The blue pill Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor, I would appreciate direct and on-point answers to my questions and comments. Thanks.
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. www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm
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.
Quote:Please read the following transcripts and then tell me that Bush did not directly link al Qaida and Saddam.
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.
"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:How many troops are in Afghanistan? How many in Iraq? Why did ObL escape tora Bora?
al Qaeda is still the focus in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq. No one took their eyes off anything.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Still waiting, Auraptor.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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?
Resolution 678, passed in 1990, is the centerpiece here.
Quote: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.
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.
Quote:heh What do you think?
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 ?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No response from Auraptor yet.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote: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?
Resolution 678, passed in 1990, is the centerpiece here.Quote: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.
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.Quote:heh What do you think?
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 ?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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?
Who draws up the resolutions? The Congress or the White House ? A - Congress, via Joint Resolution.
And as if ALL it said was what little you posted, lets see the REST of the story....
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap,
Ayyy ya ya .... Seriously now, what argument are you making?
Exactly WHAT was Iraq's continuing threat to the US ? And HOW was the US supporting the UN by attacking Iraq (counter to the UN's injunctions) and forcing the inspectors out ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Iraq was never a threat.. i wish the establishment parrots on both sides of the isle would admit that, so we can face up to the fact that the only war being fought is the post invasion conflict, because we invaded the place and people are fighting about it.
if i put this into perspective, its possible that a decade from now, UN troops could come into AMerica, to quell public unrest(dissent) or something, and with the support of a collaboration of nations, step onto our shores, middle america, and impose their beliefs and their law onto us
thats a very real threat, believe it or not, and ill never ever sumbit to some foreign authority. considering how religious the middle east is, i wouldnt take kindly either to a communist, secular humanist entity like the UN(and its luciferian NWO agenda) making decisions affecting my country- when theyre really just out to steal the people of the worlds national and personal sovereignty
its a similar case with our conflict, so i dont expect any less from the Iraqis, because even i see the war as a front for the globalists to bring the M.E. under the reigns of the NWO. i want the best for them, and if this were a legitimate campaign for world freedom, id actually be behind it.. but its not, its about planetary sumbission. i am loyal to my country, but even i see that it has been corrupted from the monetary system outwards, and is but a silhouette of her former self. until we restore AMerica from the inside out, it would be hypocritical of us to impose our system on others
and the war on terror, if al-qaeda were an actual, manifesting organization, would have been pursued like any criminal syndicate, to fullest extent of the law. but they dont exist, because terrorism is just a loaded political phrase, intended to classify any dissent against the state, and meant to be so vague as to eventually encompass all national citizens and criminal behavior. the trick to see passed the Orwellian doublespeak is easy: just substitute the "war on 'terror'" with 'freedom'.. then youll see where the progress is really being made
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But it does. Let me underline it for you in context so you can see it....
You'll note that NO WHERE in there does it mention 9/11, but several times the U.N.and Iraq are mentioned. Oh well, nice try.
Quote:
b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Then:
Quote:
You'll note that NO WHERE in there does it mention 9/11, but several times the U.N.and Iraq are mentioned. Oh well, nice try.
Looks like it mentions it right there in Section 3, subsection B.2. Under Presidential Determination, which is the justification section. Using the 9/11 attacks as his reasoning. I guess it really was a nice try.
------------------------------------------
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey! SignyM! No beating me to my posts! You just had to hit submit 30 seconds before me, didn't you? 
------------------------------------------
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What it implies is that Iraq is part of the war on terror, along with 9/ll, not that there is any belief that any such direct connection existed between the two.
Originally 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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap,
I have to ask. Who are you channeling?
In the other thread you didn't believe that Rats had committed a 3million ballot voter fraud, or spied on and kept records of 10% of US phone calls. Those were big BIG stories when they came out. How did you miss them? You've maintained the US economy and peons are doing great (that's all but a few hundred of us); that global warming isn't happening; that Iraq is going super ... And in this thread you quoted, at length, documentation you didn't seem to read but which someone apparently told you was 'the answer' to the question.
Not to be insulting or anything, but how can you possibly be sincere about the unmitigated load you keep dumping?
Are you not sincere and just jerking everyone around, or are you sincere but completely misguided? And how did you get to be that way?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally 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.
Perhaps you should ask the Senators and Congressmen who drafted and voted for this resolution these questions. As Auraptor tried to point out, this was a congressional resolution, not a white house policy statement. Since Sen. Clinton, Sen. Biden, Sen. Daschle, Sen. Edwards, Sen. Kerry, and Sen. Reid all voted for the resolution and are hardly Bush supporters, I think we can conclude that the resolution made no such implication.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Since Sen. Clinton, Sen. Biden, Sen. Daschle, Sen. Edwards, Sen. Kerry, and Sen. Reid all voted for the resolution and are hardly Bush supporters, I think we can conclude that the resolution made no such implication."
Since the tea is hot, I think we can conclude the kitty is brown.
Since the earth is round, I think we can conclude the wash is dry.
You get the idea.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue:
Since all of these senators have correctly stated on the record in one form or another that 9/11 and Iraq were not linked, can you tell me why they would vote for a resolution that supposedly implies the exact opposite?
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you'll pardon my sayin so, those folks ain't the sharpest crayons in the box neither, one reason why I dun want them in charge no more than the morons we currently have.
Go look up Ron Pauls vote.
-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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So far as I know, with one or two exceptions, all senators were treated to specious data regarding Iraq, including a supposed Prague-terrorist connection. All of it turned out to be untrue, but years too late to affect the vote.
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Rue:
Since all of these senators have correctly stated on the record in one form or another that 9/11 and Iraq were not linked, can you tell me why they would vote for a resolution that supposedly implies the exact opposite?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ohh, so they were duped? That Wile E. George Bush did it again! Getting duped by a supposed moron doesn't bode well for their future I'd imagine.
Then again, Sen. Clinton at least used her own sources according to statements she made to the Code Pink organization back in 2003.
I don't think it is a huge stretch to believe that the other senators did not rely solely on information spoon fed to them by the Bush administration either.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You give waaaayy to much credit to the moron in chief. You need to think about president Cheney and his advisor Rove.
The Senators that I knew of at the time of the vote sent out form letters to their constituents (whoever wrote to them) saying they had classified information that made their yes vote necessary. That information was that diddled threat estimate they were assured was true. That's what they said at the time.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm sort of going thru this thread piece by piece....
CARTOON:
Quote:The United States give less per capital than seven other developed nations.
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.
www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_percap-economic-aid-donor-p
er-capita
OTOH, as reigning power, the United States has used its power over the last six decades to force unfair deals on various client nations. "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"
Quote:At this point there are many nations who no longer want... if they ever did in the first place... USA "protection". Western Europe, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Israel greatly benefitted from our interference. Africa, Asia, and Central/South America would have prolly done better w/o us for the most part, since we coddled and aided dictatorships in many nations.
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.
Quote:Only time will tell.
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.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In case Auraptor, Cartoon, Finn and others have forgotten the past, this is the driving force behind the Iraq invasion, and the tenor of the time:
"WASHINGTON: The United States will soon abandon a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iraq, White House National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday, revealing Washington's frustration with resistance to a possible war.
"We are in a diplomatic window, but it cannot last very much longer," she told NBC. "It will have to come to an end pretty soon." She said Washington would welcome another UN Security Council resolution on Iraq if it would advance the goal of disarming the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but was determined not to allow Saddam to escape his obligations by splitting the council.
"We don't want a security council resolution that somehow is a delaying tactic," Rice said and added: "The security council cannot continue on this path for much longer. I don't understand how anyone can say the inspections are working," Rice told Fox.
Senator John McCain, a leading lawmaker from Bush's Republican party, echoed Rice's frustration. "There's got to come a time where we say 'enough is enough,' and I think the United States and Britain are at this point," he told Fox.
US officials, meanwhile, declined to indicate their next move, with White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo saying Bush "still hopes for a peaceful resolution, and that is up to Saddam Hussein."
Secretary of State Colin Powell indicated the administration was now uncertain it would seek a second resolution to approve use of force against Iraq. But if Iraq has still fails to disarm, Washington is ready "to lead a coalition of nations that would be willing to join the United States in the disarmament," Powell said.
At the same time there was no respite in the global anti-war protests, besides a convoy of anti-war protestors, ready to serve as human shields in the event of an attack on Iraq arrived in Baghdad on Sunday, the spokesman for the group Torben Franck said in London. A separate convoy of protestors is due to arrive in Baghdad on Monday, when 50 volunteers are to fly from London's Heathrow airport to Amman in Jordan. More peace activists are due to fly out of London February 21.
Global anti-war protests on a scale not seen since the Vietnam War, coming after a majority of the UN Security Council backed further inspections in a bid to assure Iraq's disarmament, have left Washington increasingly isolated. More than 400,000 people demonstrated across Australia again on Sunday, after London saw its biggest protest yet, with at least 750,000 filling Hyde Park on Saturday."
The Iraq invasion was DESPITE the UN. Let's get that clear and stop quoting UN resolutions as some sort of rationalization. Okay?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CARTOON:Quote:The United States give less per capital than seven other developed nations.
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.
www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_percap-economic-aid-donor-p
er-capita
Signym:
The site defines economic aid as:
Quote:
DEFINITION: The net official development assistance (ODA) from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations to developing countries and multilateral organizations. ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows." Per capita figures expressed per 1 population.
I believe Cartoon was including private donations in his statement as well as the government sponsored assistance included in your citations numbers. Does this mean you only beleive government funded assistance is valid assistance?
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Enforcing UN resolutions was a legitimate rationalization for the war. The US and the UK voted for and helped draft each of those resolution. And more importantly, the US and the UK were responsible for enforcement of those resolutions under the auspices of the UNSC. One of the reasons, bin Laden gave for 9/ll was the existence of US bases and operations in Iraq and Saudi Arabia in response to UN resolutions. So the US had direct responsibility in drafting these resolution, direct responsibility in enforcing these resolutions and they were taking casualties because of it. So the enforcement of UN resolutions by the US and the UK is absolutely a legitimate rationalization.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The Senators that I knew of at the time of the vote sent out form letters to their constituents (whoever wrote to them) saying they had classified information that made their yes vote necessary. That information was that diddled threat estimate they were assured was true. That's what they said at the time.
Annnnnnnnnd...
This brings us right back to how secrecy under the bullshit veil of "National Security" completely wrecks the entire process, disenfranchising the people and their representatives because they do not have valid, accurate information to base their decisions on.
GIGO.
-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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As I mentioned, you act as if that tiny remark about 9/11 is ALL that was mentioned, when in fact it's barely commented at all. Fully 99% of the Congressional resolution is about Iraq and the U.N. Try looking through the other end of the microscope.
rue- just because they were 'big stories' doesn't mean they were true. There's all manner of trumped up fairy tales by the media which , after some careful examination, turn out to be nothing remotely like what the initial story was portrayed.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: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. "
The U.S. recognized Pol Pot as the legitimate leader of Cambodia. Therefore we're ever so slightly responsible for what happened there. Never mind the damage we caused in the country that led to his uprising.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap,
You did kind of evade the question. How is it you keep flogging stuff that's untrue? Not just some of the time, but ALL the time. Who took your common sense from you?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
rue- just because they were 'big stories' doesn't mean they were true. There's all manner of trumped up fairy tales by the media which , after some careful examination, turn out to be nothing remotely like what the initial story was portrayed.
Oh, you mean like the Kuwaiti 'incubator' story, "mushroom clouds", liquid bombs, terror plots that evaporate on the slightest investigation, saddams WMDs, tapes from "Al Qeada" featuring what must be albino arabs and/or Osamas who must have had radical plastic surgery, Obama's so-called muslim edcuation, and all the other bullshit shovelled from the rightwingnuts ?
Yeah, all manner of fairy tales, no doubt.
Dude, once a source has so completely blown it's credibility, why believe anything further they try to feed you ?
I've yet to see a single ounce of evidence, for example, linking even OBL to 9-11, in the rush to battle, too many folk stopped asking the right questions - and now that it's too late, the answers we're getting suck.
Or when pressed for evidence, that whole veil of secrecy thing again.
It's bullshit, and the sooner folks realize that, the sooner this insanity will stop.
-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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor- I'm really busy right now. I'll get with you later.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh, you mean like the Kuwaiti 'incubator' story, "mushroom clouds", liquid bombs, terror plots that evaporate on the slightest investigation, saddams WMDs, tapes from "Al Qeada" featuring what must be albino arabs and/or Osamas who must have had radical plastic surgery, Obama's so-called muslim edcuation, and all the other bullshit shovelled from the rightwingnuts ?
Yeah, all manner of fairy tales, no doubt.
Dude, once a source has so completely blown it's credibility, why believe anything further they try to feed you ?
I've yet to see a single ounce of evidence, for example, linking even OBL to 9-11, in the rush to battle, too many folk stopped asking the right questions - and now that it's too late, the answers we're getting suck.
Or when pressed for evidence, that whole veil of secrecy thing again.
It's bullshit, and the sooner folks realize that, the sooner this insanity will stop.
-Frem
So, because the incubator story was likely exaggerated, Iraq didn't invade Kuwait and there were zero attrocities committed by Saddam's armies? Wow.
Terrorist have vowed to nuke Israel and the West. You'd ignore their threats.....why ? All that was said is that we should act BEFORE there are mushroom clouds. Seems damn reasonable. I know for a fact you'd be the 1st one asking why nothing was done BEFORE the nukes went off, should it ever come to that.
You fail to see any connection between al Qaeda and 9/11?
You sir, are a moron.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If we include this do I get to say the US funded terrorism against the UK because a large amount of IRA funding came from US Citizens?
Originally posted by Razza:
I believe Cartoon was including private donations in his statement as well as the government sponsored assistance included in your citations numbers. Does this mean you only beleive government funded assistance is valid assistance?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap,
"All that was said is that we should act BEFORE there are mushroom clouds."
The UN WAS acting - and it was within a few weeks of finding a WMD-free Iraq. Under those conditions, why did the US invade?
As to Iraq and 9/11 - please cite some evidence.
But you still didn't answer my question. It's like you have no existence, no thoughts, no responses beyond talking points. I'd say you were a Rovian wet-dream, made corporeal. Or, more accurately, incorporated.
So, why do you persist in dumping the bs so completely and consistently? How'd you get that way?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Cit....
If America wanted to really throw its millitary weight around, the Middle East would look like Superman's Fortress of Solitude by now.
Sand + Nukes = Glass.
If this were a move of America really trying to say to the world that we don't give a shit what you think and we're going to do what we want, than that's how it would have gone down. Surely Mecca would have been destroyed for what happened to the Twin Towers.
If they wanted to convince me that this is a "war" that we really had any intention of winning from the start, we would be doing something about keeping more Muslims from entering our country every day, but we don't do that either.
This "war" is simply a manuver to funnel more tax dollars into the Federation. It is also meant as a means to spy on everyone who lives here and to enforce the Real ID. It will ultimately make America look so horrible in the eyes of the world that after we fail miserably we will end up kneeling before our new one world government and be absorbed by them. In the end, we will have no more allies to turn to and we will have no choice but to become part of the New World Order because our economies are so tied up with each other and China. Canada, Mexico and USA will all have the same currency like the Euro.
America has been completely immasculated. The America we knew and grew up with is no more. We're full of politicians, and lawyers, and beurocrats and diplomats and pussies with no balls who consistantly pass the buck and sidestep important issues while they sell us out to the higest bidder behind our backs. It's a runaway government and I have no disillusions why the rest of the world hates us. Believe me when I say that not every American believes all of the bullshit and that there are those of us who should not be lumped in with that hatered for America and Americans.
Realize that this isn't just America. It's easy to think so when we're at the helm of such a catastropy, but it is your government as well. It's any government who has banned smoking from thier bars and resturants. It's any government who lets the Federal Reserve print thier money. We're all part of a greater whole that isn't going to spend forever behind the scenes. Forces are coming together and as they grow more powerful they will no longer need to hide in the shadows manipulating things. They're all working together, even when it seems like one of them is doing what the others don't want. (See: America's invasion of the Middle East).
You just keep watching and see how bad this is going to turn out and how bad America looks in the end. Then we'll see how long it takes for us to bow down and take our seat at the UN. And, it won't be the head seat of the table either.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This I agree with: "while they sell us out to the higest bidder behind our backs".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you really think we'll be diverted by this pathetic straw man? Silly man!
So, because the incubator story was likely exaggerated, Iraq didn't invade Kuwait and there were zero attrocities committed by Saddam's armies?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Again, show me one whit, one single ounce of proof from any confirmed, reputable source.
None has been forthcoming, none will be forthcoming.
I've been asking that question since it happened, and lemme repeat now what I said then.
"Sure, we want some heads for this, but I want the RIGHT heads, and for that we must have an actual investigation and some real, tangible evidence of who the responsible parties were."
You gonna take the word of the folks who lied about everydamnthing else for granted when they claim OBL or Al Qeade was behind 9-11 ?
Why ?
Show me evidence, ANY evidence worth a damn.
That question got buried in the rush to war, and it's past time to dig it back out and start asking it.
-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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If we include this do I get to say the US funded terrorism against the UK because a large amount of IRA funding came from US Citizens?
Actually, since such activities were illegal under US Law, no you don't.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If America ever uses nuclear weapons you can kiss your arse good bye. Doesn't matter who the weapons are launched against every other nuclear power (China, Russia etc) that is anti-US or has a history of such would be firing back. No one, not even GWB, is going to be launching nuclear weapons until after the end of the world.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Hey Cit....
If America wanted to really throw its millitary weight around, the Middle East would look like Superman's Fortress of Solitude by now.
Sand + Nukes = Glass.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And for years the US did fuck all to stop it. It was, after all, only terrorism killing foriegners.
Originally posted by Razza:
Actually, since such activities were illegal under US Law, no you don't.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FINN
Quote:The problem is that "UN resolution-enforcment" is as you say: a rationalization, not a reason. A rationalization is, at best, an excuse that can be logically but not realistically defended. We can tell that correspondance with reality is lacking because the outcome of an action is not what was predicted by the justification.
Enforcing UN resolutions was a legitimate rationalization for the war. The US and the UK voted for and helped draft each of those resolution. And more importantly, the US and the UK were responsible for enforcement of those resolutions under the auspices of the UNSC. One of the reasons, bin Laden gave for 9/ll was the existence of US bases and operations in Iraq and Saudi Arabia in response to UN resolutions. So the US had direct responsibility in drafting these resolution, direct responsibility in enforcing these resolutions and they were taking casualties because of it. So the enforcement of UN resolutions by the US and the UK is absolutely a legitimate rationalization.
So, for example, as you say the US and UK had "authority" to enforce UN resolutions under the UNSC. But that is not the same as saying the that the USA and UK had UNSC "support" for the invasion, and in fact the USA avoided a UNSC vote on the topic in order "not to split" the SC (i.e. in order to invade without having to deal with SC opposition.) So, sure, the US Administration could justify to itself what it wanted to do but that justification was tissue-thin, and of no practical help in the matter.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There was no UN mandate. That’s right.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, for example, as you say the US and UK had "authority" to enforce UN resolutions under the UNSC. But that is not the same as saying the that the USA and UK had UNSC "support" for the invasion,
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Also London is Al Qaeda principle ideological headquarters in the Western World. So if Citizen wants to point to a few fruitcakes in the US, I’ll just point to 30% of the London Muslim community who support Al Qaeda, including organization that bin Laden directly communicated with. There are fruitcakes in every country and the more liberal those countries are the easier it becomes for the fruitcakes to operate clandestinely.
Originally posted by Razza:
Actually, since such activities were illegal under US Law, no you don't.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except Britain is doing something about it, America didn't give a shit for decades.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Also London is Al Qaeda principle ideological headquarters in the Western World. So if Citizen wants to point to a few fruitcakes in the US, I’ll just point to 30% of the London Muslim community who support Al Qaeda, including organization that bin Laden directly communicated with. There are fruitcakes in every country and the more liberal those countries are the easier it becomes for the fruitcakes to operate clandestinely.
Originally posted by Razza:
Actually, since such activities were illegal under US Law, no you don't.
Oh and 30%, making up statistics are we?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sounds like bullshit to me.
Originally posted by citizen:
Except Britain is doing something about it, America didn't give a shit for decades.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So 'Rap, are you ready for serious discussion?
'Rap: So, because the incubator story was likely exaggerated, Iraq didn't invade Kuwait and there were zero attrocities committed by Saddam's armies?
Signy: Do you really think we'll be diverted by this pathetic straw man? Silly man!
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep that's about the best we can expect from you Finn. How many of your hard earned dollars went to blowing up innocents in London I wonder.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Sounds like bullshit to me.
Originally posted by citizen:
Except Britain is doing something about it, America didn't give a shit for decades.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What do you call someone who tries to incite a flamewar? Oh yeah, a troll.
Originally posted by citizen:
Yep that's about the best we can expect from you Finn. How many of your hard earned dollars went to blowing up innocents in London I wonder.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Indeed, and since it was you who started with the flamable comments...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If we include this do I get to say the US funded terrorism against the UK because a large amount of IRA funding came from US Citizens?"
-Citizen, Ibid.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you find a statement of fact as inciting a flame war then the fault obviously lies with yourself.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
"If we include this do I get to say the US funded terrorism against the UK because a large amount of IRA funding came from US Citizens?"
-Citizen, Ibid.
It really isn't my fault you can't except facts you don't like without flaming.
EDIT:
Finn's responce to disagreement:
Sounds like bullshit to me.
Very substantive, not at all inflammatory, well done Finn.
-Finn, Ibid.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
if i put this into perspective, its possible that a decade from now, UN troops could come into AMerica, to quell public unrest(dissent) or something, and with the support of a collaboration of nations, step onto our shores, middle america, and impose their beliefs and their law onto us
Where do I sign.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The factuality of the statement has nothing to do with it; the issue is whether you were trolling for an argument, which you were. A large portion of Al Qaeda’s funding came from Britain; that’s a fact. Trying to pass that statement off as a critique of the British without context who, by and large, are not supporters of Al Qaeda is disingenuous. How is that any different then criticizing, out of the blue, American private denotations as funding the IRA? It’s not. In fact, I would call it bullshit, and I did.
Originally posted by citizen:
If you find a statement of fact as inciting a flame war then the fault obviously lies with yourself.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I wasn't, finn, exactly the opposite in fact. But hey if you want to call saying the US wasn't financially supporting the IRA bullshit, that's up to you.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The factuality of the statement has nothing to do with it; the issue is whether you were trolling for an argument, which you were. A large portion of Al Qaeda’s funding came from Britain; that’s a fact. Trying to pass that statement off as a critique of the British without context who, by and large, are not supporters of Al Qaeda is disingenuous. How is that any different then criticizing, out of the blue, American private denotations as funding the IRA? It’s not. In fact, I would call it bullshit, and I did.
Read my statements over a few times in context, I'm sure you'll get it eventually. I can help you if you like, or you can, you know, continue to troll for an argument and oh so politely personally attack anyone you disagree with.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Don't need to wait ten years, the UN needs to send some oberservers over for the next elections anyway. In light of recent electoral shortcomings, it's quite obvious that America needs external supervision when it comes to electing its leaders.
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
if i put this into perspective, its possible that a decade from now, UN troops could come into AMerica, to quell public unrest(dissent) or something, and with the support of a collaboration of nations, step onto our shores, middle america, and impose their beliefs and their law onto us
Where do I sign.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey everybody- flame all you want...just do it nicer, okay? 
Get along Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So now you’re changing your story? Good. Because you’re original one stunk.
Originally posted by citizen:
I wasn't, finn, exactly the opposite in fact. But hey if you want to call saying the US wasn't financially supporting the IRA bullshit, that's up to you.
Terrorists have always found a way of getting money, and a great deal of it comes in the form of seemingly legitimate charities in the wealthy Western World, but to blanketly criticize charitable donations as supporting terrorism is a mistake, at best. US private overseas donations are often more then twice as large as the government aid, and the vast majority of that is not to terrorist organization.
I guarantee you that no more of my hard earned dollars went to kill innocent people in London, then your hard earned pounds went to kill innocent people in New York.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME