or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Bush admin is still lying to start a war  

post #1 of 631
Thread Starter 
Yes, I know this thread existed before, but there's been some big new lies. Hans Blix has interviewed with the NYT and has contested what has been said by the Bush Admin. Let me begin with what cooperative research pointed out:

[quote]January 28, 2003. Powell’s comments after the weapons inspectors’ January 27 interim report.

(a) Allegation.

(i) Powell said, “The inspectors have also told us that they have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. That's what the inspectors say, not what Americans say, not what American intelligence says; but we certainly corroborate all of that. But this is information from the inspectors.” [U.S. Secretary of State 1/28/03]

(b) Criticism.

(i) Hans Blix, the chief UNMOVIC weapons inspector, told the New York Times in an interview that UN weapons inspectors had experienced no such incidents. [New York Times 1/31/2003]

(5) January 30, 2003. State of the Union address.

(a) Allegation.

(i) President Bush said, “Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.” [US President 1/28/03]

(b) Criticism.

(i) Hans Blix, the chief UNMOVIC weapons inspector, told the New York Times in an interview that he knew of no evidence supporting that claim. [New York Times 1/31/2003]

<hr></blockquote>

In fact, Hans Blix's recent interview with the NYT showed that he feels the Bush admin is misrepresenting the inspector's finding, when not flat out lying, that is.

Here is the article: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/middleeast/31BLIX.html" target="_blank">Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War</a>

The title says it all.


some excerpts:

[quote]
THE INSPECTOR
Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War
By JUDITH MILLER and JULIA PRESTON


NITED NATIONS, Jan. 30 — Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix on Wednesday challenged several of the Bush administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.

...

Mr. Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.

Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists.
...

Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Mr. Blix said, noting that he had no intelligence reports on this issue. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."

More broadly, he challenged President Bush's argument that military action is needed to avoid the risk of a Sept. 11-style attack by terrorists wielding nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The world is far less dangerous today than it was during the cold war, he said, when the Soviet Union and the United States threatened each other with thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles. On balance, "nuclear non-proliferation has been a success story," he said. "The world has made great progress."
<hr></blockquote>

In other news, an NYT op-ed by a former CIA Iraq analyst tells that the US concluded that it was Iran that gassed Halabja:

[quote]In an op-ed piece published by the New York Times, Pelletiere again explained that there was no conclusive evidence that it was Iraqi gas that had killed the Kurds in 1988. He wrote: “[A]ll we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story. … This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.” [New York Times 1/31/03]
<hr></blockquote>

Looks like they are really hurting for facts. Do we really want to be lead to war justified by an increasing number of falsehoods and stretched truths?

[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
post #2 of 631
YAY!!!!!! Jubilation!!!

Sorry, the old thread was a wealth of good knowledge.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #3 of 631
I totally agree. It's all about oil and he's lying about everything. GREAT article!!!
post #4 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>I totally agree. It's all about oil and he's lying about everything. GREAT article!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>

YAY!!!!!! Jubilation!!!
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #5 of 631
Sorry, but not convinced. Did you read Hans Blix's rationale for why he doubts intelligence agents are posing as scientists? "There were some occasions where people didn't seem very knowledgable. But if it has happened, it's not from the top, and it's certainly not anything that is common." In other words, some of the "scientists" sounded like idiots (maybe THOSE were the agents?), and the rest could have been better coached. Match that against intercepts (supposedly, we'll see next week) and it will stand as firmly as a candle in a hurricane.

In fact, that whole interview (I read it over breakfast) was all about Hans's gut-feelings and opinions. He didn't THINK this, he didn't THINK that. He freely admits he's seen almost none of the intelligence used to make the claims he "refutes". Even when he has, well, when you see a dozen trucks racing into a weapons compound the day before you inspect it, you're welcome to THINK they're hauling super-duty vacuum cleaners in to make the place look good for your arrival. You're also welcome to THINK the Iraqis surely couldn't have your rooms bugged and your entourage penetrated. But then the rest of the world is welcome to THINK you need to retire to a nice, quiet chateau in the mountains somewhere.
post #6 of 631
Thread Starter 
It's interesting that folks say "Listen to the inspectors. Listen to the inspectors," but then condemn them when they don't support the opinion to go to war.

As far as the Bush admin lying, both of them have. For some examples that you can't argue with:

.Bush and Blair citing ficticious IAEA reports numerous time, even after getting caught, as ultimate justification for attacking Iraq. Bush even said, "what more proof do you need?"

.Lying about Iraqi troop build-ups along saudi arabia, saying that Iraq needed to be stopped before they attacked the kingdom. Not only was it revealed (through sat. photos) that there was no such buildup, but an attack on Saudi Arabia would have been contrary to what Iraq was actually doing.

.Everyone knows about the little Iraqi peasant girl who turned out to be a daughter of a diplomat.

And now we have Blix saying that Bush and Powell are falsifying facts of the inspections he is running. Towel, unless Powell has some stunning revelation next week about some unknown source for this particular info (and it can't be from inside the team because then the US would be in violation), all of the Bush Admin's intel concerning the two things mentioned above comes from Blix's team only. If Blix says there is nothing from his team that would support these statements then there isn't. Powell went so far as to say that the info was from inspectors, Blix is saying it isn't. Blix is the inspectors. There is not two ways about this one.
post #7 of 631
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/867105.asp?0na=x2368290-" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/867105.asp?0na=x2368290-</a>

We shall see when the speech occurs. Until then giant, you are blowing just as much smoke as anyone else here.

[quote]<strong>The White House has been regularly receiving the NSA transcripts ever since the inspectors returned to Iraq late last year. The damning nature of some of the transcripts, officials said, explain President Bushs occasional outbursts of anger at the Iraqis, as well as the willingness by Powellwho had previously cautioned against warto lay out a damning picture of Iraqi noncompliance in next weeks speech. One official who had dinner with Powell recently said the secretary remarked how we have a stronger case than many people realize. <hr></blockquote></strong>

[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
post #8 of 631
"hey, Ari...How's your Saydam inpersonation?.....The sound tech is here, we got the script, and we're ready to roll"
---Rummy
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #9 of 631
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
Until then giant, you are blowing just as much smoke as anyone else here.
<hr></blockquote>

the three older examples I mentioned are not blowing smoke. At least one of my two main new examples is not blowing smoke since powell said he recieved his info from Blix and Blix says he didn't. You can't argue with that.

Fact is, this thread is about the undeniable fact that they are lying, not about justification for an attack or whether saddam is being decietful (we all know he is).

I am also adding that I would have to see proof of a serious and immediate threat to the lives of Americans here in the US before I support a full-scale takeover of Iraq.

[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
post #10 of 631
from your article

[quote] Mr. Blix reiterated his report's key finding that Iraq had not provided anything like the wholehearted cooperation he needed to certify that Saddam Hussein was not concealing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. His concern about Iraq's attitude, he said, led him to refrain from explicitly asking for more time for inspections when he reported to the Security Council on Monday.

"I haven't pleaded for continuing inspections because I haven't seen a change of attitude on the part of Iraq," he said.<hr></blockquote>

right there is material breach. give it up. everything after that is window dressing.

and if you read to the end

[quote] Both sides agree that American satellites photographed what American analysts said were Iraqi clean-up crews operating at a suspected chemical weapons site they had identified within 48 hours after the information about the site was shared with Unmovic. But the diplomats say inspectors concluded that the site was an old ammunition storage area often frequented by Iraqi trucks, and that there was no reason to believe it was involved in weapons activities.

"It was a wild goose chase." one diplomat said.

But an administration official said there was "good reason" to believe the site was suspect, and that Unmovic had waited a week before visiting it.

"Whether something was removed, or whether it was ever there remains an open question," he complained. He noted that although the C.I.A. was still providing inspectors with sensitive information, concerns remained about Unmovic's ability to safeguard it.

"Iraqis may have bugged offices or hotel rooms of some Unmovic people," he said, noting there were "several examples" in which Iraqis seemed to have either "advance knowledge, or very good luck in going to places before inspectors."<hr></blockquote>

"Yeah, they got nothing to hide, nothing at all. They're innocent." (if you believe that statement, this <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/new_matter_020410.html" target="_blank">link's</a> for you)
post #11 of 631
[quote]And now we have Blix saying that Bush and Powell are falsifying facts of the inspections he is running. <hr></blockquote>

No. How can I say this again without repeating myself? What you have is Blix saying he doesn't believe what Bush is saying (about leaks, about agents posing as scientists, about convoys running material to Syria) when he ADMITS that he hasn't seen ANY of the evidence/intelligence that had led Bush to make those accusations. For the few instances where Blix has had some perspective on the issues (his talks with the agents/scientists or his view of Iraqi convoys cleaning up weapons sites ahead of inspectors) he has chosen to offer a different interpretation of the facts - but again, based only on his perspective, without seeing the more complete picture that the US gov has.
post #12 of 631
Bush - Beat Up Saddam Huessein

Need I say more?
iSurf, iSaw and iType
iSurf, iSaw and iType
post #13 of 631
if Saddam doesn't have "weapons of mass destruction" he'd better get some quick, hes going to need them with all these threats "junior" is making against him lol
post #14 of 631
By Towel,

" In other words, some of the "scientists" sounded like idiots (maybe THOSE were the agents?), and the rest could have been better coached. Match that against intercepts (supposedly, we'll see next week) and it will stand as firmly as a candle in a hurricane "


Pure speculation.

[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #15 of 631
How do we know Hans Blix isn't lying? Maybe he's being pressured by the French and Germans to make sure Iraq remains closed. That way French and German secret dealings with Iraq remain that way?
post #16 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>How do we know Hans Blix isn't lying? </strong><hr></blockquote>

It doesn't matter if he is. Bush supposedly has the evidence. Show it and it doesn't matter what Blix says. Don't show it and you suffer whatever whims Blix might be feeling on any given day.

Evidence. Show it, and everyone will stand with you. Don't show it or don't have it and everyone should stand against.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #17 of 631
When did this become about whether the UN will support an attack and not about whether the US should attack? That seems to be a given now.
post #18 of 631
Hey, I'm all for seeing "the evidence", but I have a feeling that even if the most damning evidence imaginable is presented in the end, the anti-war people will simply move to another reason to not go to war. Basically, it doesn't matter what is on the table, they don't want war, period (so debating on the matter is pretty well pointless, of course). This is already apparent in the manner they choose to bring arguments to bear in these topics.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
post #19 of 631
Those of you clamoring for evidence:


Powell is going to use NSA intercepts that are damning.

Have a nice day.


<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/867105.asp?0cv=CB10" target="_blank">Hello, Mr. Stevenson? </a>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #20 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>Hey, I'm all for seeing "the evidence", but I have a feeling that even if the most damning evidence imaginable is presented in the end, the anti-war people will simply move to another reason to not go to war. Basically, it doesn't matter what is on the table, they don't want war, period (so debating on the matter is pretty well pointless, of course). This is already apparent in the manner they choose to bring arguments to bear in these topics.</strong><hr></blockquote>


We have a winner!


For the "anti-war" left the most important thing is stopping the US. Peace is not the goal. It's a little know fact that the anti-war movement is funded by front groups for various "workers" parties. They are against the American way of life and so they support anything that checks US power in the hope of weakening the US in the end.
post #21 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>


It's a little know fact that the anti-war movement is funded by front groups for various "workers" parties. They are against the American way of life and so they support anything that checks US power in the hope of weakening the US in the end.</strong><hr></blockquote>

got links for that one? i have a hard time believinng it's anything more than idealistic students with more time than real life experience on their hands.
post #22 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>

got links for that one? i have a hard time believinng it's anything more than idealistic students with more time than real life experience on their hands.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'll see what I can dig up. The "not in my name" is the best example.
post #23 of 631
I'm sorry it's another group. I'll post back when I find all the info.
post #24 of 631
Here we go. It's International A.N.S.W.E.R. A front group for the Workes World Party.

<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002948" target="_blank">Here</a>

[quote]International Answer, of course, is a front for the Workers World Party, which, as Kelly notes, split from the Socialist Workers Party over the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary--which the WWP supported. "The left," Kelly notes, "has hardened itself around the core value of a furious, permanent, reactionary opposition to the devil-state America, which stands as the paramount evil of the world and the paramount threat to the world, and whose aims must be thwarted even at the cost of supporting fascists and tyrants."<hr></blockquote>

I think this calls their motivation into question. It seems they are much more anti-US rather than anti-war.

So much more than just a bunch of bongo banging students.
post #25 of 631
I forgot the other piece of the puzzle. International A.N.S.W.E.R. is the group that organized the "peace" marches several weeks ago across the country.

Oh and of course the LIBERAL media never tell you any of this. Had there been a pro war rally sponsored by .. say Israel ... you know it would have been disclosed.

[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
post #26 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>Here we go. It's International A.N.S.W.E.R. A front group for the Workes World Party.

<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002948" target="_blank">Here</a>



I think this calls their motivation into question. It seems they are much more anti-US rather than anti-war.

So much more than just a bunch of bongo banging students.</strong><hr></blockquote>Who cares about these freaks . . . I don't. they have nothing to do with what I thinnk and with what the majority of people I know think.

THey are teh typical bunch of losers that pop out of the wood work whenever there are demonstrations .. . they try to hijack the proceedings and damage cop cars . . . losers

but the message that they are trying to hijack is not therefor wrong
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #27 of 631
This whole thing with Iraq has been a great education for me in what Henry Kissinger calls statecraft. We were attacked by Al Qaeda. When was the last time Bush talked about bin Laden? I heard on the radio last night that the last time was last July. Iraq has done nothing to the US. There is no credible evidence that they intend to do anything to us. In fact, the intelligence reports that have come out have said that Saddam has stuiously avoided any connections with terrorists. Yet, the administration has steadfastly beat the drums of war against Iraq.

Durng the Senate debate some Republican senators made outrageous statements. The lady senator from Texas said we had to destroy Iraq before they destroyed us! On a good day, if everything went perfectly Iraq might be able to set off a small bomb in the US. However, there is no way in the world they could come close to destroying us. Another senator from NY claimed that Iraq would fly crop duster like plains to the Atlantic seaboard and gas Americans. Talk about flights of fantasy. But that kind of baseless rhetoric does seep in. I heard of a recent poll in which roughly half of Americans thought that Saddam was involved with the attack on the twin towers. In fact, Saddam is at odds with Al Qaeda, he being secular and Al Qaeda being religious fanatics. In addition, Iraq has been tightly monitored for the last 11 years, their air force has been decimated, and our military has been keeping them under close observation.

The question is why? Why the focus on Iraq when Al Qaeda is the obvious threat? Why the focus on Iraq when objectively they don't seem to pose a grave and imminent threat?

I think that Bush and his cohorts are trying to establish the Amerian Empire. They will conquer Iraq and use it as a forward base to conquer or control the rest of the Middle East. If they take over Iraq then Syria, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia would be easy pickings. Cheney et al wrote a paper for an Israeli think tank a few years back that outlined just this plan. So far they seem to following the outline.

The final question is what happens to the US? Will we have another presidential election? What if we get close to the next election and there are new "terrorist" attacks allowing Bush to declare some kind of emergency and suspend the elections? Is this so far fetched? Recall than in the Reagan administration Ollie North testified that they were drawing up plans for suspending the constitution in case there were some kind of large scale emergency.
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
post #28 of 631
[quote]In fact, Saddam is at odds with Al Qaeda, he being secular and Al Qaeda being religious fanatics.<hr></blockquote>

True, Saddam's party is secular, but the story is more involved than that. Ever since Intifada II, Saddam has been steadily lending more and more support to religious and anti-Israel fanatics. He's been in a bidding war with the Saudi Wahhabis over who can give the most money to Palestinian suicide bombers. He's been nurturing the Islamic fanatics in Northern Iraq (even the NYT has reported on the battles between Kurds and Saddam-backed Islamists). Saddam will do whatever he can to raise his profile and gain support among outsiders - and now, that mean supporting the Islamic fanatics that twenty years ago he was massacring. Bad timing for him.

[quote]The question is why? Why the focus on Iraq when Al Qaeda is the obvious threat?<hr></blockquote>
Doesn't the anti-war posse like to go off about addressing the "root causes" of terrorism? That killing a few al-Qaeda won't solve the problem? You know what? They're absolutely right. Attacking Iraq is all about confronting the root causes of terror: hopelessness and oppression leading ordinary folks to become nihilistic religious fanatics, supported by the oil revenue of governments afraid to confront them. Those governments must go, and be replaced by liberal(er) systems that allow people the freedom to live normal lives. That poor sop at RAND who got fired for his Pentagon briefing got it just right: Iraq, then Saudi, then Egypt. Let Palestinians escape their refugee camps and receive money for building rather than destroying, and maybe that conflict will die out. Invading Iraq is a far-sighted strategic act, not a tactical act to destroy weapons. Of course, we can't admit the real target of all those Marines in the Gulf is Saudi Arabia, so Iraq's WMD make a nice pretext.

[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: Towel ]</p>
post #29 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>Hey, I'm all for seeing "the evidence", but I have a feeling that even if the most damning evidence imaginable is presented in the end, the anti-war people will simply move to another reason to not go to war. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Us anti-war people disagree. Even Kofi & Nelson are willing to go to war, but the U.N. Charter doesn't allow for wars of aggression so they can't support the US' current stance.

This argument is of course, another feeble strawman argument. "You don't really believe what you're saying, you believe [completely implausible stance]. And since you believe this [completely implausible stance] we're not going to take you seriously. We're just going to go ahead and do whatever we want because your [completely implausible stance] is a joke."

Your strawman argument is a joke.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #30 of 631
[quote] Attacking Iraq is all about confronting the root causes of terror: <hr></blockquote>your answer to this shows me just how little you understand even the basic notion of the problem.....

must go
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #31 of 631
[quote]your answer to this shows me just how little you understand even the basic notion of the problem.....must go<hr></blockquote>

I'm suprised that you wouldn't agree that illegitimate, corrupt, repressive governments are the root cause of Islamist terror. Or that giving people prosperity, hope, and freedom is the right presciption. Insults aside, shall we start a new "root causes of terror" thread, or are you just going to be a tease?
post #32 of 631
TIC TOC TIC TOC......thc clock is ticking Saddam..take your monry and head into excile, because this time there going in for the kill.
post #33 of 631
I'd rather he go out like Hitler. Sooner rather than later. Now would be good.
post #34 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Even Kofi & Nelson are willing to go to war, but the U.N. Charter doesn't allow for wars of aggression so they can't support the US' current stance.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's not a war of aggression, but holding to that assertion constitutes a strawman argument all on its own. At the heart of the matter is a breached peace treaty. Thus any war that precipitates is simply a resuming of hostilities, not the initiation of a fresh new war.

My earlier point stands that even if the most damning evidence is presented, there will be the anti-war crowd that will simply adapt a different reason to not war. Granted, not everybody has the same reasons, and some are more rational than others. However, you simply cannot deny that there are those out there who argue and debate strictly to support an agenda, not to respond to the facts in hand.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
post #35 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>resuming of hostilities </strong><hr></blockquote>

Try this: find any evidence that the U.N. would allow the U.S. to resume hostility of its own accord.

There isn't any.

We're instigating a new battle if we go to war without the U.N. I'm sorry, it's just true. Do that, and we'll deserve whatever repercussions we receive. Any act after that point will be retaliation.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #36 of 631
The UN is a useless and irrelevant organization. The US should never let its hands be tied by the despots and dictators that are in charge there.
post #37 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Try this: find any evidence that the U.N. would allow the U.S. to resume hostility of its own accord.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Riiiight, the UN cannot even hold the smallest, weakest, impoverished, "functionally-broken" countries to their own treaty agreements- like it is suddenly going to have any influence whatsoever over what the US does/doesn't want to do. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
post #38 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by Towel:
<strong>I'm suprised that you wouldn't agree that illegitimate, corrupt, repressive governments are the root cause of Islamist terror.</strong><hr></blockquote>

On this point, we are in total agreement.
post #39 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>The UN is a useless and irrelevant organization. The US should never let its hands be tied by the despots and dictators that are in charge there.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yet tied they are, and even Blair is having trouble toting our line. Having the ability to strike Iraq on our own does not change the fact that we would do so without the support of the world. Taking on the world is not a game we want to get into.
post #40 of 631
[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>

Riiiight, the UN cannot even hold the smallest, weakest, impoverished, "functionally-broken" countries to their own treaty agreements- like it is suddenly going to have any influence whatsoever over what the US does/doesn't want to do. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well I think this post pretty much sums up the arguments for going to war.

"We can and no one can stop us. It doesn't matter [i]why[/], just that we can. Might is right! Might is right!"

Welcome back to the Middle-Ages everyone. Glad to see how enlightened some of us are after that pesky old Renaissance.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war