or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows. - Page 15

post #561 of 654
Why did we not go in earlier? Simple:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #562 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Here you go, again parroting about the WMDs. I have a DVD FULL of Bush's, Powell's, Cheney's, Rice's claims, imminent threats, mushroom clouds over NY/US, blah blah blah, "solid intelligence", "best intelligence in the world", "we know where they are","saddam and Al qaeda" and on and on and on. I guess if I was a Bush FANATIC like everyone can see you are, the lack of WMD wouldn't mean anything to me either.

The Washington Times doesn't agree that there was no link with Al-Qeada:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3723-4738r.htm

apparently there is a reasonable link and pretty substantial too.
post #563 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The Washington Times doesn't agree that there was no link with Al-Qeada:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3723-4738r.htm

apparently there is a reasonable link and pretty substantial too.

OF COURSE the Washington Times argues there's a link. It's the WASHINGTON TIMES.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #564 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
SDW2001, why didn't we let the inspector's work then? What was the rush, if what we were worrying about was some missing material and not actual weapons? If Bush thought the weapon's claim was shaky because he, according to you, didn't mention any weapons, then the inspections had no reason to be halted. Saddam wasn't known to have had weapons... Bush strongly overstated the threat Saddam posed and in this way lied about his knowledge to get a war. He may not have lied about specific material, but he certainly halted a working UN process to bomb the country back to the stone age and on what justification?

As Naples said, we had inspections for twelve years. Inspections don't work unless a nation completely cooperates. Inspections are not supposed to be a game of cat and mouse. A working UN process? That's a contradiction of terms. The UN is a joke at everything except distributing international food and medical aid. The process failed for 12 years. More time? Why? For what purpose? Further, for all those "we acted without authorization" folks, let me ask: Why did the UN refuse to back up resolution 1441? It was quite clear. Are you honestly telling me Saddam cooperated?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #565 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Why did we not go in earlier? Simple:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.


If you're referencing 1991...you're right. And that's why Bush 41 was right not to keep going. Though, the term "UN Mandate" makes me laugh.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #566 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
OF COURSE the Washington Times argues there's a link. It's the WASHINGTON TIMES.

It's every bit as reputable as the LA TImes, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. It's just that it's not ridiculously biased like those three. Read the NYT website every day like I do and tell me it's not slanted. Please.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #567 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
As Naples said, we had inspections for twelve years. Inspections don't work unless a nation completely cooperates. Inspections are not supposed to be a game of cat and mouse. A working UN process? That's a contradiction of terms. The UN is a joke at everything except distributing international food and medical aid. The process failed for 12 years. More time? Why? For what purpose? Further, for all those "we acted without authorization" folks, let me ask: Why did the UN refuse to back up resolution 1441? It was quite clear. Are you honestly telling me Saddam cooperated?

SDW there are no WOMD! Give it up!

Trying justify or rationalize this is making you look foolish and I wouldn't even wish that on you.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #568 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Twelve years of inspection did not work. What was to be the ever allusive line in the sand? Come on, someone had to do it. SH had no intention of cooperating with anything that had even a hint of the US.


Did not work to do what? The evidence now in indicates that they worked quite well.
tribalfusion?
Reply
tribalfusion?
Reply
post #569 of 654
post #570 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Chinney
Did not work to do what? The evidence now in indicates that they worked quite well.

Wow. Did they? In the very least, we have hard evidence of intent to deceive inspectors. We have NSA intercepts on the topic. Do you not remember? They didn't work. They didn't work from the beginning.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #571 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Chinney
Did not work to do what? The evidence now in indicates that they worked quite well.

Iraq had an obligation to show proof of disarmament. Total and full disclosure. Inspections did not accomplish that. This was made evident every time they found something that was banned by the UN resolutions.

They worked in what way exactly?
post #572 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
As Naples said, we had inspections for twelve years. Inspections don't work unless a nation completely cooperates. Inspections are not supposed to be a game of cat and mouse. A working UN process? That's a contradiction of terms. The UN is a joke at everything except distributing international food and medical aid. The process failed for 12 years. More time? Why? For what purpose? Further, for all those "we acted without authorization" folks, let me ask: Why did the UN refuse to back up resolution 1441? It was quite clear. Are you honestly telling me Saddam cooperated?

Two final questions: Did Iraq have WMD's? How do you suppose that came about if it weren't for even the "failed" UN inspections?
post #573 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The sad thing is that the administration felt that the atrocities would get no traction in the world community.

They were right because even now the only thing that matters in certain circles is WMD. The disgusting things that the Iraqi people endured for so long are not even mentioned.

Almost every speech that GWB gave mentioned the brutal nature of the regime, yet even now that reason is passed over like that doesn't matter.

Not to seem jaded, but 600 lives have been lost in this effort. I wonder how many Iraqi lives were saved by this action. I would venture to say 10 to 100 times that. That fact totally escapes the "Bush Lied" crowd. It is as if they do not care about Iraqi civilians. I mean the more I think about it, the more I really feel sorry for these heartless people.

It does appear that bush was right about the atrocities that were going on and that life for the Iraqi people is better now. It appears that he was right about democracy taking hold. He was right about removing a destabilizing influence in the MI. He seems to be right that showing force will influence other nations to fall in line. It appears he was right about the UN being unable to make the situation go away, in fact he may have been more right then he knew. He also appears to have been right not to cow-tow to the French and Germans and Russians, being that they were being corrupted by the UN.

Despite all of this, the one thing that gets a held on to is the WMD thing. This goes in the face of just about every intelligence agency in the world believing he had WMD's or at least programs and plans for them.

If the atrocities of the Iraqi regime had been even part of the reason that this Administration went to war I'd be astounded.
tribalfusion?
Reply
tribalfusion?
Reply
post #574 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Two final questions: Did Iraq have WMD's? How do you suppose that came about if it weren't for even the "failed" UN inspections?

Ummm..now wait. Isn't one of your arguments that "the ends don't justify the means?" It works both ways. Saddam did not cooperate. You cannot possibly say that he did.

Would you have felt differently if the UN enforced 1441?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #575 of 654
What are you talking about? When did I ever say the ends don't justify the means? This is always true, it is a truism. It is simply the extent of the means that should be pursued. UN inspections worked, Saddam didn't fully cooperate, but the entire course of the 1990's functioned to rid him of his weapons and his potential to make them... I am not one of the "liberals" who argued against UN sanctions...
post #576 of 654
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #577 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Twelve years of inspection did not work.

Obviously you're wrong.
"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
Reply
"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
Reply
post #578 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Iraq had an obligation to show proof of disarmament. Total and full disclosure. Inspections did not accomplish that. This was made evident every time they found something that was banned by the UN resolutions.

They worked in what way exactly?

No WOMD when we got there! This was by the way what the inspectors were saying before the war.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #579 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Obviously you're wrong.

You know, I hadn't even thought about that until now. That argument is pretty much out the window, isn't it?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #580 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Obviously you're wrong.

Time will only tell if the admin was wrong about the WMD thing, not a bunch of people saying he purposely misled the nation.

If I were president, I would sleep better being wrong about that one thing rather than worrying about the possibility of another and possibly worse attack than 9/11.

You see no-one has made a case that there wasn't that possibility. There is the catch 22 now isn't it?

You apparently would be willing to take that chance with possibly thousands of more lives.

The president would be taking a risk either way he went on that one I think.
post #581 of 654
Clearly the President should have been bombing Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, India, North Korea, the former Soviet Union last year instead of focusing on a country that didn't have the WMDs needed to sell to terrorists...
post #582 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Time will only tell if the admin was wrong about the WMD thing, not a bunch of people saying he purposely misled the nation.

If I were president, I would sleep better being wrong about that one thing rather than worrying about the possibility of another and possibly worse attack than 9/11.

You see no-one has made a case that there wasn't that possibility. There is the catch 22 now isn't it?

You apparently would be willing to take that chance with possibly thousands of more lives.

The president would be taking a risk either way he went on that one I think.

Here's the kicker: you can't just attack when you're scared.

When I'm on public transportation at 2 AM and I see a scary looking person who I think might attack me and steal my wallet, I can't pre-emptively kick his ass and knock him off the train.

If you think this type of action is legitimate, you're a fascist/racist prick.

Laws and rules are set up for a reason, and they're not all so you can sleep better at night. Besides, if you sleep better at night because of what we've done in Iraq you are seriously out of touch with reality. It's not a catch-22. There will be another '9/11', oh wait, there just WAS another '9/11'. It was on March 11th, in Madrid.
"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
Reply
"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
Reply
post #583 of 654
One thing........
Libertarian
Nano
Reply
Nano
Reply
post #584 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Clearly the President should have been bombing Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, India, North Korea, the former Soviet Union last year instead of focusing on a country that didn't have the WMDs needed to sell to terrorists...

Oh yeah that makes a whole lot of sense. In fact, it is a totally flawed line of reasoning.

You are just jabbing i hope.
post #585 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
You know, I hadn't even thought about that until now. That argument is pretty much out the window, isn't it?

You'd think, but it keeps rearing it's empty head. I mean ugly head.

Someone how it's come up twice in this thread alone, and I can only assume the people typing it actually believe it. I not sure how they can bend the laws of science far enough to make it fit into their world view, but they do.
"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
Reply
"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
Reply
post #586 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Here's the kicker: you can't just attack when you're scared.

When I'm on public transportation at 2 AM and I see a scary looking person who I think might attack me and steal my wallet, I can't pre-emptively kick his ass and knock him off the train.

If you think this type of action is legitimate, you're a fascist/racist prick.

Laws and rules are set up for a reason, and they're not all so you can sleep better at night. Besides, if you sleep better at night because of what we've done in Iraq you are seriously out of touch with reality. It's not a catch-22. There will be another '9/11', oh wait, there just WAS another '9/11'. It was on March 11th, in Madrid.

Tell me why SH can skirt the law and you accept it and give him the benefit of the doubt. But when you feel an action by this government (remember congress approved it) is questionable you question honesty and then only the president?
post #587 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Time will only tell if the admin was wrong about the WMD thing, not a bunch of people saying he purposely misled the nation.

If I were president, I would sleep better being wrong about that one thing rather than worrying about the possibility of another and possibly worse attack than 9/11.

You see no-one has made a case that there wasn't that possibility. There is the catch 22 now isn't it?

You apparently would be willing to take that chance with possibly thousands of more lives.

The president would be taking a risk either way he went on that one I think.

How much more time do you need? Forever?

I'd be dreaming of all those needless deaths.

No one to date has made a concrete connection between Al-Queda and Iraq ( as in support for terrorists ). So yes no one's made the case because there isn't any.

The president did risk thousands of lives and spent billions of dollars over this falsehood.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #588 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Tell me why SH can skirt the law and you accept it and give him the benefit of the doubt. But when you feel an action by this government (remember congress approved it) is questionable you question honesty and then only the president?

SH was a criminal nobody's arguing that point. However SH isn't president of this country and if there's even the slightest possibility of guilt it needs to be examined. This has much more far reaching consequences for us if true. And I'm sorry but it's looking more like he did know what was up all the time. To believe the other possibilty simply means he and his staff are incompetent and should be removed. Take your pick.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #589 of 654
hey i saw a website on how to make a pipe bomb lets go after me
Nano
Reply
Nano
Reply
post #590 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Tell me why SH can skirt the law and you accept it and give him the benefit of the doubt. But when you feel an action by this government (remember congress approved it) is questionable you question honesty and then only the president?

I certainly hold my leaders up to a higher standard than those of Finland, Egypt, Taiwan or Iraq. Leaders of the US represent ME. I won't have a dishonest prick killing people in my name.

Does your avoidance mean you agree that you just can't go around killing when you're scared?
"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
Reply
"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
Reply
post #591 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I certainly hold my leaders up to a higher standard than those of Finland, Egypt, Taiwan or Iraq. Leaders of the US represent ME. I won't have a dishonest prick killing people in my name.

Don't diss Finland now.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #592 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I certainly hold my leaders up to a higher standard than those of Finland, Egypt, Taiwan or Iraq. Leaders of the US represent ME. I won't have a dishonest prick killing people in my name.

Does your avoidance mean you agree that you just can't go around killing when you're scared?

I guess it was OK when a democrat did it.

I do agree with your statement, but that was not the reason.
post #593 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Don't diss Finland now.

I have "I LOVE FINLAND" nail clippers, bought on the Viking Line. I don't diss Finland.
"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
Reply
"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
Reply
post #594 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I guess it was OK when a democrat did it.

See, dumb ass comments like this have no place in a discussion. Make a point, not an irreverent and childish distraction, or admit you're wrong.

No democrat has done anything comparable to what we're talking about; not in my lifetime.
"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
Reply
"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
Reply
post #595 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
See, dumb ass comments like this have no place in a discussion. Make a point, not an irreverent and childish distraction, or admit you're wrong.

No democrat has done anything comparable to what we're talking about; not in my lifetime.

Ok then, what do you call all the dems that approved the war, How about clinton when he used the exact same logic to bomb Iraq. Come on it is the same thing on a smaller scale.

If you are arguing that this war was started out of fear, then all of the democratic congressmen that went along with it have blood on their hands also according to you.
post #596 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
See, dumb ass comments like this have no place in a discussion. Make a point, not an irreverent and childish distraction, or admit you're wrong.

No democrat has done anything comparable to what we're talking about; not in my lifetime.

How about voluntarily giving NK nuclear technology....in a way delibrately structured to avoid the hassles of Congressional approval? Hmmmm.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #597 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Here's the kicker: you can't just attack when you're scared.

When I'm on public transportation at 2 AM and I see a scary looking person who I think might attack me and steal my wallet, I can't pre-emptively kick his ass and knock him off the train.

If you think this type of action is legitimate, you're a fascist/racist prick.

Laws and rules are set up for a reason, and they're not all so you can sleep better at night. Besides, if you sleep better at night because of what we've done in Iraq you are seriously out of touch with reality. It's not a catch-22. There will be another '9/11', oh wait, there just WAS another '9/11'. It was on March 11th, in Madrid.

Saddam was a little more than a scary looking person.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #598 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok then, what do you call all the dems that approved the war[?]

I most likely call it paranoid bullshit.

Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
How about clinton when he used the exact same logic to bomb Iraq. Come on it is the same thing on a smaller scale.

How about you explain exactly what logic both Bill & Bush used. Your canned accusation doesn't ring true in my ears. It's a republican line repeated ad nauseam, and some people believe it.

Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you are arguing that this war was started out of fear, then all of the democratic congressmen that went along with it have blood on their hands also according to you.

Most likely they do, but it depends on which side of the lie they stood. If they were given fabricated proof of a threat, then the guilt lies with those that created the fabrication.
"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
Reply
"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
Reply
post #599 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Saddam was a little more than a scary looking person.

By the time we attacked:

Saddam was little more than a scary looking person.
"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
Reply
"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
Reply
post #600 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
By the time we attacked:

Saddam was little more than a scary looking person.

See, that proves that inspections were not working... er...what was Naples' point?
tribalfusion?
Reply
tribalfusion?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.