This refers to your stance before the war in another thread. It was there that I maintained that the US would have a presence in Iraq for years to come. You replied that they would be just in to do what they had to do to topple Saddam " that's the plan " and then out.
If you're going to quote me then quote me.
I remember one time you said Bush was more evil than Saddam. I won't bother to quote you, I just assume you said that and hope the readers just buy it because it will help me right now.
I think some people are (purposely) confusing when someone says the actual operation to topple the Saddam regime in Iraq will take xyz amount of time vs. the US will have active resources present in Iraq for xyz amount of time to rebuild the nation. People who felt the Iraqi leadership would be conquered in a short amount of time are still right. Rebuilding a nation, OTOH, is a longterm objective. I don't recall anyone here being so foolish as to post that this could be accomplished in a matter of weeks (though some would have you believe otherwise, hoping to secure the assertion that another poster's stance on the matter has been inconsistent- you know who you are).
I remember one time you said Bush was more evil than Saddam. I won't bother to quote you, I just assume you said that and hope the readers just buy it because it will help me right now.
Your typical cheap shot. I knew you wouldn't admit to the fact that your arguments really mean nothing. Or you can't remember now? Selective memory loss? I only wish they kept the threads longer. Of course if I could dig that up you'd say you really meant something else. I think it might have been on the anti war protest thread.
I think some people are (purposely) confusing when someone says the actual operation to topple the Saddam regime in Iraq will take xyz amount of time vs. the US will have active resources present in Iraq for xyz amount of time to rebuild the nation. People who felt the Iraqi leadership would be conquered in a short amount of time are still right. Rebuilding a nation, OTOH, is a longterm objective. I don't recall anyone here being so foolish as to post that this could be accomplished in a matter of weeks (though some would have you believe otherwise, hoping to secure the assertion that another poster's stance on the matter has been inconsistent- you know who you are).
It was somehting like " Me : So we're just going to leave afterwards? Just in and out? groverat : That's the plan. "
You should note that the notion of what "operation" is to be accomplished under that gesture is quite vague. You can hold him to whatever meaning you think he meant at the time, but holding him to any meaning at all for such a simple statement is pretty ambiguous.
You should note that the notion of what "operation" is to be accomplished under that gesture is quite vague. You can hold him to whatever meaning you think he meant at the time, but holding him to any meaning at all for such a simple statement is pretty ambiguous.
Ahem! No I'm afraid he can't wiggle out of it that easily. Don't be silly.
Anyone with a first grade intelligence knows that Hussein is going to steal as much of the aid as possible. Fine. There's absolutely no reason to bring this up or even discuss it because it's about as relevant as talking about how Hussein needs to use some of the air in Iraq to breathe. It's just a fact.
After we subtract that from the equation what we have left is what I'm concerned about.
None of your examples incriminate any foreign country in the least. None of your examples single out any country. The US is primarily responsible for the failure of the sanctions and this information comes from a link you provided to the forum.
As an aside, it's (primarily) the US and France that are asking to remove the sanctions.
Your typical cheap shot. I knew you wouldn't admit to the fact that your arguments really mean nothing. Or you can't remember now? Selective memory loss? I only wish they kept the threads longer. Of course if I could dig that up you'd say you really meant something else. I think it might have been on the anti war protest thread.
The search function works, get after it. How long ago did I supposedly say we'd immediately leave Iraq? 2 years ago? Because that's how far back you can search.
Have fun.
--
bunge:
Quote:
None of your examples incriminate any foreign country in the least. None of your examples single out any country. The US is primarily responsible for the failure of the sanctions and this information comes from a link you provided to the forum.
I just want you know if you recognize the logical disconnect between your first two sentences and then your last one.
It doesn't single out any country then "The US is primarily responsible..."
Any system through the UN requires more than the US's approval. Keep ignoring the fact that there is more than one nation in there. Keep ignoring that they were UN sanctions.
France wants to suspend the sanctions (not remove) and keep the oil-for-food program going. Tell me, bunge, why keep the oil-for-food program going when Saddam is gone?
Answer: to keep the money flowing into French hands.
That's a lie and you know it. A US veto doesn't require any other countries.
The US vetoed the sanctions into existence?
Could you please explain how that would work?
Quote:
Keep ignoring that the sanctions were fine and that the blockage of items that the sanctions allowed is what caused the trouble. Keep ignoring it.
Hard to ignore lies.
An emergency commodity assistance program like oil-for-food, no matter how well funded or well run, cannot reverse the devastating consequences of war and ten years of virtual shutdown of Iraq's economy ... The deterioration in Iraq's civilian infrastructure is so far-reaching that is can only be reversed with extensive investment and development efforts
- Human Rights Watch (August 4, 2000)
You do realize "the sanctions are fine!" is what Rush Limbaugh and ilk screamed for years against leftist opposition to the sanctions regime, don't you?
Quote:
Well, that's probably true. But they can hide behind the fact that we still need to prove that there are no WMD in Iraq.
How does that work? You hide from the discussion whenever it turns against you.
The sanctions were fine. The sanctions didn't block the parts necessary to rebuild water treatment plants, the sanctions let them through. The US veto blocked them from getting through.
Why do you need to lie to try and win an argument when you're so blatantly wrong?
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
You do realize "the sanctions are fine!" is what Rush Limbaugh and ilk screamed for years against leftist opposition to the sanctions regime, don't you?
You do realize that I don't give a crap what Rush Limbaugh or the leftist opposition say, don't you? If they were both wrong, why would I care who I'm supposedly in agreement with? Use a little critical thinking. The motives behind their opinions are more important than their conclusions anyway.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Move the goalposts.
Christ you've been wrong about most everything in this discussion already so why would I trust your posts about France? Let's quote some sources and we can discuss specifics. You've made some claims I was willing to accept, but if you're going to pretend that your claims about France mean anything then please quote some sources. I can then at least believe what you're saying.
[i]An emergency commodity assistance program like oil-for-food, no matter how well funded or well run, cannot reverse the devastating consequences of war and ten years of virtual shutdown of Iraq's economy ...
Are you blind? The 'ten years of virtual shutdown' are the ten years of US led blockage that we're talking about. Your quote essentially proves my point. Thanks.
The sanctions were fine. The sanctions didn't block the parts necessary to rebuild water treatment plants, the sanctions let them through. The US veto blocked them from getting through.
Why do you need to lie to try and win an argument when you're so blatantly wrong?
Oh, so water treatment plants were the entire problem?
The US blocked contracts, yes, but what they blocked and how much that affected is unclear but substantial. To blame it all on the US is just insanity.
Do you not understand what sanctions are? Does the significance of stockpiled billions by Saddam's regime escape you completely?
Quote:
...why would I trust your posts about France? Let's quote some sources and we can discuss specifics.
Funny that you're the one who asks for sources, something you never provide. But I'm always glad to smash your rhetoric with fact.
Money from the plan is kept in an escrow account at the Banque Nationale de Paris in New York.
- 30+% of oil-for-food revenues were used to pay reparations and UN expenses. click
The US (along with the SC) strangled the Iraqi people for years. Now that they are willing to let the chokehold go look who is hesitating. Ask yourself why, after all you are the one who says motives are more important than consequence.
Tell me, bunge, what matters more now? To you the US's motives in 1998 are more important because your only goal is the blindly bash the US and ignore the faults of others. I can acknowledge both sides.
An estimated 60 percent of Iraqis depend on Oil-for-Food rations...
Tell me, bunge, how would more approval for spare parts have fixed that problem?
The design of the program relied on using Saddam to get the aid to the people. How in God's name can you see their physical state and the stockpiles of money and goods in Saddam's palaces/neighborhoods and have the blindness to say the sanctions were "fine"?
To cover its administrative costs, the U.N. collects a 2.2 percent commission on Iraqi oil sales, a setup that over the course of the program has generated more than $1 billion for U.N. coffers.
The US's fault, no doubt.
Quote:
Are you blind? The 'ten years of virtual shutdown' are the ten years of US led blockage that we're talking about. Your quote essentially proves my point. Thanks.
Oil-for-food went into effect in 1995.
The statement was made in 2000.
Tell me, bunge, how does 5 = 10?
Perhaps you should have some remedial math courses along with your remedial reading courses.
To cover its administrative costs, the U.N. collects a 2.2 percent commission on Iraqi oil sales, a setup that over the course of the program has generated more than $1 billion for U.N. coffers.
The US's fault, no doubt.
What does the 1% for UN administrative costs have to do with the French getting Iraqi money in their hands?
If you can find anyone to back your statement that the sanctions would've been fine if it weren't for the US I'd love to see it.
Aw, come on groverat, post that link I'm talking about. That way I can save it and bring it back next time and I won't have to ask you to do it for me....
I've never denied that France is dirty in all of this. If it seems that's what I've implied then I didn't mean to do it. France is dirty. Iraq (Hussein) is obviously dirtier. The US though, is highly responsible
Comments
This refers to your stance before the war in another thread. It was there that I maintained that the US would have a presence in Iraq for years to come. You replied that they would be just in to do what they had to do to topple Saddam " that's the plan " and then out.
If you're going to quote me then quote me.
I remember one time you said Bush was more evil than Saddam. I won't bother to quote you, I just assume you said that and hope the readers just buy it because it will help me right now.
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:
If you're going to quote me then quote me.
I remember one time you said Bush was more evil than Saddam. I won't bother to quote you, I just assume you said that and hope the readers just buy it because it will help me right now.
Your typical cheap shot. I knew you wouldn't admit to the fact that your arguments really mean nothing. Or you can't remember now? Selective memory loss? I only wish they kept the threads longer. Of course if I could dig that up you'd say you really meant something else. I think it might have been on the anti war protest thread.
Originally posted by Randycat99
I think some people are (purposely) confusing when someone says the actual operation to topple the Saddam regime in Iraq will take xyz amount of time vs. the US will have active resources present in Iraq for xyz amount of time to rebuild the nation. People who felt the Iraqi leadership would be conquered in a short amount of time are still right. Rebuilding a nation, OTOH, is a longterm objective. I don't recall anyone here being so foolish as to post that this could be accomplished in a matter of weeks (though some would have you believe otherwise, hoping to secure the assertion that another poster's stance on the matter has been inconsistent- you know who you are).
It was somehting like " Me : So we're just going to leave afterwards? Just in and out? groverat : That's the plan. "
Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now.
Originally posted by Randycat99
You should note that the notion of what "operation" is to be accomplished under that gesture is quite vague. You can hold him to whatever meaning you think he meant at the time, but holding him to any meaning at all for such a simple statement is pretty ambiguous.
Ahem! No I'm afraid he can't wiggle out of it that easily. Don't be silly.
Originally posted by groverat
But your goal isn't honesty, it's to bash the US.
You're full of shit when you say this.
Anyone with a first grade intelligence knows that Hussein is going to steal as much of the aid as possible. Fine. There's absolutely no reason to bring this up or even discuss it because it's about as relevant as talking about how Hussein needs to use some of the air in Iraq to breathe. It's just a fact.
After we subtract that from the equation what we have left is what I'm concerned about.
None of your examples incriminate any foreign country in the least. None of your examples single out any country. The US is primarily responsible for the failure of the sanctions and this information comes from a link you provided to the forum.
As an aside, it's (primarily) the US and France that are asking to remove the sanctions.
Your typical cheap shot. I knew you wouldn't admit to the fact that your arguments really mean nothing. Or you can't remember now? Selective memory loss? I only wish they kept the threads longer. Of course if I could dig that up you'd say you really meant something else. I think it might have been on the anti war protest thread.
The search function works, get after it. How long ago did I supposedly say we'd immediately leave Iraq? 2 years ago? Because that's how far back you can search.
Have fun.
--
bunge:
None of your examples incriminate any foreign country in the least. None of your examples single out any country. The US is primarily responsible for the failure of the sanctions and this information comes from a link you provided to the forum.
I just want you know if you recognize the logical disconnect between your first two sentences and then your last one.
It doesn't single out any country then "The US is primarily responsible..."
Any system through the UN requires more than the US's approval. Keep ignoring the fact that there is more than one nation in there. Keep ignoring that they were UN sanctions.
France wants to suspend the sanctions (not remove) and keep the oil-for-food program going. Tell me, bunge, why keep the oil-for-food program going when Saddam is gone?
Answer: to keep the money flowing into French hands.
Originally posted by groverat
Any system through the UN requires more than the US's approval.
That's a lie and you know it. A US veto doesn't require any other countries.
Originally posted by groverat
Keep ignoring the fact that there is more than one nation in there. Keep ignoring that they were UN sanctions.
Keep ignoring that the sanctions were fine and that the blockage of items that the sanctions allowed is what caused the trouble. Keep ignoring it.
Originally posted by groverat
Answer: to keep the money flowing into French hands.
Well, that's probably true. But they can hide behind the fact that we still need to prove that there are no WMD in Iraq.
That's a lie and you know it. A US veto doesn't require any other countries.
The US vetoed the sanctions into existence?
Could you please explain how that would work?
Keep ignoring that the sanctions were fine and that the blockage of items that the sanctions allowed is what caused the trouble. Keep ignoring it.
Hard to ignore lies.
An emergency commodity assistance program like oil-for-food, no matter how well funded or well run, cannot reverse the devastating consequences of war and ten years of virtual shutdown of Iraq's economy ... The deterioration in Iraq's civilian infrastructure is so far-reaching that is can only be reversed with extensive investment and development efforts
- Human Rights Watch (August 4, 2000)
You do realize "the sanctions are fine!" is what Rush Limbaugh and ilk screamed for years against leftist opposition to the sanctions regime, don't you?
Well, that's probably true. But they can hide behind the fact that we still need to prove that there are no WMD in Iraq.
Move the goalposts.
*squeak* *squeak* *squeak*
Originally posted by groverat
The US vetoed the sanctions into existence?
Could you please explain how that would work?
How does that work? You hide from the discussion whenever it turns against you.
The sanctions were fine. The sanctions didn't block the parts necessary to rebuild water treatment plants, the sanctions let them through. The US veto blocked them from getting through.
Why do you need to lie to try and win an argument when you're so blatantly wrong?
Originally posted by groverat
You do realize "the sanctions are fine!" is what Rush Limbaugh and ilk screamed for years against leftist opposition to the sanctions regime, don't you?
You do realize that I don't give a crap what Rush Limbaugh or the leftist opposition say, don't you? If they were both wrong, why would I care who I'm supposedly in agreement with? Use a little critical thinking. The motives behind their opinions are more important than their conclusions anyway.
Originally posted by groverat
Move the goalposts.
Christ you've been wrong about most everything in this discussion already so why would I trust your posts about France? Let's quote some sources and we can discuss specifics. You've made some claims I was willing to accept, but if you're going to pretend that your claims about France mean anything then please quote some sources. I can then at least believe what you're saying.
Originally posted by groverat
[i]An emergency commodity assistance program like oil-for-food, no matter how well funded or well run, cannot reverse the devastating consequences of war and ten years of virtual shutdown of Iraq's economy ...
Are you blind? The 'ten years of virtual shutdown' are the ten years of US led blockage that we're talking about. Your quote essentially proves my point. Thanks.
The sanctions were fine. The sanctions didn't block the parts necessary to rebuild water treatment plants, the sanctions let them through. The US veto blocked them from getting through.
Why do you need to lie to try and win an argument when you're so blatantly wrong?
Oh, so water treatment plants were the entire problem?
The US blocked contracts, yes, but what they blocked and how much that affected is unclear but substantial. To blame it all on the US is just insanity.
Do you not understand what sanctions are? Does the significance of stockpiled billions by Saddam's regime escape you completely?
...why would I trust your posts about France? Let's quote some sources and we can discuss specifics.
Funny that you're the one who asks for sources, something you never provide. But I'm always glad to smash your rhetoric with fact.
click
Money from the plan is kept in an escrow account at the Banque Nationale de Paris in New York.
- 30+% of oil-for-food revenues were used to pay reparations and UN expenses. click
The US (along with the SC) strangled the Iraqi people for years. Now that they are willing to let the chokehold go look who is hesitating. Ask yourself why, after all you are the one who says motives are more important than consequence.
Tell me, bunge, what matters more now? To you the US's motives in 1998 are more important because your only goal is the blindly bash the US and ignore the faults of others. I can acknowledge both sides.
click
An estimated 60 percent of Iraqis depend on Oil-for-Food rations...
Tell me, bunge, how would more approval for spare parts have fixed that problem?
The design of the program relied on using Saddam to get the aid to the people. How in God's name can you see their physical state and the stockpiles of money and goods in Saddam's palaces/neighborhoods and have the blindness to say the sanctions were "fine"?
To cover its administrative costs, the U.N. collects a 2.2 percent commission on Iraqi oil sales, a setup that over the course of the program has generated more than $1 billion for U.N. coffers.
The US's fault, no doubt.
Are you blind? The 'ten years of virtual shutdown' are the ten years of US led blockage that we're talking about. Your quote essentially proves my point. Thanks.
Oil-for-food went into effect in 1995.
The statement was made in 2000.
Tell me, bunge, how does 5 = 10?
Perhaps you should have some remedial math courses along with your remedial reading courses.
Originally posted by groverat
Oh, so water treatment plants were the entire problem?
Why is it that you insist on avoiding rather than discussing?
Originally posted by groverat
To cover its administrative costs, the U.N. collects a 2.2 percent commission on Iraqi oil sales, a setup that over the course of the program has generated more than $1 billion for U.N. coffers.
The US's fault, no doubt.
What does the 1% for UN administrative costs have to do with the French getting Iraqi money in their hands?
Originally posted by groverat
The US's fault, no doubt.
Why don't you repost that link I keep referring to instead of putting words in my, um, posts.
Why is it that you insist on avoiding rather than discussing?
Avoiding what, that's the only substantive contract you've provided that was blocked by the US.
If you've got more then bring more.
What does the 1% for UN administrative costs have to do with the French getting Iraqi money in their hands?
Because that's where the money went, to French banks and Saddam Hussein instead of the Iraqi people.
Why don't you repost that link I keep referring to instead of putting words in my, um, posts.
here's one
here's another
If you can find anyone to back your statement that the sanctions would've been fine if it weren't for the US I'd love to see it.
Originally posted by groverat
If you've got more then bring more.
If you can find anyone to back your statement that the sanctions would've been fine if it weren't for the US I'd love to see it.
Aw, come on groverat, post that link I'm talking about. That way I can save it and bring it back next time and I won't have to ask you to do it for me....
I've never denied that France is dirty in all of this. If it seems that's what I've implied then I didn't mean to do it. France is dirty. Iraq (Hussein) is obviously dirtier. The US though, is highly responsible