Okay I get it now. All the justifications that Bush never made to go to war are now the justifications that Bush made to go to war. Also the war came down to just one of the justifications that Bush made. All others are irrelevant. Neolibs win
It's the only one that matters since the go ahead for the war hinged on it.
Iraq was a festering sore in the middle east. The US and UK were the ones paying the price to "contain" Saddam. It was a problem that had to be solved and could only go one way. Anything less would have let Saddam off the hook and given him the green light to pick up where he left off.
Think about this. The US military has freed more people from tyranny in the last two year than UN or any "human rights" groups have.
I guess we'll all just ignore the mountain of your posts that claim Iraq has the big WMD and how Blix is a biased failure because the UN couldn't find anything.
Quote:
You can't remake what he said to fit your post conceived notions.
But apparently you can.
Quote:
. Anything less would have let Saddam off the hook and given him the green light to pick up where he left off.
No it wouldn't. The UN monitoring would have gone on indefinitely. Qusay would have taken power some time in the future. We could have waited a couple years and worked towards a more widely accepted Iraq policy. There are many possibilities that were not explored.
Many people opposed to the war at the time didn't like the fact we were rushed, making lack of time and ultimately flawed, ideologically driven assessments stand in the way of serious discussion.
Scott, you need therapy, bud. You defend your party and ideas as if you were Bush himself. Like if you give in and admit there was some bogus information being handed out by the administration at crucial times, then somehow you are just as bad as they are.
You are a citizen like the rest of us. Take your lumps like a man and stop cluttering up these threads; all of your arguments inevitably boil down to semantic one-upmanship.
Some people in the Administration and GOP made some bad mistakes, it's not your fault, OK?? Just as with sports, sometimes the decisions you back initially turn out not to be winners. Life is hard. Get over it.
Iraq was a festering sore in the middle east. The US and UK were the ones paying the price to "contain" Saddam. It was a problem that had to be solved and could only go one way. Anything less would have let Saddam off the hook and given him the green light to pick up where he left off.
Think about this. The US military has freed more people from tyranny in the last two year than UN or any "human rights" groups have.
It doesn't matter Scott!
Yes Iraq wasn't a good example of pro humanitarian policy.
As are many places in the world. There are many places like this still out there and just as bad.
That is why those reasons alone wouldn't have swayed the UN and the rest of the american government to go along.
Bush had to have known this. If you'll recall he thumbed his nose at the UN and anyone who wouldn't go along. Why? because they were a threat to us. Or so he said. In the eyes of the world in general that was his justification.
However the only real reason this war had a chance in hell to happen turned out not to be true!
It turned out to be not true like many people suspected and many inspectors were telling the president before the war.
This war cost a lot of lives and a lot of money. This was at a time when the U.S. economy wasn't really doing that well.
No matter how you slice it ( or spin it ) that's a big deal!
No it wouldn't. The UN monitoring would have gone on indefinitely. Qusay would have taken power some time in the future. We could have waited a couple years and worked towards a more widely accepted Iraq policy. There are many possibilities that were not explored.
...
Too funny giant. The UN does not have a good track record when it comes to long term follow though.
What we do know is that Saddam is gone and his kids aint coming back from hell.
Yes Iraq wasn't a good example of pro humanitarian policy.
No? I disagree.
--
giant:
Quote:
No it wouldn't. The UN monitoring would have gone on indefinitely. Qusay would have taken power some time in the future. We could have waited a couple years and worked towards a more widely accepted Iraq policy. There are many possibilities that were not explored.
Classic case of losing the forest for the trees.
Humantarian crises are secondary to making sure everyone is happy with whatever mass-murdering solution the rich nations agree on.
Humantarian crises are secondary to making sure everyone is happy with whatever mass-murdering solution the rich nations agree on.
Sorry, but in this same two year period the US has strengthened many of the dictatorships in the middle east and south asia, notably uzbekistan, giving half a billion dollars to dictatorship clearly violating your beloved humanitarian moral principles, and pakistan, a dictatorship that is likely the world's largest proliferator of nuclear technology and a dictatorship whose senior leadership and intelligence service have direct ties to al-qaeda and apparently even 9.11 itself.
The UN does not have a good track record when it comes to long term follow though.
FACT: continuing inspections for another year would not have given saddam a " off the hook and given him the green light to pick up where he left off." FACT: during the years that there were NO inspectors in Iraq there was no attempt by Saddam's regime to restart banned weapons programs. FACT: Iraq's facilities were destroyed and the programs nonexistent aside from scattered documents and some remaining scientists. FACT: all indications are that what was left of Saddam's military was focused on conventional warfare and even continued to try to meet the UN requirements in the absence of inspectors, as demonstrated by the al samoud 2.
Sorry, but in this same two year period the US has strengthened many of the dictatorships in the middle east and south asia, notably uzbekistan, giving half a billion dollars to dictatorship clearly violating your beloved humanitarian moral principles, and pakistan, a dictatorship that is likely the world's largest proliferator of nuclear technology and a dictatorship whose senior leadership and intelligence service have direct ties to al-qaeda and apparently even 9.11 itself.
What, exactly, is the correlation between what you just posted and what you quoted me as saying?
I'm quite amazed at your ability to almost entirely disregard what you are allegedly responding to.
Quote:
Yeah, that was a real humanitarian policy there.
Yet again, your link has nothing to do with what I posted.
The US war to oust Saddam was a great humantarian action, even if it wasn't presented as such by the Bush administration.
Why not just post some shit about Hitler if you want to express off-topic outrage? Go hog wild.
FACT: continuing inspections for another year would not have given saddam a " off the hook and given him the green light to pick up where he left off." FACT: during the years that there were NO inspectors in Iraq there was no attempt by Saddam's regime to restart banned weapons programs. FACT: Iraq's facilities were destroyed and the programs nonexistent aside from scattered documents and some remaining scientists. FACT: all indications are that what was left of Saddam's military was focused on conventional warfare and even continued to try to meet the UN requirements in the absence of inspectors, as demonstrated by the al samoud 2.
FACT: The US found band weapons programs on the shelf IN VIOLATION OF 1441 ready to be restarted once the US and UK were off Saddam's back and France and Germany gave Iraq a huge influx of cash from sweat heart oil deals.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Okay I get it now. All the justifications that Bush never made to go to war are now the justifications that Bush made to go to war. Also the war came down to just one of the justifications that Bush made. All others are irrelevant. Neolibs win
It's the only one that matters since the go ahead for the war hinged on it.
Originally posted by Scott
No for me and a lot of others. You can't remake what he said to fit your post conceived notions.
No one's remaking anything!
The heart of the matter is this war wouldn't got past the starting gate without this one item.
Yes there were other reasons listed but none of them would have been enough to convince anybody we should go to war.
I know it and you know it so stop trying to cloud the facts.
Iraq was a festering sore in the middle east. The US and UK were the ones paying the price to "contain" Saddam. It was a problem that had to be solved and could only go one way. Anything less would have let Saddam off the hook and given him the green light to pick up where he left off.
Think about this. The US military has freed more people from tyranny in the last two year than UN or any "human rights" groups have.
Originally posted by Scott
Think about this. The US military has freed more people from tyranny in the last two year than UN or any "human rights" groups have.
Ah yes...send 'em to heaven and they're 'saved'!
Originally posted by Scott
No for me and a lot of others.
I guess we'll all just ignore the mountain of your posts that claim Iraq has the big WMD and how Blix is a biased failure because the UN couldn't find anything.
You can't remake what he said to fit your post conceived notions.
But apparently you can.
. Anything less would have let Saddam off the hook and given him the green light to pick up where he left off.
No it wouldn't. The UN monitoring would have gone on indefinitely. Qusay would have taken power some time in the future. We could have waited a couple years and worked towards a more widely accepted Iraq policy. There are many possibilities that were not explored.
Many people opposed to the war at the time didn't like the fact we were rushed, making lack of time and ultimately flawed, ideologically driven assessments stand in the way of serious discussion.
Originally posted by Scott
Think about this. The US military has freed more people from tyranny in the last two year than UN or any "human rights" groups have.
But the US has at the same time strengthened and supported dictatorships in many countries during this same time period.
And I'd bet the UN has killed less innocent civilians than the US during this time period.
You are a citizen like the rest of us. Take your lumps like a man and stop cluttering up these threads; all of your arguments inevitably boil down to semantic one-upmanship.
Some people in the Administration and GOP made some bad mistakes, it's not your fault, OK?? Just as with sports, sometimes the decisions you back initially turn out not to be winners. Life is hard. Get over it.
Originally posted by Scott
It convinced a lot of people we should go to war.
Iraq was a festering sore in the middle east. The US and UK were the ones paying the price to "contain" Saddam. It was a problem that had to be solved and could only go one way. Anything less would have let Saddam off the hook and given him the green light to pick up where he left off.
Think about this. The US military has freed more people from tyranny in the last two year than UN or any "human rights" groups have.
It doesn't matter Scott!
Yes Iraq wasn't a good example of pro humanitarian policy.
As are many places in the world. There are many places like this still out there and just as bad.
That is why those reasons alone wouldn't have swayed the UN and the rest of the american government to go along.
Bush had to have known this. If you'll recall he thumbed his nose at the UN and anyone who wouldn't go along. Why? because they were a threat to us. Or so he said. In the eyes of the world in general that was his justification.
However the only real reason this war had a chance in hell to happen turned out not to be true!
It turned out to be not true like many people suspected and many inspectors were telling the president before the war.
This war cost a lot of lives and a lot of money. This was at a time when the U.S. economy wasn't really doing that well.
No matter how you slice it ( or spin it ) that's a big deal!
That letter to Qusay is really wild, huh?
Originally posted by giant
No it wouldn't. The UN monitoring would have gone on indefinitely. Qusay would have taken power some time in the future. We could have waited a couple years and worked towards a more widely accepted Iraq policy. There are many possibilities that were not explored.
...
What we do know is that Saddam is gone and his kids aint coming back from hell.
Yes Iraq wasn't a good example of pro humanitarian policy.
No? I disagree.
--
giant:
No it wouldn't. The UN monitoring would have gone on indefinitely. Qusay would have taken power some time in the future. We could have waited a couple years and worked towards a more widely accepted Iraq policy. There are many possibilities that were not explored.
Classic case of losing the forest for the trees.
Humantarian crises are secondary to making sure everyone is happy with whatever mass-murdering solution the rich nations agree on.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
And the U.S. has?
Maybe we're 12 years late but better late than never.
Originally posted by groverat
Humantarian crises are secondary to making sure everyone is happy with whatever mass-murdering solution the rich nations agree on.
Sorry, but in this same two year period the US has strengthened many of the dictatorships in the middle east and south asia, notably uzbekistan, giving half a billion dollars to dictatorship clearly violating your beloved humanitarian moral principles, and pakistan, a dictatorship that is likely the world's largest proliferator of nuclear technology and a dictatorship whose senior leadership and intelligence service have direct ties to al-qaeda and apparently even 9.11 itself.
Originally posted by groverat
No? I disagree.[/B]
Yeah, that was a real humanitarian policy there.
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocidetable.htm
Funny all the ones you just don't hear about too often.
Originally posted by Scott
The UN does not have a good track record when it comes to long term follow though.
FACT: continuing inspections for another year would not have given saddam a " off the hook and given him the green light to pick up where he left off." FACT: during the years that there were NO inspectors in Iraq there was no attempt by Saddam's regime to restart banned weapons programs. FACT: Iraq's facilities were destroyed and the programs nonexistent aside from scattered documents and some remaining scientists. FACT: all indications are that what was left of Saddam's military was focused on conventional warfare and even continued to try to meet the UN requirements in the absence of inspectors, as demonstrated by the al samoud 2.
Originally posted by Scott
Maybe we're 12 years late but better late than never.
Please guys!
Don't try to justify this.
It's sad.
Sorry, but in this same two year period the US has strengthened many of the dictatorships in the middle east and south asia, notably uzbekistan, giving half a billion dollars to dictatorship clearly violating your beloved humanitarian moral principles, and pakistan, a dictatorship that is likely the world's largest proliferator of nuclear technology and a dictatorship whose senior leadership and intelligence service have direct ties to al-qaeda and apparently even 9.11 itself.
What, exactly, is the correlation between what you just posted and what you quoted me as saying?
I'm quite amazed at your ability to almost entirely disregard what you are allegedly responding to.
Yeah, that was a real humanitarian policy there.
Yet again, your link has nothing to do with what I posted.
The US war to oust Saddam was a great humantarian action, even if it wasn't presented as such by the Bush administration.
Why not just post some shit about Hitler if you want to express off-topic outrage? Go hog wild.
Originally posted by giant
FACT: continuing inspections for another year would not have given saddam a " off the hook and given him the green light to pick up where he left off." FACT: during the years that there were NO inspectors in Iraq there was no attempt by Saddam's regime to restart banned weapons programs. FACT: Iraq's facilities were destroyed and the programs nonexistent aside from scattered documents and some remaining scientists. FACT: all indications are that what was left of Saddam's military was focused on conventional warfare and even continued to try to meet the UN requirements in the absence of inspectors, as demonstrated by the al samoud 2.
FACT: The US found band weapons programs on the shelf IN VIOLATION OF 1441 ready to be restarted once the US and UK were off Saddam's back and France and Germany gave Iraq a huge influx of cash from sweat heart oil deals.