PDA

View Full Version : Question for Iraq war supporters



Black Lance
02-25-2008, 04:37 PM
How much money, and how many lives of American service members, is a Democratic Iraq worth?

Please give an estimated number.

avatar4321
02-25-2008, 05:17 PM
That's a different answer for everyone. How much is freedom and security worth?

I don't think it's the cost that's the problem. it's the fact that we have to spend billions on other useless government programs so we can't focus our national defense thats the problems.

Gaffer
02-25-2008, 06:45 PM
I agree with Avatar on this.

AFbombloader
02-26-2008, 03:07 AM
As do I.

Was it worth the money spent and live lost to have a free and democratic Japan and Germany? Or a free and democratic (sometimes autocratic) South Korea? Maybe we are not looking far enough in the future to see the benefit of what we are doing right now.

AF:salute:

DragonStryk72
02-26-2008, 03:54 AM
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Usually it comes down to openness about the whole thing. Both in Vietnam, and again in the Iraq war, our reasoning for going to war were dishonest, and we did not listen to the advice of generals who knew what they were talking about.

The tactics of the Iraq war were a total bullocks, and we are paying for it now. We went ill-prepared and undermanned (not everyone got kevlar, blankets, and we only went in with half the forces the generals said they'd need to do it), under, if not directly false, then certainly disingenuine, and this has created morales troubles all over the place, mounted on top of the tactical errors.

"Give me Liberty, or give me Death"
"He who would sacrifice Liberty for security, deserves neither liberty, nor security"

Classact
02-26-2008, 06:58 AM
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Usually it comes down to openness about the whole thing. Both in Vietnam, and again in the Iraq war, our reasoning for going to war were dishonest, and we did not listen to the advice of generals who knew what they were talking about.There was no dishonest reasons presented for going to war with Iraq.


The tactics of the Iraq war were a total bullocks, and we are paying for it now. We went ill-prepared and undermanned (not everyone got kevlar, blankets, and we only went in with half the forces the generals said they'd need to do it), under, if not directly false, then certainly disingenuine, and this has created morales troubles all over the place, mounted on top of the tactical errors.
"Give me Liberty, or give me Death"
"He who would sacrifice Liberty for security, deserves neither liberty, nor security"
You sound like an armchair general. The military has never went to war with every soldier wearing Kevlar. We have never went to war with up-armored Humvees, Jeeps or OX carts prior to Iraq. The DOD had reorganized into a light highly mobile strike force manner of doing battle under the constraints of peacetime army. The concept is to use highly trained light force utilizing state of the art technology and armament as a force multiplier. Or, in other words, more bang for the buck. The problem once Baghdad was taken and the formal uniformed army was defeated was as simple as failure to issue new "rules of engagement" for the civil population. If you remember there was wide spread law breaking, looting and so on and our force stood and watched... in the absence of security the nation went into anarchy.

As for the debate question: When America goes to war we should remain engaged until we are victorious regardless of costs of human or other resources. To leave Iraq prior to Iraq being internally secure would assure another war. We involved ourselves there because it was and is in our national interests. To depart without securing our national interests would be ignorant.

bullypulpit
02-26-2008, 09:00 AM
That's a different answer for everyone. How much is freedom and security worth?

I don't think it's the cost that's the problem. it's the fact that we have to spend billions on other useless government programs so we can't focus our national defense thats the problems.

Just whose freedom and security are you talking about? Certainly not ours, since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda...at least not until after the US invasion of Iraq.

As for the useless government programs, which ones? The billions in unbid contracts to Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, and other war profiteers?

Black Lance
02-26-2008, 10:05 PM
That's a different answer for everyone. How much is freedom and security worth?


The answer might vary with the opinions of different people, but so far nobody has dared to answer the question as stated. How much money, which otherwise could be invested in our own national welfare, is a Democratic Iraq worth? How many American lives is having a Democratic government in Iraq worth? I'm not looking for an exact figure here, just a broad estimate. At what cost in blood and treasure would you say "enough, this just isn't worth it anymore!"

LiberalNation
02-26-2008, 10:08 PM
Not one single penny or life. Screw Iraq, the people have to want democracy enough to fight for it on their own or it will never last. We can't give Iraq modern democracy and it wouldn't be to our benifit to do it anyway. Look at the people they vote in, anti-american presense to the hilt. Sadar even killed Americans and he was a main part of their elected government for quite awile.

manu1959
02-26-2008, 10:10 PM
The answer might vary with the opinions of different people, but so far nobody has dared to answer the question as stated. How much money, which otherwise could be invested in our own national welfare, is a Democratic Iraq worth? How many American lives is having a Democratic government in Iraq worth? I'm not looking for an exact figure here, just a broad estimate. At what cost in blood and treasure would you say "enough, this just isn't worth it anymore!"

the money in iraq would not have been spent here.....it was borrowed to be used.....

as for is it worth it....no

should we have gone....no

however i believe in accountability....we fucked up....we have to fix our mistake....

manu1959
02-26-2008, 10:12 PM
Just whose freedom and security are you talking about? Certainly not ours, since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda...at least not until after the US invasion of Iraq.

As for the useless government programs, which ones? The billions in unbid contracts to Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, and other war profiteers?

yes those same usless groups that helped the balkans and liberia....

WRL
02-27-2008, 12:17 AM
How much money, and how many lives of American service members, is a Democratic Iraq worth?

Please give an estimated number.

The premise of the question is flawed, to be brutally honest. Once one life is sacrificed in combat, we owe it to those who have sacrificed to ensure that they didn't sacrifice in vain...

So till the Job is Done, and the Fallen Honored.
:salute:

WRL
02-27-2008, 12:18 AM
As do I.

Was it worth the money spent and live lost to have a free and democratic Japan and Germany? Or a free and democratic (sometimes autocratic) South Korea? Maybe we are not looking far enough in the future to see the benefit of what we are doing right now.

AF:salute:


Hooah, Outstanding answer!

mundame
02-27-2008, 01:51 AM
How much money, and how many lives of American service members, is a Democratic Iraq worth?

Please give an estimated number.

I'm no longer an Iraq war supporter, but it's a good question.

Money? Not this much. The huge deficits and taxpayer costs and the associated cost of high oil because of the constant tension from the ever-ongoing war and the poor production in Iraq because we never won it --- all this may throw us into a bad recession with bad inflation, IMO.

It was a good idea to democratize Iraq if it could be done quickly and cheaply, but it couldn't. It was also a good idea to take down Saddam to show dictators that "regime change" was not operative rather than preserving them forever by "boxing them up."

So if we had left out as soon as we dug up Saddam, I think that would have been the right amount of money.



As for lives of American soldiers for democracy for Iraq?

None at all, of course. Iraqis aren't American taxpayers: why should they get Americans to fight for them? American soldiers should never be sent on humanitarian missions, IMO. Only to defeat our enemies, at need.

Thinking our military is available for humanitarian wars just leads to us getting bogged down in the endless, hopeless wars of Africa: Darfur, Congo, Kenya, Liberia, Zimbabwe. That is not in the American interest, nor is an endless war to democratize Iraq.

WRL
02-27-2008, 02:17 AM
The US had a cease fire agreement with Iraq that was violated. Upholding our word and treaties are of the up-most importance.

Not to mention the invasions of Iran, Kuwait, the amassing of troops on the Saudi border, that would only give him 6o/ 7o% of of the worlds principal resource.

Or the mass graves, his using of chemical weapons on civilians and military targets.

Oh and lets not for get his charitable actions of paying 25,000 to the families of suicide bombers, and calling the victims of 9/11 the perpetrators.

The cost of oil will go down drastically once Iraq is settled, and we have an ally, remember it took the US 13 years of which we went through the Articles of Confederation, things like Shay's rebellion, before finally settling on the Constitution and electing George Washington...

Last time talk like this ruled, WWII was the result... It's the UN's job, but they are corrupt, and therefore, to avoid the mistakes of history, someone has to stand firm.

Joe Steel
02-27-2008, 07:44 AM
How much money, and how many lives of American service members, is a Democratic Iraq worth?

Please give an estimated number.

Your question reflects a false premise. America's involvement in Iraq is not directed toward democratization of that country. It's directed toward colonization and an empire is not worth a single life or a single dollar.

jimnyc
02-27-2008, 07:49 AM
How much money, and how many lives of American service members, is a Democratic Iraq worth?

Please give an estimated number.

Trying to put any type of exact dollar or casualty amount on a war is preposterous. You can't go into a war and say "we'll fight until 1 billion dollars is used or we lose 50 men". That's absurd and a recipe for failure.

You fight to win and/or achieve your goal. You spend what is necessary as you go along and do your best to lessen the loss of life.

How many lives or how much money was the goal in previous wars that the US was involved in? Did we lose too many or spend too much to accomplish any of our goals in them?

retiredman
02-27-2008, 08:09 AM
I agree that it makes no sense to place some sort of body count/dollar limit on the achievement of military objectives.

At issue here is whether or not invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq for the purpose of force feeding the Iraqi people multicultural democracy was or is an appropriate and worthwhile military objective.

Immanuel
02-27-2008, 08:25 AM
As many others have said already in this thread, now that we have shed blood, both American and Iraq, we owe it to those who have fallen to honor their sacrifices and bring freedom (not necessarily in the form of democracy) and prosperity to the people of Iraq. Many of you know that I have soured on the war effort over the last several years. I truly do not believe this can be accomplished. I believe the President and his advisors blew it on this. However, I would guess many said the same thing about Germany, Japan, Viet Nam and who else. I'm pessimistic on the outcome this time around. But someone said it earlier, maybe, I'm being short-sighted on this.

I did, however, want to point out LN's post here. She's right. The people of Iraq will have to want and fight for freedom and democracy before we can bring it to them! Until such a time... this ain't happenin'!


Not one single penny or life. Screw Iraq, the people have to want democracy enough to fight for it on their own or it will never last. We can't give Iraq modern democracy and it wouldn't be to our benifit to do it anyway. Look at the people they vote in, anti-american presense to the hilt. Sadar even killed Americans and he was a main part of their elected government for quite awile.

Immie

Classact
02-27-2008, 08:51 AM
I agree that it makes no sense to place some sort of body count/dollar limit on the achievement of military objectives.

At issue here is whether or not invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq for the purpose of force feeding the Iraqi people multicultural democracy was or is an appropriate and worthwhile military objective.America involved itself with Iraq in the Gulf War for one reason, it was in the US interests to maintain the ME Gulf region in balance of power to assure world oil is not controlled directly by a single nation of the oil producing states. Should Saddam been allowed to keep Kuwait the combined oil wealth and WMD's would have allowed him to build a superior war force and blackmail or take over other ME oil producing states allowing Iraq to control oil prices as OPEC now does. OPEC does not use oil as a political weapon but a single ME nation would use oil for political power.

Leaving Saddam in power was not an option following 9-11. Leaving a defeated Iraq can only happen when it allows a circumstance pre-Gulf War where no one nation is more powerful than the other. Iraq is now weak militarily... Iran is very powerful and equal to or greater threat than Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait so we cannot leave! If we leave then Iran will attempt to topple Iraq as Iraq toppled Kuwait... domino's will fall and other ME nations, in fear will support any individuals willing to fight Iran... millions, no tens of millions of people will die assuring Iran doesn't take OPEC's power. America will stay until Iraq is equal in power to Iran or Iran is equal in power to that of Iraq... Nuke Iran or stay in Iraq... Simple as that!

The alternative is allowing Iran to take over OPEC and then the option is to allow Iran to destroy Israel or pay $15 a gallon for gas until we allow them or we fight them, Iran, no super Iran with all the oil money and nukes it will buy.

retiredman
02-27-2008, 08:58 AM
America involved itself with Iraq in the Gulf War for one reason, it was in the US interests to maintain the ME Gulf region in balance of power to assure world oil is not controlled directly by a single nation of the oil producing states. Should Saddam been allowed to keep Kuwait the combined oil wealth and WMD's would have allowed him to build a superior war force and blackmail or take over other ME oil producing states allowing Iraq to control oil prices as OPEC now does. OPEC does not use oil as a political weapon but a single ME nation would use oil for political power.

Leaving Saddam in power was not an option following 9-11. Leaving a defeated Iraq can only happen when it allows a circumstance pre-Gulf War where no one nation is more powerful than the other. Iraq is now weak militarily... Iran is very powerful and equal to or greater threat than Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait so we cannot leave! If we leave then Iran will attempt to topple Iraq as Iraq toppled Kuwait... domino's will fall and other ME nations, in fear will support any individuals willing to fight Iran... millions, no tens of millions of people will die assuring Iran doesn't take OPEC's power. America will stay until Iraq is equal in power to Iran or Iran is equal in power to that of Iraq... Nuke Iran or stay in Iraq... Simple as that!

The alternative is allowing Iran to take over OPEC and then the option is to allow Iran to destroy Israel or pay $15 a gallon for gas until we allow them or we fight them, Iran, no super Iran with all the oil money and nukes it will buy.


Leaving Saddam in power was not only an option...it was, in my opinion, the PREFERRED option. Saddam did three things that we would dearly love to be able to do in that region:

1. He kept wahabbists from using Iraq as a base of operations
2. He kept sunnis and shiites in Iraq from slaughtering one another
3. He kept Iranian regional hegemony in check.

As much of an asshole as he was, it would still have been better in our fight against islamic extremism to allow Saddam to stay in power doing those three things in Iraq so that we would be free to pursue the extremists who attacked us and who want to do so again.

Saddam was not going to be able to take over the gulf oil supply. He could not prevail over Iran. Our misguiding invasion has primarily served to INCREASE the regional influence of Iran. Stupid stupid move, IMHO.

Classact
02-27-2008, 09:17 AM
Leaving Saddam in power was not only an option...it was, in my opinion, the PREFERRED option. Saddam did three things that we would dearly love to be able to do in that region:

1. He kept wahabbists from using Iraq as a base of operations
2. He kept sunnis and shiites in Iraq from slaughtering one another
3. He kept Iranian regional hegemony in check.

As much of an asshole as he was, it would still have been better in our fight against islamic extremism to allow Saddam to stay in power doing those three things in Iraq so that we would be free to pursue the extremists who attacked us and who want to do so again.

Saddam was not going to be able to take over the gulf oil supply. He could not prevail over Iran. Our misguiding invasion has primarily served to INCREASE the regional influence of Iran. Stupid stupid move, IMHO.Even in the rear view mirror Iraq under Saddam was not an option. He was defiant of the UN and his defiance was "unreasonable". Logic and reason would demand that Iraq and Saddam would be better off in a pre-Kuwait invasion state. There was the Gulf War... a ceasefire that offered Saddam and Iraq to revert to pre-Kuwait invasion Iraq free form UN, US or other outside interference what so ever. His actions were "unreasonable" and unexplainable, actions of a mad man and following 9-11 there was enough doubt that some of those 250 tons of WMD's not accounted for by the UN inspectors could be given to terrorists. Saddam gave nor offered any reason for trust.

glockmail
02-27-2008, 09:19 AM
Leaving Saddam in power was not only an option...it was, in my opinion, the PREFERRED option. Saddam did three things that we would dearly love to be able to do in that region:

1. He kept wahabbists from using Iraq as a base of operations
2. He kept sunnis and shiites in Iraq from slaughtering one another
3. He kept Iranian regional hegemony in check.

As much of an asshole as he was, it would still have been better in our fight against islamic extremism to allow Saddam to stay in power doing those three things in Iraq so that we would be free to pursue the extremists who attacked us and who want to do so again.

Saddam was not going to be able to take over the gulf oil supply. He could not prevail over Iran. Our misguiding invasion has primarily served to INCREASE the regional influence of Iran. Stupid stupid move, IMHO.
Of course you conveniently ignore the fact that Saddam supported terrorism against Israel and the US. He also tried to assassinate a former president.

Because of the Democrat policy of extreme environmentalism and limitations on home-grown energy development we have no choice but to be involved in the middle east. Your party’s policies have made this region wealthy, and they have used that wealth to broaden the influence of extremist Islam.

Forced into this environment, the best strategy is to go after the biggest bully with the loudest mouth, because to do so will make the lesser pests respect you. That was Saddam, and that’s what we did.

retiredman
02-27-2008, 09:24 AM
Of course you conveniently ignore the fact that Saddam supported terrorism against Israel and the US. He also tried to assassinate a former president.

Because of the Democrat policy of extreme environmentalism and limitations on home-grown energy development we have no choice but to be involved in the middle east. Your party’s policies have made this region wealthy, and they have used that wealth to broaden the influence of extremist Islam.

Forced into this environment, the best strategy is to go after the biggest bully with the loudest mouth, because to do so will make the lesser pests respect you. That was Saddam, and that’s what we did.

Saddam did not support the terrorists we were fighting.

Saddam was no longer the biggest bully - our own secretary of state clearly said that months BEFORE 9/11.

and does it look like we were successful in making Iran "respect" us? To the contrary, our invasion of Iraq has served to increase the regional reputation of Iran and has emboldened them and their surrogates throughout the region.

Classact
02-27-2008, 09:27 AM
Saddam did not support the terrorists we were fighting.

Saddam was no longer the biggest bully - our own secretary of state clearly said that months BEFORE 9/11.

and does it look like we were successful in making Iran "respect" us? To the contrary, our invasion of Iraq has served to increase the regional reputation of Iran and has emboldened them and their surrogates throughout the region.Because America is fighting two enemies...Iraq and Democrats supporting failure.

retiredman
02-27-2008, 09:31 AM
Because America is fighting two enemies...Iraq and Democrats supporting failure.

cute.... so when your "enemies" are in the white house, I hope you'll take the hint and move to some nice autocratic country across the pond somewhere.

democrats do not support failures.... republicans elect them.:fu:

try addressing my points instead of just lobbing shitbombs

Classact
02-27-2008, 09:38 AM
cute.... so when your "enemies" are in the white house, I hope you'll take the hint and move to some nice autocratic country across the pond somewhere.

democrats do not support failures.... republicans elect them.:fu:

try addressing my points instead of just lobbing shitbombsThe nation and both political parties supported the Iraq War through the falling of the Statue of Saddam! President Bush's American support was 80+% and then the Democrats smacked their forehead and said, damn I could of had a V-8... from that point forward Bush was a liar and tricked us into war. The more terrorists attacked our troops the more Democrats blamed Bush... the Democrats encouraged terrorists to attack our troops as they assured they would quit the war if only the terrorists make it a bad enough taste in the American people's mouth... Over half of US casualties can be directly attributed to the Support for Failure ... every time you call for withdraw they answer up and say here are some more reasons for you to leave in defeat as your Democrats state!

retiredman
02-27-2008, 09:44 AM
The nation and both political parties supported the Iraq War through the falling of the Statue of Saddam! a majority of democrats in congress voted against the war

President Bush's American support was 80+% and then the Democrats smacked their forehead and said, damn I could of had a V-8... from that point forward Bush was a liar and tricked us into war.
I always thought he was a a liar

The more terrorists attacked our troops the more Democrats blamed Bush... the Democrats encouraged terrorists to attack our troops as they assured they would quit the war if only the terrorists make it a bad enough taste in the American people's mouth
that's a lie
Over half of US casualties can be directly attributed to the Support for Failure
that's a lie
every time you call for withdraw they answer up and say here are some more reasons for you to leave in defeat as your Democrats state!that's a lie

nobody wants to leave in defeat. If Iraq wants democracy, they will have to fight for it themselves and earn it and spill THEIR blood in the process....we have spilt enough of ours for their freedom. Our enemies are not the sunnis and shiites in Iraq...our enemies are the wahabbist islamic extremists that attacked us on 9/11 and now. five years, 32K dead and wounded Americans, and a half a trillion dollars later, THEY are just as capable as they were the day they attacked us.

and you still didn't address my points!

glockmail
02-27-2008, 09:45 AM
Saddam did not support the terrorists we were fighting.

Saddam was no longer the biggest bully - our own secretary of state clearly said that months BEFORE 9/11.

and does it look like we were successful in making Iran "respect" us? To the contrary, our invasion of Iraq has served to increase the regional reputation of Iran and has emboldened them and their surrogates throughout the region. Wrong, wrong, and not surprisingly, wrong! :finger3:

retiredman
02-27-2008, 09:47 AM
Wrong, wrong, and not surprisingly, wrong! :finger3:

proof, proof and, not surprisingly, more proof!:laugh2:

and don't bother with the milnet shit....

but DO stop by the state department website and read Powell's comments from 02/01 made in Cairo.

glockmail
02-27-2008, 09:52 AM
proof, proof and, not surprisingly, more proof!:laugh2:

and don't bother with the milnet shit....

but DO stop by the state department website and read Powell's comments from 02/01 made in Cairo. We have discussed all three issues previously. I've come up with mountains of proof and you reject it as being "biased". :pee:

Classact
02-27-2008, 09:53 AM
nobody wants to leave in defeat. If Iraq wants democracy, they will have to fight for it themselves and earn it and spill THEIR blood in the process....we have spilt enough of ours for their freedom. Our enemies are not the sunnis and shiites in Iraq...our enemies are the wahabbist islamic extremists that attacked us on 9/11 and now. five years, 32K dead and wounded Americans, and a half a trillion dollars later, THEY are just as capable as they were the day they attacked us.

and you still didn't address my points!What points?

Towards the end of the Vietnam War the North sent hoards of their soldiers South knowing that they would die 20 to 1 against the superior force of the US. The North's generals said, had it not been for Jane Fonda, the US anti war movement and the coward Democrats in the US congress they would have admitted defeat... but they were assured by the anti war, Jane Fonda and the American people stirred up by cowards in congress, like you that if you kill them enough they will quit. The terrorists in Iraq took note of the lessons learned and after 40 attempts to fail in the congress the Democrats have once again delivered.

Leaving Iraq with Iraq weak is failure.

retiredman
02-27-2008, 09:57 AM
We have discussed all three issues previously. I've come up with mountains of proof and you reject it as being "biased". :pee:

you came up with the milnet article with all sorts of "footnotes" that cannot be verified.... which goes up against the reports of our OWN intelligence agencies which now clearly say that there was no operational connection or alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Still missing your report from the department of state website about Powell's comments - which you claim were wrong.


:yawn: with one hand...bitchslap glock with the other:laugh2:

retiredman
02-27-2008, 10:07 AM
What points? post 25

Towards the end of the Vietnam War the North sent hoards of their soldiers South knowing that they would die 20 to 1 against the superior force of the US. The North's generals said, had it not been for Jane Fonda, the US anti war movement and the coward Democrats in the US congress they would have admitted defeat... but they were assured by the anti war, Jane Fonda and the American people stirred up by cowards in congress, like you that if you kill them enough they will quit. The terrorists in Iraq took note of the lessons learned and after 40 attempts to fail in the congress the Democrats have once again delivered.

Leaving Iraq with Iraq weak is failure.

It is Iraq's problem to achieve democracy, not ours. And tell me... what was the long term negative effect on America of our departure from Vietnam? Today, we have diplomatic relations with Vietnam and are a major trading partner. What BETTER outcome would we have expected had we stayed and even more soldiers?

glockmail
02-27-2008, 10:08 AM
you came up with the milnet article with all sorts of "footnotes" that cannot be verified.... which goes up against the reports of our OWN intelligence agencies which now clearly say that there was no operational connection or alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Still missing your report from the department of state website about Powell's comments - which you claim were wrong.


:yawn: with one hand...bitchslap glock with the other:laugh2:

Looks like you're heavily into the bottle this morning. You must be on a bender to imagine that you could bitch slap me! :laugh2:

The milnet article has over 100 footnotes and you have failed to prove that any one is not verifiable. Furthermore it is one of 1/2 dozen or so articles that prove my point and that you reject as being "biased" or "unverifiable".

We have discussed Powell's comments before and again you have proved yourself incapable of understanding the context that they were expressed.

retiredman
02-27-2008, 10:20 AM
Looks like you're heavily into the bottle this morning. You must be on a bender to imagine that you could bitch slap me! :laugh2:

The milnet article has over 100 footnotes and you have failed to prove that any one is not verifiable. Furthermore it is one of 1/2 dozen or so articles that prove my point and that you reject as being "biased" or "unverifiable".

We have discussed Powell's comments before and again you have proved yourself incapable of understanding the context that they were expressed.

I picked ONE the other day - at random - and asked you to show me what the footnoted article said that would support the milnet assertion....you were incapable of doing so.

Why do you believe internet neocons over our own intelligence agencies and bipartisan legislative committees who have all concluded that Saddam and AQ did NOT have any operational connection or alliance?

and so you are saying that Powell did NOT say that Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors and was incapable of projecting power outside his own borders? (biggest bully in the region! HA!)

and again... I told you I have given up alcoholic beverages for lent and only drink decaffeinated tea.

Classact
02-27-2008, 10:28 AM
Saddam did not support the terrorists we were fighting.There was no positive way to know that as fact. There was no way to see the future. During the Clinton administration a law was signed that regardless if Saddam lived up to the UN ceasefire and was normalized the US would support a regime change in Iraq.


Saddam was no longer the biggest bully - our own secretary of state clearly said that months BEFORE 9/11.Everything changed with 9-11. Iraqis danced in the street on 9-11. Saudi Arabi allowed infidel US Air Force bases on its sacred land until the statue of Saddam fell.


and does it look like we were successful in making Iran "respect" us? To the contrary, our invasion of Iraq has served to increase the regional reputation of Iran and has emboldened them and their surrogates throughout the region.Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. What questions do you have? Iran must be addressed next unless they lie down and roll over.



It is Iraq's problem to achieve democracy, not ours. And tell me... what was the long term negative effect on America of our departure from Vietnam? Today, we have diplomatic relations with Vietnam and are a major trading partner. What BETTER outcome would we have expected had we stayed and even more soldiers?I could give a shit about Iraq's democracy but do care that they are able to defend themselves from enemies internal and external when we depart. A democratic government would be preferred that supports the War on Terror.

For Vietnam:The long term negative effect on America: We are responsible for the failure of US treaties similar to NATO in the region following our departure... over 2,000,000 people died directly related to our actions in the region following our departure. Vietnam is a communist nation and the south desired to be democratic. What better outcome:Had we continued to support the South with funding it could be a free nation, an ally to America and loss of millions of needless deaths could have been avoided not to mention the "boat people" that now live in the US and other friendly nations. The most significant BETTER outcome would have been that all the US soldiers that served, were wounded and died as a result of the war would have done so for SOMETHING rather than NOTHING.

retiredman
02-27-2008, 10:47 AM
There was no positive way to know that as fact. There was no way to see the future. During the Clinton administration a law was signed that regardless if Saddam lived up to the UN ceasefire and was normalized the US would support a regime change in Iraq.
irrelevant. there certainly was a positive way to know that... our intelligence community has said so and anyone who understands the concept of "enlightened self interest" would have to conclude that Saddam would not have aided his own enemy

Everything changed with 9-11. Iraqis danced in the street on 9-11. Saudi Arabi allowed infidel US Air Force bases on its sacred land until the statue of Saddam fell.

everything changed? he somehow immediately obtained the power to threaten his neighbors? He immediately became capable of projecting power outside his own borders simply because some unrelated OTHER people attacked us? How did THAT work???

Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. What questions do you have? Iran must be addressed next unless they lie down and roll over.
why would you continue to wave pompoms for a military operation that disarmed a guy without any arms, ignored another guy who did, in fact, develop nukes while we were tied up in Iraq, and emboldened the THIRD guy in the "axis"?

I could give a shit about Iraq's democracy but do care that they are able to defend themselves from enemies internal and external when we depart. A democratic government would be preferred that supports the War on Terror.
how about one who keeps sunnis and shiites from killing one another, keeps Iranian regional hegemony in check and won't let islamic extremists operate inside its borders? how would THAT work for ya?

For Vietnam:The long term negative effect on America: We are responsible for the failure of US treaties similar to NATO in the region following our departure... over 2,000,000 people died directly related to our actions in the region following our departure. Vietnam is a communist nation and the south desired to be democratic. What better outcome:Had we continued to support the South with funding it could be a free nation, an ally to America and loss of millions of needless deaths could have been avoided not to mention the "boat people" that now live in the US and other friendly nations. The most significant BETTER outcome would have been that all the US soldiers that served, were wounded and died as a result of the war would have done so for SOMETHING rather than NOTHING.

so.... if we find ourselves in a military situation where we are turning our young men into cannon fodder, you advocate continuing to throw warm bodies into the fray so as to make the lives of those already dead mean something more? Here's a newsflash for ya: guys in uniform who die in the service of their country NEVER die for nothing. They are serving as the muscular arm of american foreign policy. they don't get to MAKE that policy...they just get sent to wherever the suits in DC send them and do their jobs until they are told to come home. I can imagine you're the kind of guy who, when at the blackjack table are willing to toss in the mortgage on your house in order to make all those other losing bets MEAN something.

glockmail
02-27-2008, 01:45 PM
I picked ONE the other day - at random - and asked you to show me what the footnoted article said that would support the milnet assertion....you were incapable of doing so.

Why do you believe internet neocons over our own intelligence agencies and bipartisan legislative committees who have all concluded that Saddam and AQ did NOT have any operational connection or alliance?

and so you are saying that Powell did NOT say that Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors and was incapable of projecting power outside his own borders? (biggest bully in the region! HA!)

and again... I told you I have given up alcoholic beverages for lent and only drink decaffeinated tea.
You made the assertion that the footnote was not verifiable. Prove it.

retiredman
02-27-2008, 01:50 PM
You made the assertion that the footnote was not verifiable. Prove it.


no. you were the one who claimed that all of those references were valid. I pointed out that you could not verify that claim. If you can, please feel free.

I CAN however post the link to Colin Powell's remarks where he unambiguously stated that Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors and could not project power beyond his own borders.

glockmail
02-27-2008, 01:57 PM
no. you were the one who claimed that all of those references were valid. I pointed out that you could not verify that claim. If you can, please feel free.

I CAN however post the link to Colin Powell's remarks where he unambiguously stated that Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors and could not project power beyond his own borders.

You are the one who claimed that they cannot be verified. The burden is thus on you to prove that.

retiredman
02-27-2008, 02:12 PM
You are the one who claimed that they cannot be verified. The burden is thus on you to prove that.

YOu were the one who claimed they were valid. the burden is on you to prove that.

I tried to go test your theory, pulled one of your footnotes at random and found that the text of the particular Telegraph article is no longer on file.

sorry. Maybe you have some other source? Maybe you could go down to your local library and THEY might have that issue of the Telegraph on file.

Let me know how that goes.

but shall we talk about Powell's remarks so that you can retract your claim that my restating of their content was "wrong"?

glockmail
02-27-2008, 07:20 PM
YOu were the one who claimed they were valid. the burden is on you to prove that.

I tried to go test your theory, pulled one of your footnotes at random and found that the text of the particular Telegraph article is no longer on file.

sorry. Maybe you have some other source? Maybe you could go down to your local library and THEY might have that issue of the Telegraph on file.

Let me know how that goes.

but shall we talk about Powell's remarks so that you can retract your claim that my restating of their content was "wrong"?

The Telegraph is a well established British newspaper (although earlier you immediately labeled it a "tabloid"). The article exists, and is listed among their archives, its just not on their website archive. Therefore it is up to you to prove that it is not valid, whatever that means.

Let me know how that goes.

We've discussed Powell's remarks earlier, but if you need to lose yet another debate with me, then knock yerself out.

retiredman
02-27-2008, 09:31 PM
The Telegraph is a well established British newspaper (although earlier you immediately labeled it a "tabloid"). The article exists, and is listed among their archives, its just not on their website archive. Therefore it is up to you to prove that it is not valid, whatever that means.

Let me know how that goes.

We've discussed Powell's remarks earlier, but if you need to lose yet another debate with me, then knock yerself out.


Show me that the article backs up the assertion in the MILNET article. I doubted the accuracy of the article... It shows a bunch of footnotes but you can't seem to show me what those footnotes say. Let me know how that goes. {see example of verifiable footnote below}

Powell said what he said...you claimed I was wrong about that. His exact words were, "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."[1]

The "biggest bully in the region" can't start a fight outside his own house.... LOL

[1]Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa,Secretary Colin L. Powell, Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace),February 24, 2001 http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm

bullypulpit
02-28-2008, 07:52 AM
As do I.

Was it worth the money spent and live lost to have a free and democratic Japan and Germany? Or a free and democratic (sometimes autocratic) South Korea? Maybe we are not looking far enough in the future to see the benefit of what we are doing right now.

AF:salute:

And thanks, once again, for playing really bad analogies. (<i>gameshow music swells in the background</i>)

WWII was, in no way, analogous to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Try as you might, there is no comparison, either politically or militarily.

As for the Korean war...it was more akin to the Viet Nam war, driven by US and Western European fear of the "Red Menace" than by any palpable threat to the US or its allies.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a war of choice launched by the Bush administration against a nation which posed no credible threat to the US or her allies. This in violation of US treaty obligation and thus in violation of US law.

glockmail
02-28-2008, 09:31 AM
Show me that the article backs up the assertion in the MILNET article. I doubted the accuracy of the article... It shows a bunch of footnotes but you can't seem to show me what those footnotes say. Let me know how that goes. {see example of verifiable footnote below}

Powell said what he said...you claimed I was wrong about that. His exact words were, "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."[1]

The "biggest bully in the region" can't start a fight outside his own house.... LOL

[1]Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa,Secretary Colin L. Powell, Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace),February 24, 2001 http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm

Find it yerself man. It was last week. Are you drunk again?

I would interpret Powell's statement to mean exactly what we found in Iraq, that WMD capability developed previously was still there, and that Saddam resorted to terrorist tactics because he could no longer fight a conventional war. That too backs up the milnet article findings. :)

retiredman
02-28-2008, 09:36 AM
Find it yerself man. It was last week. Are you drunk again?

I would interpret Powell's statement to mean exactly what we found in Iraq, that WMD capability developed previously was still there, and that Saddam resorted to terrorist tactics because he could no longer fight a conventional war. That too backs up the milnet article findings. :)


you yourself could not find the article. if you could, you then could show me how it supported the crazy milnet assertions.

and you must be pretty dizzy after that spin on Colin's quote.

and like I said. It's Lent....decaf green tea or water is all I drink.

glockmail
02-28-2008, 09:48 AM
you yourself could not find the article. if you could, you then could show me how it supported the crazy milnet assertions.

and you must be pretty dizzy after that spin on Colin's quote.

and like I said. It's Lent....decaf green tea or water is all I drink. Unfortunately for you, I'm not here to spoon feed you on what we discussed last week. :pee:

Classact
02-28-2008, 09:49 AM
so.... if we find ourselves in a military situation where we are turning our young men into cannon fodder, you advocate continuing to throw warm bodies into the fray so as to make the lives of those already dead mean something more? Here's a newsflash for ya: guys in uniform who die in the service of their country NEVER die for nothing. They are serving as the muscular arm of american foreign policy. they don't get to MAKE that policy...they just get sent to wherever the suits in DC send them and do their jobs until they are told to come home. I can imagine you're the kind of guy who, when at the blackjack table are willing to toss in the mortgage on your house in order to make all those other losing bets MEAN something.War is the failure of diplomacy. The solution to differences between nations is diplomacy. President Bush offered a diplomatic method that he would accept to prevent war... President Bush offered Saddam an opportunity to prevent war by sending the scientists and their families out of Iraq to a third neutral nation for independent interview without possibility of duress from Saddam. Here were the facts that were hard facts leading up to the war:Saddam provided a list of WMD's to the UN at the end of the Gulf War as a basis of ceasefire. From this list which he provided to the UN were missing 250 tons of nerve gas and other biological munitions. Less than an ounce of similar munitions had just shut down congress and killed several US Postal workers in the US.

Why did Bush want the scientist to be interviewed outside of Iraq?

Saddam said that he had destroyed the 250 tons of WMD's days after signing the ceasefire but had forgotten to notify the UN to send inspectors to witness the destruction.

Because they, the scientists refused to be interview in Iraq without tape recordings or witnesses indicating they were fearful that Saddam would retaliation against them or their families.

The final report of the UN Inspection team indicates the same reservations as President Bush had... Saddam had given no reason to be trusted that he had did such an illogical action so soon after signing a MANDATED UN witness requirement of WMD destruction.

Illegal newly obtained rockets were still being destroyed that were purchased after the Gulf War ceasefire.

Saudi Arabia and all neighbors thought that Saddam still had the 250 tons of WMD's and many more as did the rest of the world including members of both sides of congress.

Republican and Democratic Senators stood on the floor of the US Senate arguing that Iraq was a threat to the US as President Bush begged that Saddam send the scientists out to a neutral nation. Senator Kerry, for example said, these missing WMD's could be placed in Unmanned Ariel Vehicles and launched from merchant ships and dispense these WMD's over Boston.

The war was just because Saddam failed the diplomacy test!

We are at war in the stabilization phase and to leave at this point would be ignorance. Iran remains an enemy that must be defeated if DIPLOMACY FAILS and there is no getting around it.

glockmail
02-28-2008, 09:54 AM
You're a class act, classact. :salute:

retiredman
02-28-2008, 09:58 AM
Unfortunately for you, I'm not here to spoon feed you on what we discussed last week. :pee:


your spoon was empty last week... it is still empty. you yourself said that you could not locate the article. sorry.

glockmail
02-28-2008, 10:10 AM
your spoon was empty last week... it is still empty. you yourself said that you could not locate the article. sorry.No I said that I would not take the time to locate the article footnoted by milnet, as it would require a physical trip to England, most likely. Nor would I locate other articles that are linked to from this board, that support the same conclusions as the milnet article, and we discussed last week or so but you "forgot" about them.

It has become quite clear that you are either suffering from insufficient memory or else being a complete troll, and I will not entertain you either way. :laugh2:

retiredman
02-28-2008, 10:32 AM
No I said that I would not take the time to locate the article footnoted by milnet, as it would require a physical trip to England, most likely. Nor would I locate other articles that are linked to from this board, that support the same conclusions as the milnet article, and we discussed last week or so but you "forgot" about them.

It has become quite clear that you are either suffering from insufficient memory or else being a complete troll, and I will not entertain you either way. :laugh2:
so you have no way of showing whether or not those articles from the telegraph actually have anything to do with the milnet allegations or can prove them in any way? correct? you want me to take it on faith that because somebody slaps footnotes all over an article, that it somehow proves his case when the content of the footnoted source cannot be produced? nice try.

glockmail
02-28-2008, 01:00 PM
so you have no way of showing whether or not those articles from the telegraph actually have anything to do with the milnet allegations or can prove them in any way? correct? you want me to take it on faith that because somebody slaps footnotes all over an article, that it somehow proves his case when the content of the footnoted source cannot be produced? nice try. You are merely attacking the messenger, questioning that his footnotes are legitimate. For them not to be, his editor and an unrelated newspaper would have to be involved in this conspiracy as well. Nice try. :laugh2:

Immanuel
02-28-2008, 01:14 PM
You are merely attacking the messenger, questioning that his footnotes are legitimate. For them not to be, his editor and an unrelated newspaper would have to be involved in this conspiracy as well. Nice try. :laugh2:

What? You think that unlikely? ;)

Immie

No_Socialism
02-28-2008, 01:58 PM
Allow me to interject some facts about the cost of the Iraq war in comparison to other wars in American history:

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_bowyer1-23-06.gif

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb18/mgabriel_2007/americanwar.jpg

Comparatively speaking, the Iraq war is small potatoes compared to WWII, the Civil War, WWI, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Revolutionary war, and even the war of 1812.

The Reverend
02-28-2008, 02:03 PM
How much money, and how many lives of American service members, is a Democratic Iraq worth?

Please give an estimated number.

Lets reverse this.

How many lives and how much money is it worth to keep your friends and family safe and free?
Because that is what is going on. Iraq is not a war but a battle and for every battle lost in the WoT the terrorists get strengthened.

retiredman
02-28-2008, 04:15 PM
You are merely attacking the messenger, questioning that his footnotes are legitimate. For them not to be, his editor and an unrelated newspaper would have to be involved in this conspiracy as well. Nice try. :laugh2:


YOu have no way of proving to me what those supposed newspaper articles said, and I don't trust MILNET anywhere near as much as I trust our own government....and if the truth be told, I don't trust THEM very much. So...you have a kook internet webpage that purports to show that our own intelligence services and our own government are in the business of hiding from us, the very thing that they desparately would love to prove: a Saddam/Al Qaeda link. Nice try.:laugh2:

glockmail
02-28-2008, 04:59 PM
YOu have no way of proving to me ...
We can stop right there. You obviously have a vision of reality that is inconsistent with reality. :laugh2:

retiredman
02-28-2008, 05:02 PM
oh...DO read on:

So...you have a kook internet webpage that purports to show that our own intelligence services and our own government are in the business of hiding from us, the very thing that they desparately would love to prove: a Saddam/Al Qaeda link. Nice try.

talk about losing one's tether with reality!:laugh2:

glockmail
02-28-2008, 05:12 PM
Again, I've linked more than just the milnet article, and they all say basically the same thing; Saddam supported terrorism in general, and AQ specifically. But since you are so beholden to DNC interests, you would deny that the sky is blue. :lol:

retiredman
02-28-2008, 08:37 PM
Again, I've linked more than just the milnet article, and they all say basically the same thing; Saddam supported terrorism in general, and AQ specifically. But since you are so beholden to DNC interests, you would deny that the sky is blue. :lol:


DNC????:laugh2:

why does our own intelligence community disagree? Why does this administration not jump on that bandwagon and trumpet this supposed connection????

NO ONE has EVER suggested that Saddam was not a fervent supporter of Arab nationalist paramilitary organizations or that he did not assist in training them in terrorist activities.

Only right wingnuts still cling to this fiction that Saddam would be so suicidal as to train and arm an organization sworn to his own demise....

but I understand you need to keep that fiction alive to make your hero's invasion of Iraq seem like the right thing to have done.

You can hold onto it forever.... it will always be a nonsensical and illogical idea.

glockmail
02-28-2008, 08:44 PM
[PBS Interview with Sabah Khodada]


FL: That was your reaction on September 11 -- that some of these people might be involved?
SK: I assure you, this operation was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam. And I'm going to keep assuring the world this is what happened.

FL: Did you hear that some of those training at the camp were working for] Osama bin Laden?
SK: Nobody came and told us, "This is Al Qaeda people," but I know there were some Saudis, there were some Afghanis. There were some other people from other countries getting trained. They didn't tell us they were part of Al Qaeda; there's no such thing. ... In this camp, we know that those are Saudis, or Arabs are getting trained. Nobody will talk about Al Qaeda or any other organization.

FL: In the conversations that you had with the Ghost and with others, was it clear that they were involved in international terrorism -- that that's what the object here was, to send people out to do missions?
SK: They all say it. On January 1, 1996, we all met with Saddam personally. And he told us we have to take revenge from America. Our duty is to attack and hit American targets in the Gulf, in the Arab world, and all over the world. He said that openly.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

retiredman
02-28-2008, 08:56 PM
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."p. 108 The CIA and DIA both told the Committee that their postwar exploration of the facility "has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa'ida linked individuals took place there. In June 2006, the DIA told the Committee that it has 'no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991." (p. 108)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Pak_facility

glockmail
02-28-2008, 09:24 PM
From footnote 22 of your link: "With regard to Salman Pak, that's just one of the a number of examples we found where there's training activity happening inside of Iraq. It reinforces the likelihood of links between this regime and external terrorist organizations. Clear links with common interests. Some of these fighters came from Sudan, some from Egypt, some from other places. We have killed a number of them and we have captured a number of them. That's where the information came from."

"We found some tanks and destroyed them, we found armored personnel carriers and destroyed them in small numbers. We destroyed builds that were used for command and control and other buildings that were used for morale and well fare. We destroyed the complex. All of that when you roll it together, the reports, where they're from, why they might be here tell us there's a linkage between this regime and terrorism and that's something that we want to break. "

retiredman
02-28-2008, 09:31 PM
from post #62:

NO ONE has EVER suggested that Saddam was not a fervent supporter of Arab nationalist paramilitary organizations or that he did not assist in training them in terrorist activities.

trobinett
02-28-2008, 09:33 PM
from post #62:

NO ONE has EVER suggested that Saddam was not a fervent supporter of Arab nationalist paramilitary organizations or that he did not assist in training them in terrorist activities.

Then WHY do you keep coming to his defense?

retiredman
02-28-2008, 10:58 PM
Then WHY do you keep coming to his defense?

I am coming to NO one's defense. I am defending the truth.

I think that Jeffrey Dahmer was an evil person, but I am not going to blame him for gassing the Jews at Auschwitz.

Saddam was an asshole, but he wasn't an ally of Osama bin Laden. That is a fact.

I realize that our president and his minions might have tried hard to make that linkage to gain support for his war in Iraq, but it ain't true.

manu1959
02-28-2008, 11:16 PM
I am coming to NO one's defense. I am defending the truth.

I think that Jeffrey Dahmer was an evil person, but I am not going to blame him for gassing the Jews at Auschwitz.

Saddam was an asshole, but he wasn't an ally of Osama bin Laden. That is a fact.

I realize that our president and his minions might have tried hard to make that linkage to gain support for his war in Iraq, but it ain't true.

he was an ally of hammas....

retiredman
02-28-2008, 11:20 PM
he was an ally of hammas....

and when was the last time anyone from Hamas flew an airplane into one of our buildings? Arab nationalist terrorists are not OUR enemy...they are Israel's enemy. We give Israel a lot of cash...let them fight their enemies and let us fight ours.

manu1959
02-28-2008, 11:31 PM
and when was the last time anyone from Hamas flew an airplane into one of our buildings? Arab nationalist terrorists are not OUR enemy...they are Israel's enemy. We give Israel a lot of cash...let them fight their enemies and let us fight ours.

hamass kills israelies....we have a treaty with israel....we are constitutionally bound to our treaties....thus we were constitutionally bound to get saddam.....

or do you piss on the constitution.....

retiredman
02-28-2008, 11:33 PM
hamass kills israelies....we have a treaty with israel....we are constitutionally bound to our treaties....thus we were constitutionally bound to get saddam.....

or do you piss on the constitution.....

we do not have a mutual defense treaty with Israel.

manu1959
02-28-2008, 11:36 PM
we do not have a mutual defense treaty with Israel.

yes i know.....we have no treaty obligations to israel at all....none whatsoever....is that your contention....

retiredman
02-28-2008, 11:40 PM
yes i know.....we have no treaty obligations to israel at all....none whatsoever....is that your contention....

we have no treaty obligations that would constitutionally bind us to attacking Israel's enemies.

If you disagree, please provide a link to the treaty that disproves my contentions

manu1959
02-28-2008, 11:49 PM
we have no treaty obligations that would constitutionally bind us to attacking Israel's enemies.

If you disagree, please provide a link to the treaty that disproves my contentions

are we not a signatory to the un treaty which created israel as well as the economic and tax treaties with israel directly and as signatories should we not protect that country and those intrests ......

retiredman
02-29-2008, 12:12 AM
are we not a signatory to the un treaty which created israel as well as the economic and tax treaties with israel directly and as signatories should we not protect that country and those intrests ......


I am fairly certain that none of those treaties require us to take military action against the enemies of Israel. But please post a link to some language from any of those treaties that proves me wrong.

manu1959
02-29-2008, 12:20 AM
I am fairly certain that none of those treaties require us to take military action against the enemies of Israel. But please post a link to some language from any of those treaties that proves me wrong.

so if you are in the un and sign a treaty to protect the nations of the un and one of those nations is attacked are you saying you don't have to do anything.....or can't do anything....

if you agree to a financial treaty and some one endangers that financial relationship or partner are you saying you don't have to do anything.....or can't do anything....

and i don't need to give you links you know the treaties to which i am refering....i am sure your google button works just fine.....

retiredman
02-29-2008, 12:30 AM
so if you are in the un and sign a treaty to protect the nations of the un and one of those nations is attacked are you saying you don't have to do anything.....or can't do anything....

if you agree to a financial treaty and some one endangers that financial relationship or partner are you saying you don't have to do anything.....or can't do anything....

and i don't need to give you links you know the treaties to which i am refering....i am sure your google button works just fine.....

where, in the UN Charter, does it state that every member nation must come to the aid of every other member nation who is attacked by some other nation?

I am saying that we did not have a constitutional obligation to attack Saddam Hussein because he supported palestinian nationalist terrorists.

manu1959
02-29-2008, 12:38 AM
where, in the UN Charter, does it state that every member nation must come to the aid of every other member nation who is attacked by some other nation?

I am saying that we did not have a constitutional obligation to attack Saddam Hussein because he supported palestinian nationalist terrorists.

where does it state that one can not come to the aid of a nation state.....

you argue that treaties must be enforced because of the constitution on other issues and stretch the definition of pow to curtail torture.....and protect innocent people....

why is it so difficult for you to do the same for civilians in the birthplace of christ......and restrain hamas and their backers .....

glockmail
02-29-2008, 08:31 AM
from post #62:

NO ONE has EVER suggested that Saddam was not a fervent supporter of Arab nationalist paramilitary organizations or that he did not assist in training them in terrorist activities. Sudanese and Egyptians are Arab nationalists?

retiredman
02-29-2008, 12:15 PM
Sudanese and Egyptians are Arab nationalists?


red herring.:lol:

arabic speakers. nationalist aspirations. NOT wahabbists.

retiredman
02-29-2008, 12:18 PM
where does it state that one can not come to the aid of a nation state.....

you argue that treaties must be enforced because of the constitution on other issues and stretch the definition of pow to curtail torture.....and protect innocent people....

why is it so difficult for you to do the same for civilians in the birthplace of christ......and restrain hamas and their backers .....


I never said it stated that one can not come to another nation's aid. I said that it does not compell us to come to another nation's aid. Reading comprehension problems? You are suggesting that our attacks against Saddam were constitutionally mandated because of his support for palestinian nationalist organizations who attacked a fellow UN member. goofy.

glockmail
02-29-2008, 12:26 PM
red herring.:lol:

arabic speakers. nationalist aspirations. NOT wahabbists. How is that a red herring? You should bone-up on your logic terms, as you look the fool when you mis-use them.

If Saddam was not using the camp to train terrorists outside of Iraq, then how did the Sudanese and Egyptians get in there?

retiredman
02-29-2008, 12:31 PM
How is that a red herring? You should bone-up on your logic terms, as you look the fool when you mis-use them.

If Saddam was not using the camp to train terrorists outside of Iraq, then how did the Sudanese and Egyptians get in there?

A red herring is a metaphor for a diversion or distraction from an original objective.

whether Egyptians are arabs is a red herring. At issue is the fact that Saddam trained terrorists who had nationalist goals, not wahabbist ones.

I never said that he did not train terrorists from outside Iraq...I said he did not train wahabbist islamic extremists like AQ.

glockmail
02-29-2008, 12:37 PM
A red herring is a metaphor for a diversion or distraction from an original objective.

whether Egyptians are arabs is a red herring. At issue is the fact that Saddam trained terrorists who had nationalist goals, not wahabbist ones.

I never said that he did not train terrorists from outside Iraq...I said he did not train wahabbist islamic extremists like AQ. :lol: We really don't care what kind of foreign terrorists that he trained, just that he was doing it. The fact that he also had ties with OBL is just icing on the cake.

Gaffer
02-29-2008, 12:53 PM
A red herring is a metaphor for a diversion or distraction from an original objective.

whether Egyptians are arabs is a red herring. At issue is the fact that Saddam trained terrorists who had nationalist goals, not wahabbist ones.

I never said that he did not train terrorists from outside Iraq...I said he did not train wahabbist islamic extremists like AQ.

The issue is he was training terrorist. Their goals are irrelevant. They were training to attack western targets. That makes him a danger to the world and a major reason to take him down.

retiredman
02-29-2008, 01:05 PM
The issue is he was training terrorist. Their goals are irrelevant. They were training to attack western targets. That makes him a danger to the world and a major reason to take him down.

Why were we not so diligent in seeking out terrorists in Ireland? I don't recall any call for invasion of the Republic of Ireland for their training and supporting the IRA. The IRA certainly trained and did attack western targets.