Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale Red Vein Kratom Buy Bali Kratom Powder Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Cultivation Supplies |
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
silversoul7 writes:
They didn't hate Bush more than Clinton until the march to war in Iraq. And the "march to war" began when, specifically? 1) When Clinton signed into law the Iraq Regime Change Act? 2) After 9/11? 3) After Bush was sworn in as Prez but before 9/11? If you picked 3), support your answer with an action Bush took pre-9/11 which you feel can accurately be described as "marching to war in Iraq". Thanks. pinky
| |||||||
silversoul7 Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
Number 2. Specifically, when Bush changed the subject from Afghanistan to Iraqi WMD's.
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
LOL! Which is it? Let's review this from the beginning, okay? Here's where we started. From your post #2533678:
ss7: "I think, however, that there was much less hatred for the US in Muslim countries before the Bush administration." pinky: "Before Bush took office or before Bush reacted to 9/11? You're not saying that the instant Bush was sworn in Muslim hatred ratcheted up several notches, are you? Just what did Bush do to Muslims prior to 9/11 that pissed them off so much?" ss7: "Before 9/11. And more specifically, before the march to war with Iraq." pinky: "So just what bad things did Bush do to Muslim countries before 9/11 that made them hate the US more than they hated the US when Clinton was bombing aspirin factories? Specifics, please." ss7: "They didn't hate Bush more than Clinton until the march to war in Iraq." pinky: "And the "march to war" began when, specifically? 1) When Clinton signed into law the Iraq Regime Change Act? 2) After 9/11? 3) After Bush was sworn in as Prez but before 9/11?" ss7: "Number 2 (after 9/11). Specifically, when Bush changed the subject from Afghanistan to Iraqi WMD's." So for the moment at least, your position is that there was much less hate for the US in Muslim countries before 9/11-- that Bush's reaction to 9/11 increased Islamist hatred towards the US. Well, duh! He smacked the Taliban, fah cryin' out loud. That could hardly be expected to sit well with the Islamists. Yet you say you supported his actions in Afghanistan. I'm presuming if you had been prez at the time, you would also have sent troops into Afghanistan. And when I ask for specifics, I am looking for more than vague allusions to "changing the subject". I hate to repeat myself, but you leave me no choice -- Just what --specifically-- did Bush do to Muslims that pissed them off so much? I'm not a mind reader, but it seems to me your position is that Bush pissed Muslims off by deposing Hussein -- the secular tyrant responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than anyone else in the last few decades. pinky
| |||||||
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number
one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - GW Bush, 9/13/01
| |||||||
silversoul7 Chill the FuckOu Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
Quote: I can't point to a specific point, as it was more of a gradual process in which the sympathy we enjoyed during 9/11 turned into worldwide condemnation. Basically, from the point Bush started talking about Iraq, it was clear to non-dittohead that he wouldn't rest until Saddam was deposed and Iraq was in American hands. I do not think, however, that it was so much the deposing of Hussein as much as the fact that he was attacking another Muslim country right after attacking Afghanistan that made Muslims suspicious, especially considering the attempts to link him with Al Queda and 9/11. I think it's rather easy to see why many Muslims would percieve a conspiracy against their religion.
| |||||||
GazzBut Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 2 months, 14 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Thats not what I said. Where have Jihadists ever employed this tactic anyway? Furthermore, we were not attacking Jihadists in Iraq, we were neutralising a non-existent threat or more accurately: serving the economic goals of the super rich. Quote: Once again, the reason thousands of Iraqi civillians have been killed has nothing to do with Jihadists. We were neutralising a non-existent threat, not crusading against Jihadists. I find it so amusing that people still try and make some weak connection between the imperialistic invasion of Iraq and the imaginary war on terror. No credible links between 9-11 and Iraq were ever found, although that didnt stop these links being vaguely suggested. The same can also be said of the non-existent links between Al-qaida and Iraq. That didnt stop Cheney banging on about a connection 12 months after is had been demonstrated to be false. So when talking about civillian casualties in Iraq lets be clear that it has very little to do with Jihadists and alot more to do with the Bush administration. Quote: I am against any stereotyping that fuels racial hatred. Quote: So the actions of a few dehumanises the Arabs in general? It is that kind of logic that leads the Jihadists to see all westerners as evil imperialists....Duh! Anyway, are you telling me you havent seen any footage of US troops acting like complete idiots, cheering and whooping after blowing something up? Are you telling me there have been no stories of soldiers acting brutally towards Iraqi prisoners? The Arabs havent cornered the market on sick behaviour. Quote: Perhaps no one gives a fuck is a little strong and emotive but lets be honest, people and the media in general are alot more interested in the deaths of western soldiers than they are in the lives of the Iraqi civillians. Quote: Oh right! Now it all becomes clear - Saddam and his buddies are responsible for all the civillian deaths in Iraq since the invasion last year. Seriously, how do you maintain this warped world view of yours? Quote: So what are you actually saying? We should simply invade anywhere where we dont like the government? Quote: It seems you do actually believe that we should invade any country where the government does not meet with our liking. But thats not really the US approach is it? Lets face it your previous examples werent the best were they? I mean the US actually funded Pol Pot did they not? I suppose you are familiar with the human rights abuses that take place in Krygztan? Strangely the US enjoy a rather good relationship with their "evil" goverment simply because they are willing to play nicely. God help them if they decide not to because then the US will get all "moral" and start bombing them. Quote: No. As the war was illegal and justified through lies and deceit, none of the above. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
GazzBut writes:
Thats not what I said. It is a logical inference based on what you said. Where have Jihadists ever employed this tactic anyway? You don't follow the news much, do you? Is setting up your base of operations inside a mosque filled with non combatants, then firing weapons from that mosque, not using the worshippers at that mosque as human shields? We were neutralising a non-existent threat, not crusading against Jihadists. Iraq was no threat to anyone? Okay, then. No credible links between 9-11 and Iraq were ever found, although that didnt stop these links being vaguely suggested. The same can also be said of the non-existent links between Al-qaida and Iraq. So sorry, but that is incorrect. Plenty of links between the Ba'athist regime of Hussein and Al Qaeda have been found. Anyway, are you telling me you havent seen any footage of US troops acting like complete idiots, cheering and whooping after blowing something up? I haven't seen any footage of US troops burning, dismembering, and stringing up civilian corpses, no. Have you? Perhaps no one gives a fuck is a little strong and emotive but lets be honest, people and the media in general are alot more interested in the deaths of western soldiers than they are in the lives of the Iraqi civillians. Which media? Al Jazeera? Now it all becomes clear - Saddam and his buddies are responsible for all the civillian deaths in Iraq since the invasion last year. Ultimately, Hussein is responsible for all the civilian deaths. Had he complied with the terms of the conditional ceasefire he would still be in power feeding civilians feet first into wood chippers. There would be no foreign troops in Iraq. So what are you actually saying? We should simply invade anywhere where we dont like the government? How did you come up with that non sequitur? I suggest you re-read the exchange more carefully. It seems you do actually believe that we should invade any country where the government does not meet with our liking. It seems you believe there is never a reason to try to depose a sadistic madman as long as he brutalizes only those within his own borders. I mean the US actually funded Pol Pot did they not? Ah. The standard LLL dodge. If at any time the US has ever given any amount of money to any country for any reason under any circumstances, this must mean that the US supports everything that occurs within that country for all time until the sun goes nova and makes the whole point moot. Use your brain. The US gave money and arms to Stalin for a while, too. No. As the war was illegal and justified through lies and deceit, none of the above. So it was up to the Iraqis to depose Hussein all by themselves with no outside assistance? pinky
| |||||||
GazzBut Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 2 months, 14 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Point taken. But lets not pretend that the actions of Jihadis are to blame for the deaths of the majority of the civillians who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Quote: Do you really believe Iraq posed a grave or serious threat to any western country? Or even to Israel? I can see how you may have wanted to believe that before the war but since the war has finished and the true might and capability of the Iraqi military has been revealed, I fail to see how anyone could seriously suggest that Iraq posed a serious threat to the West or even Israel. Quote: Id love to see some sources and links if its not too much trouble. Quote: Do you think it is somehow more barbaric to burn and dimember corpses than it is to do the same to living people? Quote: Really? That is a very easy way to shift responsibility but lets face it, there are literally thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqi's who would not be dead if we hadnt invaded Iraq. Now you say that this barbaric slaughter is the responsibility of Saddam because he didnt comply to the word with our ceasefire terms. (I think its fair to say he did in fact show a greater level of compliance than he has been given credit for by the US but that is irrelevant at this point.) So one man doesnt do exactly as we tell him, we kill thousands of civillians but we are able to wash our hands of all the blood on a poorly constructed legal technicality? It sounds like a rather cold and callous viewpoint to me to be honest. Quote: You also said: This is the fatal flaw in the UN approach -- the ceding of "national sovereignty" to whichever thug manages to seize power. Basically, as long as he stays within his own borders, he's allowed to get away with anything. That suggested to me you believe we are in our rights to depose leaders that we perceive to be morally corrupt. Quote: Not at all. I am merely pointing out that using Pol Pot as an example to support the US's noble regime change in Iraq is a fairly inept arguement when the US also financed Pol Pot. Then again they also financed Saddam of course. Quote: It certainly wasnt up to us. And once again its almost like you are trying to rewrite history. We did not invade Iraq to help the Iraqi's, we did it to neutralise a perceived threat based on "intelligence" that our governments knew to be lies. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
GazzBut writes:
Id love to see some sources and links if its not too much trouble. Ummm... let's see. Go to www.shroomery.org/archives. Select the "search function" for Politics, Activism, and Law. Type in +pinky +Stephen +Iraq +Al Qaeda. Select all posts more recent than a year. That should bring up at least a couple. If it doesn't, change "stephen" to "steven". Then try the same thing, but this time change "Stephen" to "Inigo" (Ingo?) or maybe to "Toronto Star", and throw in "Osama bin Laden" and "whiteout". I've posted those links here before, in case you hadn't guessed. Others as well, but they may even be in those same two threads. Do you think it is somehow more barbaric to burn and dimember corpses than it is to do the same to living people? I must have missed the reports of a mob of Americans burning and dismembering and stringing up from bridges living people. Could I have a source please if it's not too much trouble? That is a very easy way to shift responsibility but lets face it, there are literally thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqi's who would not be dead if we hadnt invaded Iraq. And there are millions of Muslim people (Iraqis, Kurds, Iranians, Kuwaitis) who would not be dead if Hussein hadn't invaded Kuwait and Iran. What's your point? I said that Iraq would not have been invaded had Hussein lived up to the terms of the conditional surrender agreement. Do you dispute that? So one man doesnt do exactly as we tell him... LOL! Way to trivialize things! .... we kill thousands of civillians... Which were not targeted deaths -- unlike the hundreds of thousands Hussein killed. .... but we are able to wash our hands of all the blood on a poorly constructed legal technicality? Surrender agreements are meaningless in your world view? They are nothing but poorly constructed legal technicalities? Interesting point of view. Seems to be identical to Hussein's view. It sounds like a rather cold and callous viewpoint to me to be honest. War sucks. What more can I tell you? That suggested to me you believe we are in our rights to depose leaders that we perceive to be morally corrupt. In the case of certain leaders who have passed from not just corruptness to mass murder, we are. Anyone is. Are you saying that if a murderous thug seizes the reigns of power of a given country, launches wars of aggression and wholesale slaughter of those living within the borders of that country, the only people who may morally depose him are citizens of that country? Yes or no? No fudging, no trying to put a slant on things -- it is a straightforward question that can be answered with a simple yes or no. I am merely pointing out that using Pol Pot as an example to support the US's noble regime change in Iraq is a fairly inept arguement when the US also financed Pol Pot. I wasn't saying Pol Pot deserved to be deposed (though he did), I was making a comment on your statement that "It would be better for the world if everyone respected each nations rights to plot their own course towards improving their society." The point I was trying to make was that Pol Pot, Mao, etc aren't "nations" plotting the course of a nation, they are bloodthirsty dictators. Single people. Absolute rulers with absolute authority enforced by absolute ruthlessness. Furthermore, they are not by any stretch of the imagination "improving their society". To get back to my original point, do you believe the people who suffered under Pol Pot et al would have been worse off if they had been living in a country governed as described earlier -- i.e. constitutionally-limited, by the consent of the governed yadda yadda yadda? It certainly wasnt up to us. Nice dodge. I ask again, was it up to the Iraqis to depose Hussein all by themselves with no outside assistance? We did not invade Iraq to help the Iraqi's, we did it to neutralise a perceived threat based on "intelligence" that our governments knew to be lies. Your governments didn't know the intel to be lies. As for helping the Iraqis, why do you care? It is obvious from your comments and your dodges that you believe the Iraqis (or Rwandans or Cambodians or Chinese or ...) weren't to be helped no matter what. Pardon me for stealing your line, but that "sounds like a rather cold and callous viewpoint to me to be honest." pinky
| |||||||
GazzBut Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 2 months, 14 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Tried as you suggested. Didnt turn up anything. Found this thread twice though and an interminably long post about Scott Ritter. Perhaps the info was in there? Sorry but it was too long to wade through and I was fairly sure that is wasnt relevant to this discussion. Tried a quick search on google instead where you can find plenty of articles from sources of various repute which claim no links exist. There are a couple of articles from places such as CNN where Rice states the links definitely exist but these articles are getting on for a couple of years old. There are also claims from the USembassy-israel site from Ari Fleischer but thats all they are: unsubstantiated claims. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of some good sources to back up your claims? Quote: So burning and dismembering is only barbaric when it is carried out by a mob? Quote: I most certainly do. Iraq was invaded due to the US's erroneus belief that he had massive stockpiles of WMD. Keep up pinky. Quote: 1+1 does not equal 0. 2 wrongs do not make a right. You seem to think that I am somehow defending Saddam's actions by criticising the actions of the US. This is a serious flaw in your thinking im afraid. Quote: Maybe not targeted but hardly unexepected. Does that make it ok for you? Quote: You see Pinky I think this is one of your problems. You seem to think too many of lifes issue are black/white yes/no etc. Theres always a maybe, always some greyness. So that being the case I cant really answer your archaic poser with a simple yes/no. Quote: Should they have been left alone? Interesting question. Perhaps the answer I would give is: No! a benevolent force should have helped them free themselves from Saddam's tyranny and acted solely in the interests of the Iraqi people. Thats why Im saying we shouldnt have got involved. Wanting to control a countries oil reserves and establish a powerbase in an area of critical importance is not the same as acting benevolently. Just because you may pretend/fantasise/hallucinate that this is acting benevolenty it simply is not. Or are you really telling me you believe the US have only ever acted benevolently towards the Iraqi's, and only ever in the best interests of the Iraqi people? If you are I suggest you hire yourself the finest psychiatrist money can buy...although it may be to late for that. Quote: Of course not. Never said I did. I also think that less people would have died if Pol Pot hadnt been receiving funding from a certain constitutionally-limited, by the consent of the governed yadda yadda yadda democracy. Quote: It more the way intel was created from nothing and existing intel changed by the governments involved to serve their purposes. You obviously believe this didnt happen. If that is the case why did: a) The british resort to rehashing old phd documents. b) a member of the government, Robin Cook, who was privy to intel resign his position because of his distrust of the intel or more accurately the spin that was being placed on the intel by the government. c)Powell and Rice both claim that there were no WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq had been contained. d)Cheney keep claiming that links between Iraq and Al-qaida existed 12 months after the intel he was quoting had been proven to be false by the FBI e)did Bush mention the claim that Iraq had been attempting to purchase Uranium from Africa in his state of the union address when this had also been disproven by US intelligence. Quote: Once again, poor reading comprehension pinky. As I have already said above I would support interventions that were truly benevolent but I dont support the west picking and choosing who they will help based on how it will benefit us. This whole idea of trying to put the US on a moral pedestal for their actions in Iraq is completely ridiculous and if it were to hold any water then the US would not be actively funding human rights disasters like Krygztan just because they are willing to let the US build pipelines and mine gas etc. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
GazzBut writes:
Perhaps you could point me in the direction of some good sources to back up your claims? I have posted links to several such sources in this forum in the past. Sorry that my specific instructions for using Shroomery Search didn't turn them up. One problem I have is that I was unable to transfer my bookmarks file from my old computer to my new one a couple months ago. (Note to world -- Microsoft products suck ass big time). If I had been able to I could have given you the links in a matter of minutes. I know that Stephen F. Hayes is probably the one who has done the most work in this area. Google -- links Iraq Al Qaeda Stephen. There were also the documents found in the ransacked Iraq Intelligence Agency building by a reporter from the Toronto Star and a reporter from some English newspaper... I believe his first name was Inigo. Google -- Inigo Toronto Star Osama bin Laden. There's more out there, but without my old bookmark file it would take me a long time to find them all. The Inigo ones and the Stephen Hayes ones should be enough to keep you occupied for a while. So burning and dismembering is only barbaric when it is carried out by a mob? If you think the actions of the Fallujah mob weren't barbaric, you are of course free to hold that opinion. If you believe modern warfare is barbaric, you are of course also free to hold that opinion. In neither case would you be alone. I most certainly do. Iraq was invaded due to the US's erroneus belief that he had massive stockpiles of WMD. Incorrect. Iraq was invaded because it had failed to fulfill the terms of the 1991 conditional ceasefire agreement. One of the several terms was that Hussein provide credible and verifiable proof of the destruction of his WMD stocks and WMD facilities and the dismantlement of his WMD program. He failed to provide that proof. He also failed to fulfill any of the other terms of the agreement. No one disputes this. These continuing failures were the reasons for the seventeen UN resolutions on the subject over the course of twelve years. They were also the reason for the continuation of the UN sanctions against Iraq. And of course, there would have been neither sanctions nor a conditional ceasefire if Hussein hadn't invaded Kuwait in 1991. We've been all over this a hundred times already. Your idea of cause and effect is faulty. No matter how many times we go over this, you will never admit that. So let's stop it. Maybe not targeted but hardly unexepected. Does that make it ok for you? Civilians get killed in wars. That is reality. The only way civilians aren't going to get killed in wars is for there to be none. Hussein started the war by invading Kuwait. The coalition finished the war almost thirteen years later by deposing Hussein. In both parts of the war, civilians were killed, by both sides. Civilians were killed by the Allies in WWII as well. In enormous numbers. As I said, war sucks. What more do you want me to say? So that being the case I cant really answer your archaic poser with a simple yes/no. I should have suspected my request would merely provide you another excuse to dodge the question. Okay, if you feel you are incapable of honestly answering with a yes or a no, answer it as you see fit. Here it is for the third time: Are you saying that if a murderous thug seizes the reigns of power of a given country, launches wars of aggression and wholesale slaughter of those living within the borders of that country, the only people who may morally depose him are citizens of that country? Interesting question. Perhaps the answer I would give is: No! a benevolent force should have helped them free themselves from Saddam's tyranny and acted solely in the interests of the Iraqi people. Interesting answer. Some followup questions, then: 1) If no such benevolent force steps forward, are the Iraqis to be left to overthrow Hussein on their own? 2) If such a benevolent force steps forward, how is it to be determined they are in fact benevolent and acting solely in the interests of the Iraqi people? Who is charged with passing this judgment on their benevolence? 3) What difference does it make to the Iraqi people whether the ones deposing Hussein do so out of benevolence alone, a combination of benevolence and self interest, or even for that matter out of the wish to alleviate their own boredom? Of course not. Never said I did. Then you agree with my premise that the world would be abetter place if every nation in it had the same system of government described previously. Thank you. You could have said that at the beginning and saved us both a lot of typing. It more the way intel was created from nothing and existing intel changed by the governments involved to serve their purposes. We've both been through all that in a recent thread. I'm not going to go through it all again. You retracted your accusation that it was lies. That's all I was looking for. As I have already said above I would support interventions that were truly benevolent but I dont support the west picking and choosing who they will help based on how it will benefit us. See my three followup questions above. This whole idea of trying to put the US on a moral pedestal for their actions in Iraq is completely ridiculous... What moral pedestal? You started this whole subtext by bloviating on about how the US was so arrogant for believing their view of the good was faulty. When I asked if you thought the world would be a better place (not a perfect place, note) if all government systems in the world were similar to the US model, you went off on thirteen different tangents. Now it finally seems you agree that yes, the world would be a better place. So how is your belief in any way different from that of the arrogant Americans? Answer: it's not. pinky
| |||||||
GazzBut Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 2 months, 14 days |
| ||||||
Ive had a little search on Iraq and it is fairly obvious that there is no conclusive evidence to link Iraq with Al qaida. Im not saying that no such links have ever existed, just that there doesnt seem to be any great evidence to back the claim up. Lets face it, if there was Bush and Co would have rammed it down our throats many, many times by now. Especially at a time when fresh justification for the shambles in Iraq would come in really handy.
Quote: Remember 1441? Im sure you do...what fun we had discussing that amibiguous document! Besides, Iraq felt they had provided sufficient proof. The US decided they hadnt. Looks like they should have been a little more trusting. Or just listened to the inspectors who said Iraq had complied with 95% of the requests made of them. Or paid attention to the intel that lead Powell and Rice to make their claims regarding the non-existence of WMDs/programs in Iraq. Quote: No they were the justifications. The reason for the UN sanctions was an inhumane indifference to the suffering of millions of civillians. Quote: And of course this wouldnt have happened if the US had not advised Iraq that they were not interested in Arab-Arab conflicts, or if Hussein hadnt felt so secure in his "special" relationship with the US which had provided him with the means to kill countless people in Iran. The blindness that prevents you from seeing the wrongs that both sides have commited in this saga is puzzling to me. Quote: Oh really? I understand cause and effect like this. If i drop a stone it will fall to the ground. If I jump in water i will get wet etc. The cause and effect will always follow (except for in very special cases) You seem to think the cause of Iraqs invasion in 1991 must always lead to the same effect i.e circumstances that have emerged since. Complete and utter nonsense. You really arent as clever as you love to make out are you? The effects that could have lead from that cause are numerous not singular. Now I have helped you out of this little problem lets say no more about it, you dont even have to thank me. Quote: Well we could start with eliminating the whollly unnecessary wars for a start. Quote: The war did not last for 13 years. You sound like one of those Japanese soldiers who never knew the war had ended. Lifes just one big rambo movie to you isnt it? Quote: Oh please dont try and compare what has happened in Iraq with WWII. That is one of the most facile and contemptible arguements I have ever had the displeasure to hear. Quote: Reread what I have alreay said. I answered the question later in the same post. Whats the point of debating with someone who is only really interested in what they have got to say. Pinky please try thinking -all you do is repeat crap that you pick up from god knows where. But thats all you do, repeat crap over and over again. I know it impresses some of the people on this board but I dont think you have had an original thought of your own in the last couple of decades. Quote: Yes, because if we are to help the Iraqis we must also help all other people who live under tyranny and we simply havent got the resources to achive that. Quote: Good question. Didnt you realise I was merely using the "benevolent force" example to highlight why I feel we shouldnt get involved in Iraq. Quote: Because it will make a massive difference to how the post war situation is handled. Id have thought that was blatantly obvious. Quote: You really do have a problem with logic dont you! All I said was it would be better than Pol Pots way of controlling a country. Thats hardly the biggest advertisment for any system of governance is it? Quote: I think you are confusing me with somebody else. Just because I put it in its best possible light by calling it spin does not change the fact that I am sure our governments knew the info they gave to the public was wrong. As far as Im concerned that is lying. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
Remember 1441? Im sure you do...what fun we had discussing that amibiguous document!
Not to mention the blatantly obvious - that it is up the UN to decide what action should be taken if a country doesn't abide by UN resolutions. Not the lunatics around George Bush.
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Ive had a little search on Iraq and it is fairly obvious that there is no conclusive evidence to link Iraq with Al qaida.
I've had a little search on Iraq and it is fairly obvious there is abundant and conclusive evidence that Hussein's Ba'athist regime and Al Qaeda have many links. Here's an idea -- let's let the readers do their own search, read Stephen Hayes's detailed and well-researched articles, and decide who's opinion is more accurate? Remember 1441? Im sure you do...what fun we had discussing that amibiguous document! It is obvious you have never read Resolution 1441. I have. Several times. In its entirety. I even provided a link to it here on more than one occasion. Besides, Iraq felt they had provided sufficient proof. It was not Hussein who got to decide whether he has provided sufficient proof. Once again, as has been stated here countless times, every single one of the UN's followup resolutions to the conditional ceasefire agreement mentioned more than just proof of the destruction of the WMD programs. They required compliance with all of the conditions of the conditional ceasefire. No they were the justifications. The reason for the UN sanctions was an inhumane indifference to the suffering of millions of civillians. The imposition of the UN sanctions was a result of their failure to finish the job properly in 1991. If it will make you feel any better, I personally have stated here many times that the sanctions were a bad idea. They were useless and counterproductive. But I wasn't in charge of the 1991 Gulf War (the UN was), so my opposition to them meant nothing. But (again) if Hussein had not invaded Kuwait, or even if he had later withdrawn from Kuwait when asked, or even if he had fulfilled the conditions of the conditional ceasefire after being forced out of Kuwait, the sanctions would have ended (or never been imposed at all). Hussein was responsible for the imposition of the sanctions. No invasion of Kuwait, no sanctions. A straight cause and effect relationship. And of course this wouldnt have happened if the US had not advised Iraq that they were not interested in Arab-Arab conflicts, or if Hussein hadnt felt so secure in his "special" relationship with the US which had provided him with the means to kill countless people in Iran. Even if the US wasn't interested, the UN sure was. To blame Hussein's invasion of Kuwait on the US is ridiculous. The blindness that prevents you from seeing the wrongs that both sides have commited in this saga is puzzling to me. Invading Kuwait was a wrong. Reacting to the invasion of Kuwait was not a wrong. Violating the terms of a conditional ceasefire was a wrong. Reacting to that violation was not a wrong. You demonstrate yet again your inability to differentiate between the initiation of force and the response to the initiation of force. I understand cause and effect like this. If i drop a stone it will fall to the ground. If I jump in water i will get wet etc. The cause and effect will always follow (except for in very special cases) You seem to think the cause of Iraqs invasion in 1991 must always lead to the same effect i.e circumstances that have emerged since. Not at all. Again you demonstrate quite clearly your incomplete grasp of cause and effect. A single cause can have multiple possible effects. For example, Hussein's invasion of Kuwait (the cause) could have led to several different responses (the effects): a) Nothing more than condemnatory hand-wringing on paper from the UN b) UN sanctions imposed against Iraq c) Armed retaliation by the UN coalition against Iraq Yet absent the cause (Hussein's invasion of Kuwait), none of the effects would have occurred. You really arent as clever as you love to make out are you? Clever enough to illustrate the flaws in your position. For the purposes of this thread, that's all that's required. The effects that could have lead from that cause are numerous not singular. Indeed they are. Yet the fact remains that if the cause had not taken place, none of the possible effects of that cause would have either. Well we could start with eliminating the whollly unnecessary wars for a start. Yes, we could. That would of course include the Allied invasion of Hitler's Europe on D-Day. From the point of view of Americans, that was an entirely unnecessary war. The war did not last for 13 years. Actually, yes it did. A conditional ceasefire doesn't end a war. Look it up. Oh please dont try and compare what has happened in Iraq with WWII. That is one of the most facile and contemptible arguements I have ever had the displeasure to hear. Did civilians get killed in the Allied invasion of Hitler's Europe in WWII? Did civilians get killed in the UN's expulsion of Hussein's forces in Kuwait? What's the difference? ...all you do is repeat crap that you pick up from god knows where. But thats all you do, repeat crap over and over again. I know it impresses some of the people on this board but I dont think you have had an original thought of your own in the last couple of decades. It may surprise you to be told that none of your responses (or your more usual evasions, dodges, and sidesteps) are original thoughts of your own. All of them have been used before by those who oppose freedom. They are thoughts that are centuries (some even millennia) old. I doubt either of us has come up with a thought on warfare that hasn't been independently discovered and expressed hundreds or even thousands of times before throughout mankind's violent history. This fact is completely irrelevant to their applicability to the subject under discussion in this thread. Stop whining and start thinking. pinky: 1) If no such benevolent force steps forward, are the Iraqis to be left to overthrow Hussein on their own? GazzBut: Yes, because if we are to help the Iraqis we must also help all other people who live under tyranny and we simply havent got the resources to achive that. Here's a perfect example of your regurgitation of unoriginal crap you've picked up somewhere and repeat without thinking it through. What it boils down to is -- "We must free no one until we can free everyone". This is sometimes known as the principle of "the perfect preventing the good". What you seem unable to grasp is that while one has the right to aid others, one is not obligated to do so. One may pick and choose the recipients of one's aid. Clearly, the more resources one has, the greater the number of others who may be aided, but equally clearly (as you correctly point out) limited resources mean that some of those deserving of aid must wait in line until more resources have been acquired. You say the Iraqis should have been left on their own to overthrow Hussein. To be consistent, this means the Rwandans should have been left on their own to sort things out, and the Kuwaitis and Bosnians and Kosovars and Tibetans and Chinese and Koreans and the Europeans in the early 1940's. pinky: 2) If such a benevolent force steps forward, how is it to be determined they are in fact benevolent and acting solely in the interests of the Iraqi people? Who is charged with passing this judgment on their benevolence? GazzBut: Good question. Yes, I know. Too bad you chose not to answer the questions, but instead to evade them. pinky: 3) What difference does it make to the Iraqi people whether the ones deposing Hussein do so out of benevolence alone, a combination of benevolence and self interest, or even for that matter out of the wish to alleviate their own boredom? Because it will make a massive difference to how the post war situation is handled. Ah. So it is not the deposing Hussein you oppose, but the possibility that those who deposed him may saddle the Iraqis with a system of government which will make life even worse for the Iraqis than it was under Hussein. How then, do you think the post war situation should have been handled? Do you believe the coalition troops should have packed up and left by... oh, I don't know... April 10, 2003? Sooner than that? Later than that? Oh, wait... you've already answered that earlier, in your response to my question, "Are you saying it was better to depose Hussein and then bail?" when you answered no. So I guess that means you have a system of government in mind for Iraq other than the one described in the interim constitution proposed by the IGC. Would you care to share it with us? You really do have a problem with logic dont you! All I said was it would be better than Pol Pots way of controlling a country. Thats hardly the biggest advertisment for any system of governance is it? Yes, I know that's all you said. I can't help noticing that when I asked if you had a better system of government in mind than a constitutionally-limited government composed of elected representatives governing with the consent of the governed, you failed to answer. That's okay, I know it's a long and complex thread and it's easy to miss a question or two inadvertently. Would you care to answer it now? I think you are confusing me with somebody else. Just because I put it in its best possible light by calling it spin does not change the fact that I am sure our governments knew the info they gave to the public was wrong. As far as Im concerned that is lying. If by "our governments" you mean all the governments in the world (except Iraq) who spoke on the matter pre-March 19, 2003, may I ask you what possible reason all those other governments -- especially the ones who opposed the deposition of Hussein by force -- would have for lying about it? pinky
| |||||||
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
Once again, as has been stated here countless times, every single one of the UN's followup resolutions to the conditional ceasefire agreement mentioned more than just proof of the destruction of the WMD programs. They required compliance with all of the conditions of the conditional ceasefire.
No they did not. No matter how often this is explained you never appear to grasp it. UN resolution 687 states Iraq must merely "ACCEPT" the terms. It says nothing whatsoever about "If you do not comply the United States has the right to defy the UN Security Council and invade Iraq in 12 years time".
| |||||||
HagbardCeline Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher Registered: 05/10/03 Posts: 10,028 Loc: Overjoyed, at th Last seen: 1 month, 2 days |
| ||||||
Maybe you don't own a dictionary. Let me help you out.
Quote: It is understandable, it's a big word. -------------------- I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine
| |||||||
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
Read the definitions closely again. Then think how that applies to accepting the terms of the ceasefire. You'll notice that there is no question that Iraq did accept the terms of UN resolution 687. They signed the document after all.
This is an important legal point to grasp. As you and pinkie have shown a layman may well struggle to understand the difference. Read around on the subject. Note what an international law expert like Vaughn Law says: Lowe stated firmly, ?It needs another Security Council resolution to authorize force.? Lowe argued that Resolution 1441 ? which was passed unanimously by the Security Council last November ? does not give up the Security Council?s control over the ultimate decision on whether force should be used. Resolution 687 (passed April 3, 1991) declared a ceasefire, dependent on Iraq accepting the terms of the resolution, and said that the Security Council decided ?to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.? According to Lowe, these resolutions ?were creatures of their time.? Resolution 678 ?was addressed to a particular situation at a particular time, and it authorized the states acting in coalition with Kuwait to take a certain action.? The problem to which it was addressed ?was wrapped up with the ceasefire,? and ?to say that any state that happened to be a member of that coalition ten years ago has for perpetuity the right to use force to restore peace in the Middle East, I think is just obviously absurd.? It?s sometimes said that the ceasefire declared by Resolution 687 was conditional on Iraq fulfilling the conditions required of it. However a close reading of the text of the resolution makes clear that the ceasefire will come into effect if Iraq simply accepts the terms of the resolution; the resolution goes on to state that it is then up to the Security Council to ?take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the current resolution.? This form of words, according to Lowe, signalled that the Security Council regarded the matter of Iraq ?as being back under its control as far as the use of force is concerned.? No individual state or group of states acting outside the clear authorization of the Council retained the right to use force, even to punish Iraq for breaches of the resolution or to compel its compliance. Of course, even without authorization from the Security Council, an attack on Iraq would be lawful if it was a matter of self-defence. Last year, it seemed as though the Bush administration might be preparing to present this justification for going to war, but it has not talked about it recently. The British government has not attempted to argue that an attack on Iraq could count as self-defence as envisaged in the United Nations Charter. In conclusion, Lowe said that for the U.S. and Britain to attack Iraq without a further resolution would be not merely ?ill-considered,? but would represent a move ?outside the scope of legal controls that have been freely assumed and have underpinned the international order for the last half-century.? http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/news-iraq2.html
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Okay, Alex. If you wish to continue responding to my posts, I guess I may just respond to a few of yours.
HagbardCeline nailed it. Any rational person knows what it means to accept the terms of a contract, and a conditional ceasefire is in fact a contract. As usual, you ignore context and try to slip some kind of tortuous rationalization that stretches the English language to the breaking point and beyond. Your response to Hagbard's post is to whine, "They signed the document after all." Yes, Alex. The document was signed. And that was all. Hussein then used his copy of it to wipe his ass with his left hand and never thought of it again. Note what an international law expert like Vaughn Law says: Oh my lord. Yet another Alex123-certified "expert". What is this unwavering hero worship you have towards "experts", Alex? Seems you can't go three threads without pulling some kind of "expert" out of your hat - usually an "expert" no one else has ever heard of whose views are diametrically opposed to not just other specialists in their field, but to common sense and reason. Can you not think for yourself? Lowe has his opinion on the matter. Other people versed in international law hold the opposite opinion. Lowe's opinion is far from unanimous. It is even far from consensus. pinky
| |||||||
HagbardCeline Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher Registered: 05/10/03 Posts: 10,028 Loc: Overjoyed, at th Last seen: 1 month, 2 days |
| ||||||
There's no need to quote Law, Alex. I'm sure you can expertly break down the text of the resolution all on your own.
Here, let's examine 1441, which was unanimously passed. Quote: If "accepting" 687 merely meant "Oh a package! Goody!! Yes, I sign here to receive it? Ok. Thanks U.N.!" "Don't let the door hit you in the ass!" (this is what your claiming correct?) Then why the repeated claims in 1441 that Iraq failed to comply with requirements, commitments, and obligations pursuant to 687? A real head scratcher, huh. In reading paragraphs 2 above, we see that Iraq is afforded "a final oppourtunity to comply." Paragraph 3 details the obligations Iraq has to fufill. Those were obviously not met, as David Kay has found: Quote: Now, since you agree with Law's interpretation that 1441 doesn't authorize force, perhaps you explain what "serious consequences" Iraq would have been subject to for their repeated violations? Quote: It seems Saddam isn't the only one who refuses take responsibility. -------------------- I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine
| |||||||
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
Now, since you agree with Law's interpretation that 1441 doesn't authorize force, perhaps you explain what "serious consequences" Iraq would have been subject to for their repeated violations?
What relevance has any of this? Why do you think they chose the words "serious consequences" if they meant "Iraq shall be invaded"? Those words were deliberately chosen because if it had said "Iraq will be invaded" it wouldn't have had a snowball in hell's chance of being approved by France and Germany for a start. That's how important words are in UN resolutions. Lets get back to the point. Show me where the UN state in resolution 687 that the US has the right to invade Iraq if they do not fullfill all the conditions in 687. There's no need to quote Law, Alex. Oh but there is Hagbard. It stops you making elementary laymans errors in understanding. Such as "We were at war with them in Kuwait like 12 years ago dude..and the UN passed a resolution..so that means like George Bush..er..has the right to invade Iraq...doesn't it?" I'm sure you can expertly break down the text of the resolution all on your own. And make gross fundamental errors in understanding like you and pinkie have made? I'm just a humble left-winger Hag, I'll go with the judgement of the Professor of International Law.
| |||||||
|
Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale Red Vein Kratom Buy Bali Kratom Powder Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Cultivation Supplies |
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
Iran Will Allow U.N. Inspections of Nuclear Sites | Zahid | 718 | 3 | 10/22/03 11:50 PM by Zahid | ||
Iraq WMD inspectors "watching films" | Xlea321 | 524 | 3 | 06/16/03 12:51 PM by Azmodeus | ||
Iraq's places conditions on UN inspectors | Ellis Dee | 707 | 3 | 09/19/02 05:29 AM by Frog31337 | ||
UN Inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before and after war | HagbardCeline | 937 | 17 | 06/12/04 11:04 AM by Xlea321 | ||
Privatised inspection causes injury | newuser1492 | 366 | 2 | 10/04/05 09:55 PM by nonick | ||
Bush slams door on U.N. inspectors | pattern | 959 | 16 | 04/23/03 08:40 PM by Evolving | ||
Inspectors conclude "No WMD since 1994" | Xlea321 | 1,373 | 8 | 03/04/04 11:53 PM by Xlea321 | ||
Possible Ceasefire?..or Propaganda? | Rono | 483 | 2 | 03/26/03 08:10 AM by mntlfngrs |
Extra information | ||
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 6,016 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||