• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Doomed for failure in Iraq

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Link

the U.S.'s last four efforts at nation building -- Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. And as it convincingly demonstrates, the fate of those missions ranged from failure to fiasco
 

RDWYTruckDriver

Senior member
Jul 16, 2003
300
0
0
From your link:

When President Clinton was sworn into office, peacekeeping quickly turned into war-making.
One warlord was singled out as the designated bad guy, and U.S. troops launched a series of raids on his strongholds, killing innocent civilians in the process.
In 1994, after spending $2.3 billion and seeing 200 American soldiers killed or injured, the U.S. withdrew from Somalia. Clinton explained, "It is not our job to rebuild Somalia's society."
In 1994, President Clinton sent 20,000 troops to restore democracy in the Caribbean nation. As the U.S. would later do in Iraq, Clinton claimed Haiti's military rulers were "a threat to international peace." (How the impoverished nation could threaten anyone was never explained.)
The U.S. and the United Nations set to work. To teach Bosnians how democracy works, Western overseers dissolved city councils if voters picked the wrong candidates (replacing them with a more ethnically "diverse" selection); censored textbooks if they contained ethnically objectionable materials; and shut down radio and TV stations if they criticized NATO peacekeepers.

Three years later, a puzzled Clinton acknowledged that the task of unifying ethnic enemies who had hated and feared each other for hundreds of years was "taking longer than anticipated."
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Zebo
Link

the U.S.'s last four efforts at nation building -- Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. And as it convincingly demonstrates, the fate of those missions ranged from failure to fiasco
I thought bringing up what Clinton did was against the rules? You can't judge Bush by what Clinton did(or vice-versa)....or that's what people around here seem to think and say all the time.

Yes, we've had failures in a few nation building and "peace-keeping" missions lately but they were due to the lack of will to see things through. I think that if we commit troops to a cause we'd damn well better follow through with the mission. This "cause" was to rid the Iraqi's of Saddam(among other things;)) and to help them become a truely "free" country. We need to do such or it will all have been in vain.

Nothing against the LPs here but that "article" sure does smell like one the Democrats would try to feed you. Setting up their success by predicting America's failure.

CkG
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Zebo
Link

the U.S.'s last four efforts at nation building -- Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. And as it convincingly demonstrates, the fate of those missions ranged from failure to fiasco
I thought bringing up what Clinton did was against the rules? You can't judge Bush by what Clinton did(or vice-versa)....or that's what people around here seem to think and say all the time.

Yes, we've had failures in a few nation building and "peace-keeping" missions lately but they were due to the lack of will to see things through. I think that if we commit troops to a cause we'd damn well better follow through with the mission. This "cause" was to rid the Iraqi's of Saddam(among other things;)) and to help them become a truely "free" country. We need to do such or it will all have been in vain.

Nothing against the LPs here but that "article" sure does smell like one the Democrats would try to feed you. Setting up their success by predicting America's failure.

CkG
True, but what makes you think Iraq will be any different?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Zebo
Link

the U.S.'s last four efforts at nation building -- Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. And as it convincingly demonstrates, the fate of those missions ranged from failure to fiasco
I thought bringing up what Clinton did was against the rules? You can't judge Bush by what Clinton did(or vice-versa)....or that's what people around here seem to think and say all the time.

Yes, we've had failures in a few nation building and "peace-keeping" missions lately but they were due to the lack of will to see things through. I think that if we commit troops to a cause we'd damn well better follow through with the mission. This "cause" was to rid the Iraqi's of Saddam(among other things;)) and to help them become a truely "free" country. We need to do such or it will all have been in vain.

Nothing against the LPs here but that "article" sure does smell like one the Democrats would try to feed you. Setting up their success by predicting America's failure.

CkG
True, but what makes you think Iraq will be any different?
Did you miss the part the last part of what you bolded? Incase you missed it here is the answer to your question "...will to see things through."
Seems to me that Bush has that resolve which you guys try to bash him for. So which is it? Is having resolve good or bad? -Moonbeam?;):p

CkG
 

manly

Diamond Member
Jan 25, 2000
8,895
467
126
Most people don't disagree with intervention in the former Yugoslavia. The Balkans were a tinderbox for the world wars of the 20th century, and once it was apparent that Milosevic was sponsoring ethnic cleansing, the world's hands were tied.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a 3rd world country oppressing its own citizens, and arguably threatening a few neighbors. To elevate Saddam to an international menace connected with Bin Laden was clearly hype, and by all accounts, the intelligence wasn't there to make that claim. Of course, now the war is being remarketed as a humanitarian mission, with the possibility of disallowed weapons "programs".

The real question is why didn't the world intervene in Rwanda, but that's unfortunately a different story.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,213
126
The US does NOT want a free Iraq. We want an obedient Iraq. A free Iraq might just decide they hate the US. We would not tolerate that.
 

da loser

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,037
0
0
heh, another community message brought to you by the libertarian party. come on, you gotta at least pick an impartial article. if you're coming from a point of it's a free for all, too bad your life sucks, eat sh1t, oh here's some pocket lint start a fire, well humanitarian missions are never going to be good.

but at some point you have to at least airdrop food rations. i think that's what we should do in the future. just fly over drop some corn, needles, cotton, rice. and bombs for people that attack us ala afghanistan. let them setup their own government, or make them sign some kind of agreement that absolves us of all screwups before we go in :) it's very hard to help someone when they just criticize you.

I'm saying call a nation wide vote in iraq and afghanistan and ask if they want us there or not. and we can leave or stay.
for those people that want us to stay, they better risk their lives just like our troops and should take on even more risk. of course it's hard to tell someone what to do when they don't have their own say. it's the whole representative government issue again.

on the flip side, anyone complaing about china can go to hell, if you don't want to change governments, don't complain when we deal with crappy people. but do complain about unfair trade!
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,984
84
91
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Zebo
Link

the U.S.'s last four efforts at nation building -- Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. And as it convincingly demonstrates, the fate of those missions ranged from failure to fiasco
I thought bringing up what Clinton did was against the rules? You can't judge Bush by what Clinton did(or vice-versa)....or that's what people around here seem to think and say all the time.

Yes, we've had failures in a few nation building and "peace-keeping" missions lately but they were due to the lack of will to see things through. I think that if we commit troops to a cause we'd damn well better follow through with the mission. This "cause" was to rid the Iraqi's of Saddam(among other things;)) and to help them become a truely "free" country. We need to do such or it will all have been in vain.

Nothing against the LPs here but that "article" sure does smell like one the Democrats would try to feed you. Setting up their success by predicting America's failure.

CkG
True, but what makes you think Iraq will be any different?
Did you miss the part the last part of what you bolded? Incase you missed it here is the answer to your question "...will to see things through."
Seems to me that Bush has that resolve which you guys try to bash him for. So which is it? Is having resolve good or bad? -Moonbeam?;):p

CkG
The will to see things through....you are correct in your assessment on that. Where there is a will, there's a way. I have no doubt Bush has the will to see this through, but its not his will alone that counts. Our soldiers over there have such will also, but where I place doubt is in the American public. The reality of the situation is that this operation is going to cost time, lives, and money. People in the press (and in these forums) complain about the death rate over in Iraq in the current operations. This is quite low by historical standards. Yes, its tragic, but there is a price for everything. If the American public does not allow Bush the recources (time/people/money) to do the job of rebuilding Iraq, we will end up either pulling out too soon or doing the job half-ass, which in the long run may cost more lives than sticking to what we promised Iraq to do. So my question is, can teh Americain people stomach this in order to keep our promise to the Iraqi people??? If not, then yes, we are doomed to failure...
 

RDWYTruckDriver

Senior member
Jul 16, 2003
300
0
0
The will to see things through....you are correct in your assessment on that. Where there is a will, there's a way. I have no doubt Bush has the will to see this through, but its not his will alone that counts. Our soldiers over there have such will also, but where I place doubt is in the American public. The reality of the situation is that this operation is going to cost lives and money. People in the press (and in these forums) complain about the death rate over in Iraq in the current operations. This is quite low by historical standards. Yes, its tragic, but there is a price for everything. If the American public does not allow Bush the recources (time/people/money) to do the job of rebuilding Iraq, we will end up either pulling out too soon and doing the job half-ass, which in the long run may cost more lives than sticking to what we promised Iraq to do. So my question is, can teh Americain people stomach this in order to keep our promise to the Iraqi people??? If not, then yes, we are doomed to failure...
Good post.

I say that a majority of Americans ( post 9-11 ) will support the " will " to see things through. The good,bad ect. All the Americans who are " on the fence " need to do is look back at history in regard to " Japan and Germany " post WW2 to believe this can be done. But in America we have the vocal minority who at this time are trying very hard to see that Bush fails and will not stop at anything to make this come true.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,213
126
I would like to see two things. America rebuild Iraq, and Bush hauled before a war crimes commission. Never happen, but there ya go.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Zebo
Link

the U.S.'s last four efforts at nation building -- Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. And as it convincingly demonstrates, the fate of those missions ranged from failure to fiasco
I thought bringing up what Clinton did was against the rules? You can't judge Bush by what Clinton did(or vice-versa)....or that's what people around here seem to think and say all the time.

Yes, we've had failures in a few nation building and "peace-keeping" missions lately but they were due to the lack of will to see things through. I think that if we commit troops to a cause we'd damn well better follow through with the mission. This "cause" was to rid the Iraqi's of Saddam(among other things;)) and to help them become a truely "free" country. We need to do such or it will all have been in vain.

Nothing against the LPs here but that "article" sure does smell like one the Democrats would try to feed you. Setting up their success by predicting America's failure.

CkG
True, but what makes you think Iraq will be any different?
Did you miss the part the last part of what you bolded? Incase you missed it here is the answer to your question "...will to see things through."
Seems to me that Bush has that resolve which you guys try to bash him for. So which is it? Is having resolve good or bad? -Moonbeam?;):p

CkG
The will to see things through....you are correct in your assessment on that. Where there is a will, there's a way. I have no doubt Bush has the will to see this through, but its not his will alone that counts. Our soldiers over there have such will also, but where I place doubt is in the American public. The reality of the situation is that this operation is going to cost time, lives, and money. People in the press (and in these forums) complain about the death rate over in Iraq in the current operations. This is quite low by historical standards. Yes, its tragic, but there is a price for everything. If the American public does not allow Bush the recources (time/people/money) to do the job of rebuilding Iraq, we will end up either pulling out too soon or doing the job half-ass, which in the long run may cost more lives than sticking to what we promised Iraq to do. So my question is, can teh Americain people stomach this in order to keep our promise to the Iraqi people??? If not, then yes, we are doomed to failure...
In addition to 18wheeler said - I also think that those that are whining daily in the press are doing our soldiers and country a dis-service with their attempts at painting things in a doom and gloom light. I ask: Exactly what does all the "doom and gloom" accomplish? It sure doesn't strengthen our resolve to finish the job, so that makes me wonder if those who are professing doom and gloom really want America, Britain, and others to succeed in bringing freedom and Independence to the people of Iraq. Maybe it's just because it's politically expedient for them to be doom and gloomers since they will gain from predicting the doom and gloom if the operation fails. I don't know though, since I'm not a "doom and gloomer". Maybe a "doom and gloomer" will come in and explain it to us. Anyone?

CkG

Edit: Additivefreesmokemaker- Why exactly would you like to see Bush brought before the War Crimes commission? To testify against whom?;)
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,213
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Zebo
Link

the U.S.'s last four efforts at nation building -- Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. And as it convincingly demonstrates, the fate of those missions ranged from failure to fiasco
I thought bringing up what Clinton did was against the rules? You can't judge Bush by what Clinton did(or vice-versa)....or that's what people around here seem to think and say all the time.

Yes, we've had failures in a few nation building and "peace-keeping" missions lately but they were due to the lack of will to see things through. I think that if we commit troops to a cause we'd damn well better follow through with the mission. This "cause" was to rid the Iraqi's of Saddam(among other things;)) and to help them become a truely "free" country. We need to do such or it will all have been in vain.

Nothing against the LPs here but that "article" sure does smell like one the Democrats would try to feed you. Setting up their success by predicting America's failure.

CkG
True, but what makes you think Iraq will be any different?
Did you miss the part the last part of what you bolded? Incase you missed it here is the answer to your question "...will to see things through."
Seems to me that Bush has that resolve which you guys try to bash him for. So which is it? Is having resolve good or bad? -Moonbeam?;):p

CkG
The will to see things through....you are correct in your assessment on that. Where there is a will, there's a way. I have no doubt Bush has the will to see this through, but its not his will alone that counts. Our soldiers over there have such will also, but where I place doubt is in the American public. The reality of the situation is that this operation is going to cost time, lives, and money. People in the press (and in these forums) complain about the death rate over in Iraq in the current operations. This is quite low by historical standards. Yes, its tragic, but there is a price for everything. If the American public does not allow Bush the recources (time/people/money) to do the job of rebuilding Iraq, we will end up either pulling out too soon or doing the job half-ass, which in the long run may cost more lives than sticking to what we promised Iraq to do. So my question is, can teh Americain people stomach this in order to keep our promise to the Iraqi people??? If not, then yes, we are doomed to failure...
In addition to 18wheeler said - I also think that those that are whining daily in the press are doing our soldiers and country a dis-service with their attempts at painting things in a doom and gloom light. I ask: Exactly what does all the "doom and gloom" accomplish? It sure doesn't strengthen our resolve to finish the job, so that makes me wonder if those who are professing doom and gloom really want America, Britain, and others to succeed in bringing freedom and Independence to the people of Iraq. Maybe it's just because it's politically expedient for them to be doom and gloomers since they will gain from predicting the doom and gloom if the operation fails. I don't know though, since I'm not a "doom and gloomer". Maybe a "doom and gloomer" will come in and explain it to us. Anyone?

CkG

Edit: Additivefreesmokemaker- Why exactly would you like to see Bush brought before the War Crimes commission? To testify against whom?;)

I believe that the right of non-self incrimination does not automatically exist in other countries. In an international court, Bush might be compelled to testify against himself. Perhaps some of the kindly people at the Ministry of Love would be of service. They like the way you think ;)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Edit: Additivefreesmokemaker- Why exactly would you like to see Bush brought before the War Crimes commission? To testify against whom?;)

I believe that the right of non-self incrimination does not automatically exist in other countries. In an international court, Bush might be compelled to testify against himself. Perhaps some of the kindly people at the Ministry of Love would be of service. They like the way you think ;)
Seems you skipped answering my first question - oh well.

CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,213
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Edit: Additivefreesmokemaker- Why exactly would you like to see Bush brought before the War Crimes commission? To testify against whom?;)

I believe that the right of non-self incrimination does not automatically exist in other countries. In an international court, Bush might be compelled to testify against himself. Perhaps some of the kindly people at the Ministry of Love would be of service. They like the way you think ;)
Seems you skipped answering my first question - oh well.

CkG


Well... briefly, Bush caused the US to go to war with an non-aggressor nation for dubious reasons. That's for starters.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Edit: Additivefreesmokemaker- Why exactly would you like to see Bush brought before the War Crimes commission? To testify against whom?;)

I believe that the right of non-self incrimination does not automatically exist in other countries. In an international court, Bush might be compelled to testify against himself. Perhaps some of the kindly people at the Ministry of Love would be of service. They like the way you think ;)
Seems you skipped answering my first question - oh well.

CkG


Well... briefly, Bush caused the US to go to war with an non-aggressor nation for dubious reasons. That's for starters.
Nice bit of revisionist history there addictivefreesmokemaker. The fact is that Iraq under Saddam was an aggressor state. Remember that little invasion of Kuwait? I wonder what that had to do with the Sanctions, rules, and "supervision" applied by us and the UN? Maybe the violation of those sanctions and rules led to our removal of Saddam from Iraq?

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
We invaded Iraq based on the exigent circumstance of Iraqi use of its WMD against US interests.. actually, against the US. Nothing beyond that is relevant to this. If there were no WMD there was no exigent circumstace and if there were WMD there does not exist any indication that Iraq was about to use them or use them against the US. So before we can award Medals of honor and Victoria crosses don't ya think we ought to deal with this issue. The legality of the invasion.
 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
It is going to be tough to win in Iraq. A rat can kill a elephant with enough patience. Just bite him once or twice a day every day and eventually he will go down and be unable to defend himself from more bites. I think we will have a hard time finding and killing all the "Rats" that are biting us (the elephant) every day.

Bleep
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: LunarRay
We invaded Iraq based on the exigent circumstance of Iraqi use of its WMD against US interests.. actually, against the US. Nothing beyond that is relevant to this. If there were no WMD there was no exigent circumstace and if there were WMD there does not exist any indication that Iraq was about to use them or use them against the US. So before we can award Medals of honor and Victoria crosses don't ya think we ought to deal with this issue. The legality of the invasion.
Not true. We've been over this time and time again luny.

Bleep - Your analogy works relatively well in the whole "fight against terrorism" issue but Iraq is a country and we aren't the only "elephant". When the people of Iraq see what "freedom" and self-governace will bring, I have faith that they will do everything possible to rid the country of these "mice". Sure 4 big feet may not be fast or agile enough to squish the mouse but 4 big feet along with thousands upon thousands of feet can and hopefully will crush it.

CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,213
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Edit: Additivefreesmokemaker- Why exactly would you like to see Bush brought before the War Crimes commission? To testify against whom?;)

I believe that the right of non-self incrimination does not automatically exist in other countries. In an international court, Bush might be compelled to testify against himself. Perhaps some of the kindly people at the Ministry of Love would be of service. They like the way you think ;)
Seems you skipped answering my first question - oh well.

CkG


Well... briefly, Bush caused the US to go to war with an non-aggressor nation for dubious reasons. That's for starters.
Nice bit of revisionist history there addictivefreesmokemaker. The fact is that Iraq under Saddam was an aggressor state. Remember that little invasion of Kuwait? I wonder what that had to do with the Sanctions, rules, and "supervision" applied by us and the UN? Maybe the violation of those sanctions and rules led to our removal of Saddam from Iraq?

CkG
LOL at the revisionist history!

What you omitted is that Iraq WAS an aggressor state TWELVE YEARS AGO AND HAS NOT DONE A BLESSED THING TO ANOTHER COUNTRY SINCE THEN. I figured caps were harder for you to ignore. For 12 years, Saddam was a frustrated third world petty dictator who was harmless to anyone outside of his country. We did not "remove" Saddam. We had a goddam war. Next time you step in dog poop, shoot off your foot, and come here and tell us how you"removed" your shoe.

Ok, SimonBarSinister? :p
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Edit: Additivefreesmokemaker- Why exactly would you like to see Bush brought before the War Crimes commission? To testify against whom?;)

I believe that the right of non-self incrimination does not automatically exist in other countries. In an international court, Bush might be compelled to testify against himself. Perhaps some of the kindly people at the Ministry of Love would be of service. They like the way you think ;)
Seems you skipped answering my first question - oh well.

CkG


Well... briefly, Bush caused the US to go to war with an non-aggressor nation for dubious reasons. That's for starters.
Nice bit of revisionist history there addictivefreesmokemaker. The fact is that Iraq under Saddam was an aggressor state. Remember that little invasion of Kuwait? I wonder what that had to do with the Sanctions, rules, and "supervision" applied by us and the UN? Maybe the violation of those sanctions and rules led to our removal of Saddam from Iraq?

CkG
LOL at the revisionist history!

What you omitted is that Iraq WAS an aggressor state TWELVE YEARS AGO AND HAS NOT DONE A BLESSED THING TO ANOTHER COUNTRY SINCE THEN. I figured caps were harder for you to ignore. For 12 years, Saddam was a frustrated third world petty dictator who was harmless to anyone outside of his country. We did not "remove" Saddam. We had a goddam war. Next time you step in dog poop, shoot off your foot, and come here and tell us how you"removed" your shoe.

Ok, SimonBarSinister? :p
Him invading 12 years ago is WHY HE HAD SANCTIONS IMPOSED AND UN RESOLUTIONS TO COMPLY WITH(all caps for fun:)) So why were sactions not lifted if he wasn't a danger? Hmmm. Did he prove that he wasn't a danger like the UN said he had to in multiple Resolutions? No. He didn't comply with the resolutions and therefore was still a danger. The honus was on HIM to prove that he wasn't an aggressor and he could have done so by complying with terms HE AGREED TO.

Let me put it this way. If a person committed a crime and a judge put him on probation with the warning that if he violated the probation terms he would be punished, if then while he was still under probation, he broke the terms should he not be punished?

CkG
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Zebo
Link

the U.S.'s last four efforts at nation building -- Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. And as it convincingly demonstrates, the fate of those missions ranged from failure to fiasco
I thought bringing up what Clinton did was against the rules? You can't judge Bush by what Clinton did(or vice-versa)....or that's what people around here seem to think and say all the time.

Yes, we've had failures in a few nation building and "peace-keeping" missions lately but they were due to the lack of will to see things through. I think that if we commit troops to a cause we'd damn well better follow through with the mission. This "cause" was to rid the Iraqi's of Saddam(among other things;)) and to help them become a truely "free" country. We need to do such or it will all have been in vain.

Nothing against the LPs here but that "article" sure does smell like one the Democrats would try to feed you. Setting up their success by predicting America's failure.

CkG
True, but what makes you think Iraq will be any different?

Well at this point the UN is not involved like Bosnia and Kosovo.....
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,213
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Edit: Additivefreesmokemaker- Why exactly would you like to see Bush brought before the War Crimes commission? To testify against whom?;)

I believe that the right of non-self incrimination does not automatically exist in other countries. In an international court, Bush might be compelled to testify against himself. Perhaps some of the kindly people at the Ministry of Love would be of service. They like the way you think ;)
Seems you skipped answering my first question - oh well.

CkG


Well... briefly, Bush caused the US to go to war with an non-aggressor nation for dubious reasons. That's for starters.
Nice bit of revisionist history there addictivefreesmokemaker. The fact is that Iraq under Saddam was an aggressor state. Remember that little invasion of Kuwait? I wonder what that had to do with the Sanctions, rules, and "supervision" applied by us and the UN? Maybe the violation of those sanctions and rules led to our removal of Saddam from Iraq?

CkG
LOL at the revisionist history!

What you omitted is that Iraq WAS an aggressor state TWELVE YEARS AGO AND HAS NOT DONE A BLESSED THING TO ANOTHER COUNTRY SINCE THEN. I figured caps were harder for you to ignore. For 12 years, Saddam was a frustrated third world petty dictator who was harmless to anyone outside of his country. We did not "remove" Saddam. We had a goddam war. Next time you step in dog poop, shoot off your foot, and come here and tell us how you"removed" your shoe.

Ok, SimonBarSinister? :p
Him invading 12 years ago is WHY HE HAD SANCTIONS IMPOSED AND UN RESOLUTIONS TO COMPLY WITH(all caps for fun:)) So why were sactions not lifted if he wasn't a danger? Hmmm. Did he prove that he wasn't a danger like the UN said he had to in multiple Resolutions? No. He didn't comply with the resolutions and therefore was still a danger. The honus was on HIM to prove that he wasn't an aggressor and he could have done so by complying with terms HE AGREED TO.

Let me put it this way. If a person committed a crime and a judge put him on probation with the warning that if he violated the probation terms he would be punished, if then while he was still under probation, he broke the terms should he not be punished?

CkG

Well, for the 35,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 time (it seems), the threshold for war was abysmally low. He was contained. He could have been contained for the rest of his life just the same, and if he stuck out his tongue at us, so be it. He was harmless, made that way, but someone needed their ego boosted, and decided war with Iraq was the way to go. Saddam hadnt the ability to do harm, and you know that, unless you have the battle plans, and can show the means he would have needed for invasion. Saddam wasnt allowed to send his planes where he wanted in his own country.

The measures we had in Iraq before the war were sufficient to keep Saddam in check. Now do you have evidence that he had the motivation, means and opportunity to wage war in the region? You have to demonstrate all three for him to be a threat. Wanting to piiss on the US hardly makes him a threat.

Good luck.


 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The US does NOT want a free Iraq. We want an obedient Iraq. A free Iraq might just decide they hate the US. We would not tolerate that.
You're exactly right. I have never heard of an exit strategy spelled out for IRAQ I doubt we ever wanted to or had onw which is why Powell and his doctrine is so quiet these days. Furthermore we have appointed mainly pro-US expats to run Iraq which is certainly not democratic which is why we see demonstrations. I don't know if the killings are linked to this but I would'nt be surprised. IRAQIs are pissed at our controlling of thier destiny.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY