• 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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
I would say Iraq was contained sufficiently to prevent Saddam from creating havoc
Was all the UN resolutions on Iraq for the past 12 years only to " contain " Saddam ? I thought he was supposed to " comply " with these resolutions ..... did he ? Would he have ? How much longer should the US and it's Allies have " waited " ?
To abide by the rule of law at times is frustrating but, it is all we have. It is what we stand for. Liberty is sustained by the rule of law. Ill gotten gains are not gains in truth. They are gains forged out of weakened metals... they will fall apart when tested...
We should have waited until what we did was supported by truth... and even without the rule of law the truth would have won out.. Because truth will always be supported by the rule of law and the rule of law by truth.
The TRUTH is that there was a cease-fire the terms of which were agreed to by both sides. The TRUTH is that one side was in continued violation of these terms for almost 12 years. The TRUTH is that a cease-fire is broken once terms of it are broken. Game back on.

Whether you like it or not that is the case. It IS that simple and all the Resolutions regarding Iraq subsequent to the cease-fire resolution called that agreement out and supported it. Now you can turn a blind eye to it if you wish but I and others won't. If you break your agreements you should expect punishment if such was setup in the original agreement.

HDJ1 - does following through with UN resolutions and original agreements not constitute following the rule of law? I wonder what you call not following through with resolutions?...I call it coddling, appeasement, and weakness. To each his own though.:)

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
I would say Iraq was contained sufficiently to prevent Saddam from creating havoc
Was all the UN resolutions on Iraq for the past 12 years only to " contain " Saddam ? I thought he was supposed to " comply " with these resolutions ..... did he ? Would he have ? How much longer should the US and it's Allies have " waited " ?
To abide by the rule of law at times is frustrating but, it is all we have. It is what we stand for. Liberty is sustained by the rule of law. Ill gotten gains are not gains in truth. They are gains forged out of weakened metals... they will fall apart when tested...
We should have waited until what we did was supported by truth... and even without the rule of law the truth would have won out.. Because truth will always be supported by the rule of law and the rule of law by truth.
The TRUTH is that there was a cease-fire the terms of which were agreed to by both sides. The TRUTH is that one side was in continued violation of these terms for almost 12 years. The TRUTH is that a cease-fire is broken once terms of it are broken. Game back on.

Whether you like it or not that is the case. It IS that simple and all the Resolutions regarding Iraq subsequent to the cease-fire resolution called that agreement out and supported it. Now you can turn a blind eye to it if you wish but I and others won't. If you break your agreements you should expect punishment if such was setup in the original agreement.

HDJ1 - does following through with UN resolutions and original agreements not constitute following the rule of law? I wonder what you call not following through with resolutions?...I call it coddling, appeasement, and weakness. To each his own though.:)

CkG
The venue for the authorization is and was the UN Security Counsel for the dealing with the '91 issue and subsequent failure on the part of Iraq. The venue for the self defense argument is both the Congress (House Joint Res sign by Bush in Oct '02) and the UN Charter Article 51.
Without explicit authority to invade Iraq garnered from the Security Counsel by Resolution with out veto and carrying the majority any action would violate the Charter and thereby The rule of law. Any action undertaken under Article 51 that was based on a fraud would also be against the rule of law. The self defense issue requires some proof that the reason to defend exists. Maybe it does and if it does and has not been put forth fine alls well that ends well..
This is the way things work according to the rule of law... well outside Iowa anyhow.. :D
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYThe TRUTH is that there was a cease-fire the terms of which were agreed to by both sides. The TRUTH is that one side was in continued violation of these terms for almost 12 years. The TRUTH is that a cease-fire is broken once terms of it are broken. Game back on.

Whether you like it or not that is the case. It IS that simple and all the Resolutions regarding Iraq subsequent to the cease-fire resolution called that agreement out and supported it. Now you can turn a blind eye to it if you wish but I and others won't. If you break your agreements you should expect punishment if such was setup in the original agreement.

HDJ1 - does following through with UN resolutions and original agreements not constitute following the rule of law? I wonder what you call not following through with resolutions?...I call it coddling, appeasement, and weakness. To each his own though.:)

CkG
Bush agreed to work through the United Nations and go to war as a last resort. In fact, the Congressional Resolution authorizing force against Iraq mandates that he do so.

H.J.Res. 114 authorizes the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. The resolution expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
I know, Cad, that you feel it's OK to ignore the law when it's ideologically expedient to do so from other posts. However, in this case, Bush has not presented any evidence that the U.S. needed to act in self-defense, nor did Bush act through the U.N. as he promised Congress he would do so.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYThe TRUTH is that there was a cease-fire the terms of which were agreed to by both sides. The TRUTH is that one side was in continued violation of these terms for almost 12 years. The TRUTH is that a cease-fire is broken once terms of it are broken. Game back on.

Whether you like it or not that is the case. It IS that simple and all the Resolutions regarding Iraq subsequent to the cease-fire resolution called that agreement out and supported it. Now you can turn a blind eye to it if you wish but I and others won't. If you break your agreements you should expect punishment if such was setup in the original agreement.

HDJ1 - does following through with UN resolutions and original agreements not constitute following the rule of law? I wonder what you call not following through with resolutions?...I call it coddling, appeasement, and weakness. To each his own though.:)

CkG
Bush agreed to work through the United Nations and go to war as a last resort. In fact, the Congressional Resolution authorizing force against Iraq mandates that he do so.

H.J.Res. 114 authorizes the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. The resolution expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
I know, Cad, that you feel it's OK to ignore the law when it's ideologically expedient to do so from other posts. However, in this case, Bush has not presented any evidence that the U.S. needed to act in self-defense, nor did Bush act through the U.N. as he promised Congress he would do so.
Have you read the Joint Resolution?
Joint Resolution said it supported Bush's EFFORT to enforce all relevant resolutions, and for Bush's EFFORT to obtain prompt action by the SC. The SC didn't do such things and thus the JR was authorizing him to use force. It did not say that he was forced to go through them. It only said it recognized Bush's efforts to do so. They specifically said Saddam was "in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire..." I could quote the whole damn thing.
Section 3 point A(1 and 2) are more than enough "legal" power for the President to act as he did. Seems as though A bunch of people gave him authority to use military force. Hmmm. But yeah, he was a lone cowboy just looking for a gun fight


HDJ1 - No the venue was ours since we were called upon to remove Saddam from Kuwait and to keep him at bay. The only reason we stopped was because the UN provided a cease-fire agreement. Since Saddam wasn't in complete compliance with the cease-fire terms there was no security in the region and it constituted a threat to world peace - according to UN terms. Seems as though WE have the right and obligation to step in when peace and security are threatened(according to our charter;)).

I thought this thread was about reconstruction and how it was doomed? Why can't you people get over the fact that the invasion was legal according to our Laws and the Resolutions regarding Iraq being an aggressor state who had broken cease-fire agreements. The FACT is Saddam is gone, and we must now be united in our resolve to help rebuild Iraq since it has had 30 years of repression. Reconstruction take time, patience, and resolve - and I see little of that being supported by people here. They want to see quick progress, and won't tolerate delays, and want us to leave and let the Iraqis do it on their own. The thing is that the Iraqis have lived under the thumb of Saddam for a long time and most have never know life without Saddam. They need guidance and support - of which we need to provide for them.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well.. CAD.
The thread topic rests upon some interesting foundations. One of which is the support on a long term basis for whatever it is that gets set up. This support would in part rely on the legitimate precursor.
What you refer to is our right to self defense... I support this fully. I even think there may be wiggle room in all of this for the Administration to use. I only wish we'd have used unimpeachable evidence to support the action. It seems to me the absence of WMD and now the statements that SH had purged Iraq of WMD in the years before make questionable the underlying reasons for the invasion. This is bad... and the fodder of the terrorist to justify their continued actions in Iraq, among others. They can call us liars and point to these issues and call upon the rank and file to stand up against Imperialist US actions.. Very bad..
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
The UN resolution passed in November 2002 sent arms inspectors back into Iraq to verify Iraq's disarmament, the final requirement before lifting sanctions. The resolution says there will be "serious consequences" if there is a "material breach" of the resolution, but it specifically does not identify what those consequences should or might be. The resolution states that a finding of "material breach" requires both omissions or lies in Iraq's arms declaration and non-compliance with inspectors. It reserves for the Council as a whole, not any individual country, authority to make those determinations. When the resolution was passed, every Council ambassador other than Washington's made clear the resolution provides no authorization for war. Bush went to war without the consent of the U.N. Security Council. By going it alone, Bush acted without international law on our side.

Further, according to the United Nations Charter, no nation has the right to attack another. The only exceptions are 1) if the Security Council specifically authorizes a military strike, or 2) in self-defense. "Self-defense" is defined very narrowly. Article 51 of the Charter says a country has the right of self-defense only "IF an armed attack occurs." Iraq has not attacked the U.S., so self-defense does not apply.

And domestically, Bush vowed to work with the U.N. whom he promptly side-stepped.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to --

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
So Section 2 means nothing?!
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to --

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
So Section 2 means nothing?!
There I highlighted the part you are missing, it is VERY important to the meaning of the points you bolded.;) Nowhere does it say he must do something, it only "encourages" and "supports the efforts" of Bush to do so.

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well.. CAD.
The thread topic rests upon some interesting foundations. One of which is the support on a long term basis for whatever it is that gets set up. This support would in part rely on the legitimate precursor.
What you refer to is our right to self defense... I support this fully. I even think there may be wiggle room in all of this for the Administration to use. I only wish we'd have used unimpeachable evidence to support the action. It seems to me the absence of WMD and now the statements that SH had purged Iraq of WMD in the years before make questionable the underlying reasons for the invasion. This is bad... and the fodder of the terrorist to justify their continued actions in Iraq, among others. They can call us liars and point to these issues and call upon the rank and file to stand up against Imperialist US actions.. Very bad..
That very well may be(IYO;)) but it doesn't mean that the war was illegal by US, or UN standards.

We need to focus on reconstruction because even if the UN questioned the legality of the removal of Saddam, it surely wouldn't have the balls to follow through with anything;) PLUS Iraq still needs help. This quibbling doesn't aid in the reconstruction and IMO only seems to have the purpose of lowering the resolve of the American people to see this through.

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,360
4,075
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well.. CAD.
The thread topic rests upon some interesting foundations. One of which is the support on a long term basis for whatever it is that gets set up. This support would in part rely on the legitimate precursor.
What you refer to is our right to self defense... I support this fully. I even think there may be wiggle room in all of this for the Administration to use. I only wish we'd have used unimpeachable evidence to support the action. It seems to me the absence of WMD and now the statements that SH had purged Iraq of WMD in the years before make questionable the underlying reasons for the invasion. This is bad... and the fodder of the terrorist to justify their continued actions in Iraq, among others. They can call us liars and point to these issues and call upon the rank and file to stand up against Imperialist US actions.. Very bad..
That very well may be(IYO;)) but it doesn't mean that the war was illegal by US, or UN standards.

We need to focus on reconstruction because even if the UN questioned the legality of the removal of Saddam, it surely wouldn't have the balls to follow through with anything;) PLUS Iraq still needs help. This quibbling doesn't aid in the reconstruction and IMO only seems to have the purpose of lowering the resolve of the American people to see this through.

CkG
I bet if we put on a happy face in Nam we could have won there too. What if success means bankruptcy. The time may come when we'll have to declare Bush to be a moron and go home. You Republicans are big on personal responsibility and consequences, you know, I guess unless it's one of your own. Big time f*ck ups have big time price tags. One of the reasons you want to go with the guy who's actually elected. Things are a mess now but we might make it through. If Iraq turns to sh!t though and we need to go, guys like you will make it almost impossible to leave. Then it will be your stupid forced positivism that will keep us stuck like glue.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well.. CAD.
The thread topic rests upon some interesting foundations. One of which is the support on a long term basis for whatever it is that gets set up. This support would in part rely on the legitimate precursor.
What you refer to is our right to self defense... I support this fully. I even think there may be wiggle room in all of this for the Administration to use. I only wish we'd have used unimpeachable evidence to support the action. It seems to me the absence of WMD and now the statements that SH had purged Iraq of WMD in the years before make questionable the underlying reasons for the invasion. This is bad... and the fodder of the terrorist to justify their continued actions in Iraq, among others. They can call us liars and point to these issues and call upon the rank and file to stand up against Imperialist US actions.. Very bad..
That very well may be(IYO;)) but it doesn't mean that the war was illegal by US, or UN standards.

We need to focus on reconstruction because even if the UN questioned the legality of the removal of Saddam, it surely wouldn't have the balls to follow through with anything;) PLUS Iraq still needs help. This quibbling doesn't aid in the reconstruction and IMO only seems to have the purpose of lowering the resolve of the American people to see this through.

CkG
I bet if we put on a happy face in Nam we could have won there too. What if success means bankruptcy. The time may come when we'll have to declare Bush to be a moron and go home. You Republicans are big on personal responsibility and consequences, you know, I guess unless it's one of your own. Big time f*ck ups have big time price tags. One of the reasons you want to go with the guy who's actually elected. Things are a mess now but we might make it through. If Iraq turns to sh!t though and we need to go, guys like you will make it almost impossible to leave. Then it will be your stupid forced positivism that will keep us stuck like glue.
Just another example of banking one's success on the failure of Bush/Iraq.
So very enlightening moony. Oh, and just so you don't look like a complete moron - Bush was "actually elected".:D

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well.. CAD.
The thread topic rests upon some interesting foundations. One of which is the support on a long term basis for whatever it is that gets set up. This support would in part rely on the legitimate precursor.
What you refer to is our right to self defense... I support this fully. I even think there may be wiggle room in all of this for the Administration to use. I only wish we'd have used unimpeachable evidence to support the action. It seems to me the absence of WMD and now the statements that SH had purged Iraq of WMD in the years before make questionable the underlying reasons for the invasion. This is bad... and the fodder of the terrorist to justify their continued actions in Iraq, among others. They can call us liars and point to these issues and call upon the rank and file to stand up against Imperialist US actions.. Very bad..
That very well may be(IYO;)) but it doesn't mean that the war was illegal by US, or UN standards.

We need to focus on reconstruction because even if the UN questioned the legality of the removal of Saddam, it surely wouldn't have the balls to follow through with anything;) PLUS Iraq still needs help. This quibbling doesn't aid in the reconstruction and IMO only seems to have the purpose of lowering the resolve of the American people to see this through.

CkG
Well.. I guess I just disagree with your opinion... of course what you state is what the British and American folks have argued in defense of the invasion.. there exist another school of thought that find this explanation not dispositive of the issue.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,360
4,075
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well.. CAD.
The thread topic rests upon some interesting foundations. One of which is the support on a long term basis for whatever it is that gets set up. This support would in part rely on the legitimate precursor.
What you refer to is our right to self defense... I support this fully. I even think there may be wiggle room in all of this for the Administration to use. I only wish we'd have used unimpeachable evidence to support the action. It seems to me the absence of WMD and now the statements that SH had purged Iraq of WMD in the years before make questionable the underlying reasons for the invasion. This is bad... and the fodder of the terrorist to justify their continued actions in Iraq, among others. They can call us liars and point to these issues and call upon the rank and file to stand up against Imperialist US actions.. Very bad..
That very well may be(IYO;)) but it doesn't mean that the war was illegal by US, or UN standards.

We need to focus on reconstruction because even if the UN questioned the legality of the removal of Saddam, it surely wouldn't have the balls to follow through with anything;) PLUS Iraq still needs help. This quibbling doesn't aid in the reconstruction and IMO only seems to have the purpose of lowering the resolve of the American people to see this through.

CkG
I bet if we put on a happy face in Nam we could have won there too. What if success means bankruptcy. The time may come when we'll have to declare Bush to be a moron and go home. You Republicans are big on personal responsibility and consequences, you know, I guess unless it's one of your own. Big time f*ck ups have big time price tags. One of the reasons you want to go with the guy who's actually elected. Things are a mess now but we might make it through. If Iraq turns to sh!t though and we need to go, guys like you will make it almost impossible to leave. Then it will be your stupid forced positivism that will keep us stuck like glue.
Just another example of banking one's success on the failure of Bush/Iraq.
So very enlightening moony. Oh, and just so you don't look like a complete moron - Bush was "actually elected".:D

CkG
Hehe, you are profoundly negative in you so called positivity, Caddy. My post, which you described as banking on failure, was if fact optimistic. You are so conditioned to oppose what you think opposed, though, you fell backward on your ass. No problem though, I'm used to it.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well.. CAD.
The thread topic rests upon some interesting foundations. One of which is the support on a long term basis for whatever it is that gets set up. This support would in part rely on the legitimate precursor.
What you refer to is our right to self defense... I support this fully. I even think there may be wiggle room in all of this for the Administration to use. I only wish we'd have used unimpeachable evidence to support the action. It seems to me the absence of WMD and now the statements that SH had purged Iraq of WMD in the years before make questionable the underlying reasons for the invasion. This is bad... and the fodder of the terrorist to justify their continued actions in Iraq, among others. They can call us liars and point to these issues and call upon the rank and file to stand up against Imperialist US actions.. Very bad..
That very well may be(IYO;)) but it doesn't mean that the war was illegal by US, or UN standards.

We need to focus on reconstruction because even if the UN questioned the legality of the removal of Saddam, it surely wouldn't have the balls to follow through with anything;) PLUS Iraq still needs help. This quibbling doesn't aid in the reconstruction and IMO only seems to have the purpose of lowering the resolve of the American people to see this through.

CkG
I bet if we put on a happy face in Nam we could have won there too. What if success means bankruptcy. The time may come when we'll have to declare Bush to be a moron and go home. You Republicans are big on personal responsibility and consequences, you know, I guess unless it's one of your own. Big time f*ck ups have big time price tags. One of the reasons you want to go with the guy who's actually elected. Things are a mess now but we might make it through. If Iraq turns to sh!t though and we need to go, guys like you will make it almost impossible to leave. Then it will be your stupid forced positivism that will keep us stuck like glue.
Just another example of banking one's success on the failure of Bush/Iraq.
So very enlightening moony. Oh, and just so you don't look like a complete moron - Bush was "actually elected".:D

CkG
Hehe, you are profoundly negative in you so called positivity, Caddy. My post, which you described as banking on failure, was if fact optimistic. You are so conditioned to oppose what you think opposed, though, you fell backward on your ass. No problem though, I'm used to it.
It was an observation. It was also an attempt at helping your image as "enlightened". You know what can happen to that image if you keep spreading falacies.;) My eternal optomism that you will one day wake up the realities of life is unshaken.:) Your "optimism" was not shown in your spew, and your post was a perfect example of positioning ones self for prosperity because of another's failure.

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,360
4,075
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well.. CAD.
The thread topic rests upon some interesting foundations. One of which is the support on a long term basis for whatever it is that gets set up. This support would in part rely on the legitimate precursor.
What you refer to is our right to self defense... I support this fully. I even think there may be wiggle room in all of this for the Administration to use. I only wish we'd have used unimpeachable evidence to support the action. It seems to me the absence of WMD and now the statements that SH had purged Iraq of WMD in the years before make questionable the underlying reasons for the invasion. This is bad... and the fodder of the terrorist to justify their continued actions in Iraq, among others. They can call us liars and point to these issues and call upon the rank and file to stand up against Imperialist US actions.. Very bad..
That very well may be(IYO;)) but it doesn't mean that the war was illegal by US, or UN standards.

We need to focus on reconstruction because even if the UN questioned the legality of the removal of Saddam, it surely wouldn't have the balls to follow through with anything;) PLUS Iraq still needs help. This quibbling doesn't aid in the reconstruction and IMO only seems to have the purpose of lowering the resolve of the American people to see this through.

CkG
I bet if we put on a happy face in Nam we could have won there too. What if success means bankruptcy. The time may come when we'll have to declare Bush to be a moron and go home. You Republicans are big on personal responsibility and consequences, you know, I guess unless it's one of your own. Big time f*ck ups have big time price tags. One of the reasons you want to go with the guy who's actually elected. Things are a mess now but we might make it through. If Iraq turns to sh!t though and we need to go, guys like you will make it almost impossible to leave. Then it will be your stupid forced positivism that will keep us stuck like glue.
Just another example of banking one's success on the failure of Bush/Iraq.
So very enlightening moony. Oh, and just so you don't look like a complete moron - Bush was "actually elected".:D

CkG
Hehe, you are profoundly negative in you so called positivity, Caddy. My post, which you described as banking on failure, was if fact optimistic. You are so conditioned to oppose what you think opposed, though, you fell backward on your ass. No problem though, I'm used to it.
It was an observation. It was also an attempt at helping your image as "enlightened". You know what can happen to that image if you keep spreading falacies.;) My eternal optomism that you will one day wake up the realities of life is unshaken.:) Your "optimism" was not shown in your spew, and your post was a perfect example of positioning ones self for prosperity because of another's failure.

CkG
No, you are just deaf dumb blind and stupid. Otherwise though, you're a bit negative about things.

 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well.. CAD.
The thread topic rests upon some interesting foundations. One of which is the support on a long term basis for whatever it is that gets set up. This support would in part rely on the legitimate precursor.
What you refer to is our right to self defense... I support this fully. I even think there may be wiggle room in all of this for the Administration to use. I only wish we'd have used unimpeachable evidence to support the action. It seems to me the absence of WMD and now the statements that SH had purged Iraq of WMD in the years before make questionable the underlying reasons for the invasion. This is bad... and the fodder of the terrorist to justify their continued actions in Iraq, among others. They can call us liars and point to these issues and call upon the rank and file to stand up against Imperialist US actions.. Very bad..
That very well may be(IYO;)) but it doesn't mean that the war was illegal by US, or UN standards.

We need to focus on reconstruction because even if the UN questioned the legality of the removal of Saddam, it surely wouldn't have the balls to follow through with anything;) PLUS Iraq still needs help. This quibbling doesn't aid in the reconstruction and IMO only seems to have the purpose of lowering the resolve of the American people to see this through.

CkG
I bet if we put on a happy face in Nam we could have won there too. What if success means bankruptcy. The time may come when we'll have to declare Bush to be a moron and go home. You Republicans are big on personal responsibility and consequences, you know, I guess unless it's one of your own. Big time f*ck ups have big time price tags. One of the reasons you want to go with the guy who's actually elected. Things are a mess now but we might make it through. If Iraq turns to sh!t though and we need to go, guys like you will make it almost impossible to leave. Then it will be your stupid forced positivism that will keep us stuck like glue.
Just another example of banking one's success on the failure of Bush/Iraq.
So very enlightening moony. Oh, and just so you don't look like a complete moron - Bush was "actually elected".:D

CkG
Hehe, you are profoundly negative in you so called positivity, Caddy. My post, which you described as banking on failure, was if fact optimistic. You are so conditioned to oppose what you think opposed, though, you fell backward on your ass. No problem though, I'm used to it.
It was an observation. It was also an attempt at helping your image as "enlightened". You know what can happen to that image if you keep spreading falacies.;) My eternal optomism that you will one day wake up the realities of life is unshaken.:) Your "optimism" was not shown in your spew, and your post was a perfect example of positioning ones self for prosperity because of another's failure.

CkG
No, you are just deaf dumb blind and stupid. Otherwise though, you're a bit negative about things.
And you are positive about things moonie :p
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well.. CAD.
The thread topic rests upon some interesting foundations. One of which is the support on a long term basis for whatever it is that gets set up. This support would in part rely on the legitimate precursor.
What you refer to is our right to self defense... I support this fully. I even think there may be wiggle room in all of this for the Administration to use. I only wish we'd have used unimpeachable evidence to support the action. It seems to me the absence of WMD and now the statements that SH had purged Iraq of WMD in the years before make questionable the underlying reasons for the invasion. This is bad... and the fodder of the terrorist to justify their continued actions in Iraq, among others. They can call us liars and point to these issues and call upon the rank and file to stand up against Imperialist US actions.. Very bad..
That very well may be(IYO;)) but it doesn't mean that the war was illegal by US, or UN standards.

We need to focus on reconstruction because even if the UN questioned the legality of the removal of Saddam, it surely wouldn't have the balls to follow through with anything;) PLUS Iraq still needs help. This quibbling doesn't aid in the reconstruction and IMO only seems to have the purpose of lowering the resolve of the American people to see this through.

CkG
I bet if we put on a happy face in Nam we could have won there too. What if success means bankruptcy. The time may come when we'll have to declare Bush to be a moron and go home. You Republicans are big on personal responsibility and consequences, you know, I guess unless it's one of your own. Big time f*ck ups have big time price tags. One of the reasons you want to go with the guy who's actually elected. Things are a mess now but we might make it through. If Iraq turns to sh!t though and we need to go, guys like you will make it almost impossible to leave. Then it will be your stupid forced positivism that will keep us stuck like glue.
Just another example of banking one's success on the failure of Bush/Iraq.
So very enlightening moony. Oh, and just so you don't look like a complete moron - Bush was "actually elected".:D

CkG
Hehe, you are profoundly negative in you so called positivity, Caddy. My post, which you described as banking on failure, was if fact optimistic. You are so conditioned to oppose what you think opposed, though, you fell backward on your ass. No problem though, I'm used to it.
It was an observation. It was also an attempt at helping your image as "enlightened". You know what can happen to that image if you keep spreading falacies.;) My eternal optomism that you will one day wake up the realities of life is unshaken.:) Your "optimism" was not shown in your spew, and your post was a perfect example of positioning ones self for prosperity because of another's failure.

CkG
No, you are just deaf dumb blind and stupid. Otherwise though, you're a bit negative about things.
I expected a much more "enlightened" response from you moony....or atleast a poem:D Guess I'll have to wait.

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,360
4,075
126
To heal his heart of long-time pain
One day Prince Love for to travel was fain
With Ministers Mind and Sense.
Now what to thee most strange may be ?'
Quoth Mind and Sense. 'All things above,
One curious thing I first would see,
Hell,' quoth Love.
"Then Mind rode in and Sense rode out
They searched the ways of man about.
First frightfully groaneth Sense,
" 'T is here, 't is here,' and spurreth in fear
To the top of the hill that hangeth above
And plucketh the Prince : ' Come, come, 't is here.'
'Where?' quoth Love."
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
And we can't just go around changing other Government leaders just because the US doesn't like them, or can't manipulate/control them.

I hope to hell the Bush Regime gets a dose of it's own medicine--a few countries like Russia/China/NK band it's military together and come on over here to Washington to take out the World's most biggest & feared Weapon of Mass Destruction: the Bush Regime.

Our Government right now sure needs an aenema.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
To heal his heart of long-time pain
One day Prince Love for to travel was fain
With Ministers Mind and Sense.
Now what to thee most strange may be ?'
Quoth Mind and Sense. 'All things above,
One curious thing I first would see,
Hell,' quoth Love.
"Then Mind rode in and Sense rode out
They searched the ways of man about.
First frightfully groaneth Sense,
" 'T is here, 't is here,' and spurreth in fear
To the top of the hill that hangeth above
And plucketh the Prince : ' Come, come, 't is here.'
'Where?' quoth Love."
Ahhh.... There it is. :D

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Hey Cad - how 'bout a little Rummy Poetry? Ought to lighten the mood a bit in here :p

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

?Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Clarity
I think what you'll find,
I think what you'll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.

And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.

?Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

Happenings
You're going to be told lots of things.
You get told things every day that don't happen.

It doesn't seem to bother people, they don't?
It's printed in the press.
The world thinks all these things happen.
They never happened.

Everyone's so eager to get the story
Before in fact the story's there
That the world is constantly being fed
Things that haven't happened.

All I can tell you is,
It hasn't happened.
It's going to happen.

?Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
And we can't just go around changing other Government leaders just because the US doesn't like them, or can't manipulate/control them.

I hope to hell the Bush Regime gets a dose of it's own medicine--a few countries like Russia/China/NK band it's military together and come on over here to Washington to take out the World's most biggest & feared Weapon of Mass Destruction: the Bush Regime.

Our Government right now sure needs an aenema.
Did you forget that Clinton supported Regime change in Iraq? Hmmmm. Your blindness and ignorance shows.

CkG
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
I must chime in with a little Bush poem.....

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
by George W. Bush

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.

Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?

They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.

Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
And we can't just go around changing other Government leaders just because the US doesn't like them, or can't manipulate/control them.

I hope to hell the Bush Regime gets a dose of it's own medicine--a few countries like Russia/China/NK band it's military together and come on over here to Washington to take out the World's most biggest & feared Weapon of Mass Destruction: the Bush Regime.

Our Government right now sure needs an aenema.
Did you forget that Clinton supported Regime change in Iraq? Hmmmm. Your blindness and ignorance shows.

CkG
Why are you bringing up Clinton? Again? Who cares what Clinton supports?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
press conference...April 10

Q Ari, part of the reason for the war was WMD. Now, well into the war, WMD has not been found. The American public is going to the television every morning, listening to the radio every morning, trying to find out if, indeed, WMD was found. Does the administration feel there's some awkwardness right now with these statements of they're professionals at hiding, and we know it's there? I mean, is there some sort of awkwardness about the fact that this has not been found as of yet?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. We know Saddam Hussein is there, but we haven't found him yet, either. The fact of the matter is we are still in a war, and not everything about the war is yet known. But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY