Doomed for failure in Iraq

[Tab]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

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?

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.

He was contained, but how long before who couldn't be contained?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

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?

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.

Would you say Iraq was contained better or worse than North Korea before the war?

 

[Zebo]

He was contained, but how long before who couldn't be contained?

What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying a little piss ant country like IRAQ ever posed a threat to USA? Soveit Russia with 10000 nukes pointing at us was scared in thier boots Iraq with nothing was terrified.

 

[Moonbeam]

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?
-------------------
Goodie Two Shoes and the Rose Colored Lenses. It's sad you can only play one note, Caddy. I fear some horror must await you if you ever come down to earth. You are like a horse with blinders.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

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?

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.

Would you say Iraq was contained better or worse than North Korea before the war?

I would say Iraq was contained sufficiently to prevent Saddam from creating havoc. I would say that NK wasn't even thought of by comparison. Now if you would like to discuss North Korea, I would be glad to oblige. I would say that I agree with you in some of the other threads, that North Korea is it's own problem, and solutions that work in one situation may not in another.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

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?

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.

Would you say Iraq was contained better or worse than North Korea before the war?

I would say Iraq was contained sufficiently to prevent Saddam from creating havoc. I would say that NK wasn't even thought of by comparison. Now if you would like to discuss North Korea, I would be glad to oblige. I would say that I agree with you in some of the other threads, that North Korea is it's own problem, and solutions that work in one situation may not in another.

Actually I think they are quite related. We have worked containig NK for the past 50 years and they still managed to get nukes.
Iraq given the time would be the same problem that NK is today.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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?
-------------------
Goodie Two Shoes and the Rose Colored Lenses. It's sad you can only play one note, Caddy. I fear some horror must await you if you ever come down to earth. You are like a horse with blinders.

I bet Cad's a big fan of "get rich quick" shemes on late night infomertials. No can we are not "dream stealers" it's called reality... something which this adminsitration nor you know anything about. Well maybe they do and simply lied thier way to the american people in there some bought it but I never did.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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?
-------------------
Goodie Two Shoes and the Rose Colored Lenses. It's sad you can only play one note, Caddy. I fear some horror must await you if you ever come down to earth. You are like a horse with blinders.

/me runs outside and falls to the ground.




OUCH!!!


/me runs back to this thread.

Oh thanks Professor Celestial-reflector Lumens. Whatever would I do without your insight to keep me grounded in reality? Please oh Please help with these blinders as I think there is a young filly(not philly:Q) I wish to frolic with.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Actually I think they are quite related. We have worked containig NK for the past 50 years and they still managed to get nukes.
Iraq given the time would be the same problem that NK is today.
--------------------
Kill them because I can see the future.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Actually I think they are quite related. We have worked containig NK for the past 50 years and they still managed to get nukes.
Iraq given the time would be the same problem that NK is today.
--------------------
Kill them because I can see the future.

Careful there, Caddy, rolling your eyes is kind of negative. Look on my good side. Feel the love.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

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?

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.

Would you say Iraq was contained better or worse than North Korea before the war?

I would say Iraq was contained sufficiently to prevent Saddam from creating havoc. I would say that NK wasn't even thought of by comparison. Now if you would like to discuss North Korea, I would be glad to oblige. I would say that I agree with you in some of the other threads, that North Korea is it's own problem, and solutions that work in one situation may not in another.

Actually I think they are quite related. We have worked containig NK for the past 50 years and they still managed to get nukes.
Iraq given the time would be the same problem that NK is today.

North Korea has a large army sitting on it's southern border. That has been the extent of our activity there. Perhaps you have evidence I have missed that NK was being as closely monitored as Iraq. No, all evidence, even after the war suggests that Saddam was being held in check. North Korea is not the same. You have said so yourself, and I am not mistaken about that. The NK situation SHOULD have been taken more seriously years ago, but there was no serious desire to attempt significant diplomatic relations with NK. I hold the Clinton administration responsible for that error, but in fact since the DMZ was set up, NK could go starve for all anyone cared, and so it did.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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.

CkG

Oh.. we've changed the reasons for invading Iraq from... WMD and the Iraqi intent to use them in the immediate future... as contained in the House Joint Res signed by Bush in Oct '02 and in the justification for not following UN protocall and invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter.. to something new? Something we can justify... like they had two trailer trucks used for weather balloons... which could have carried diseased parrots to our borders..?

 

[Moonbeam]

Diseased parrots? Are those Ditto Heads?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmithNorth Korea has a large army sitting on it's southern border. That has been the extent of our activity there. Perhaps you have evidence I have missed that NK was being as closely monitored as Iraq. No, all evidence, even after the war suggests that Saddam was being held in check. North Korea is not the same. You have said so yourself, and I am not mistaken about that. The NK situation SHOULD have been taken more seriously years ago, but there was no serious desire to attempt significant diplomatic relations with NK. I hold the Clinton administration responsible for that error, but in fact since the DMZ was set up, NK could go starve for all anyone cared, and so it did.

Actually you are mistaken. I fully thought the containment of both Iraq and NK as being failed policy. I beleive further containing Iraq would only result in Iraq developing Nukes and becoming the same international problem as NK(a rougue state with nukes).

 

[Moonbeam]

Actually you are mistaken. I fully thought the containment of both Iraq and NK as being failed policy. I beleive further containing Iraq would only result in Iraq developing Nukes and becoming the same international problem as NK(a rougue state with nukes).
---------------------
For the sake of your opinion, people ahve and continue to die. You could maybe do with a little modesty.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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 circumstance 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.

CkG

Oh.. we've changed the reasons for invading Iraq from... WMD and the Iraqi intent to use them in the immediate future... as contained in the House Joint Res signed by Bush in Oct '02 and in the justification for not following UN protocol and invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter.. to something new? Something we can justify... like they had two trailer trucks used for weather balloons... which could have carried diseased parrots to our borders..?

READ.

It's all there - and my position from day one has been in line with that. Iraq should have been freed from Saddam a long time ago due to his willing defiance of the cease-fire terms he agreed to. That position is strengthened by the repeated Resolutions concerning Iraq.

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Actually you are mistaken. I fully thought the containment of both Iraq and NK as being failed policy. I beleive further containing Iraq would only result in Iraq developing Nukes and becoming the same international problem as NK(a rougue state with nukes).
---------------------
For the sake of your opinion, people ahve and continue to die. You could maybe do with a little modesty.

Are you talking about Iraq or NK?

 

[Moonbeam]

Iraq

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Iraq

Well folks are dieing in NK to. Far fewer are dieing in Iraq today than a year ago. But I know you are ready for Iraq to become a failure.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Iraq

Well folks are dieing in NK to. Far fewer are dieing in Iraq today than a year ago. But I know you are ready for Iraq to become a failure.

You know a lot of stuff you don't know.

 

[MovingTarget]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be directed more towards the present situation in Iraq, or at least towards what might happen in the future? Yeah, we succeeded in the invasion. What will happen now? What course of action should we take? Please, we've beaten the whole "was this war justified/legal?" thing to death time and time again. Lets please move on from that, at least in this thread. We have others for that.

 

[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 " ?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Wasn't this thread supposed to be directed more towards the present situation in Iraq, or at least towards what might happen in the future? Yeah, we succeeded in the invasion. What will happen now? What course of action should we take? Please, we've beaten the whole "was this war justified/legal?" thing to death time and time again. Lets please move on from that, at least in this thread. We have others for that.

I'll have to agree with you on that one. Its not like anyone can do anything about it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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 " ?

Forever, if need be. Impatient? Hit the gym and work it off, don't start a war.

 

[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.