How is Bush resposible for this?

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
<< He had his final chance and blew it. The game was effectively over on 9/12/2001.>>

Are you saying his final chance was before 9/12/2001?

No - the games were over after 9/11. It was time to put up or shut-up. He(saddam) chose to be shut-up.

CkG

Are you saying that if 9/11 hadn't have happened, we might not have gone to war?

9/11 showed us how dangerous outlaw regimes/failed states were. We couldn't take the chances any more. Hussein already had hundreds of bad marks against him. We took his threats more seriously after 9/11. Got it?

Are you saying that if 9/11 hadn't have happened, we might not have gone to war?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
<< He had his final chance and blew it. The game was effectively over on 9/12/2001.>>

Are you saying his final chance was before 9/12/2001?

No - the games were over after 9/11. It was time to put up or shut-up. He(saddam) chose to be shut-up.

CkG

Are you saying that if 9/11 hadn't have happened, we might not have gone to war?

9/11 showed us how dangerous outlaw regimes/failed states were. We couldn't take the chances any more. Hussein already had hundreds of bad marks against him. We took his threats more seriously after 9/11. Got it?

Are you saying that if 9/11 hadn't have happened, we might not have gone to war?

No, not really. Saddam was a threat before 9/11 and continued to be after. If you want to continue this "are you saying..." game post after post I'm done. It has it's place but the constant suppositions get tedious. If you have something to add then by all means say it.🙂

CkG

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
rchiu:

Of course there are going to be civilian casualties during a war. The way you worded it though, sounded like you were saying that we were purposely targeting those civilians. It sucks that several thousand civilians died but how many more would have died had Saddam stayed in power and the sanctions stayed in place?

The majority of Iraqi military did lay down their weapons and surrender to us. Most of the ones remaining were there to defend Saddam and his regime.

Saddam DID NOT represent the Sunni Muslims in Iraq. Hell he only started being religious after Desert Storm. Most saw Saddam for what he really was. I will be surprised how many supported him? Show me some numbers. He stayed in power by using Stalinist tactics.

The UN wasn't really doing its job enforcing its rules. Iraq violated its obligations so it faced the serious consequences talked about in Resolution 1441.

No, I did not say we purposely targeted civilians. I said civilian casualty is part of the war, and if a country started a war, civilian casualty is gonna be part of it and the country is to blame for the casualty. There is no such thing as, well we didn't targeted them so it ain't our fault.

Again, tell me how you know they are defending Saddam or their country or their way of life? For example, even if you are so unhappy about your government, let's say China invaded USA and say to you that all they wanted was to help you change your government, tell me you won't pickup your gun and fight for your country. When foreigner invades your country, no matter how unhappy you are about the present government, you fight because your country is above the government. We don't know how many Iraqi military were killed, all we can guess if 6000+ civilian died when missiles and guns were not aiming at them, there has to be be many more Iraqi military casualty when missiles and guns were aiming at them.

We can argue all day how many people supported Hussien, I am sure there are enough people that supported him to allow him survive politically, but you are right too that he had to rule with iron fist. But no matter what, the bottom line is this: We are talking about Iraqi people's politic and way of life, and it is up to them to fight for their freedom if they feel it is that important to them.

Go read resolution 1441, it says only UN has the authority to interpret if Iraq violated the resolution, and only UN has the authority to decide what action to take. UN did not determine if Iraq violated the obligation stated in resolution 1441 and Iraq was cooperating with UN on inspection. Don't cite resolution 1441 if you or Bush Admin cannot abide by what is stated in 1441.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
<< He had his final chance and blew it. The game was effectively over on 9/12/2001.>>

Are you saying his final chance was before 9/12/2001?

No - the games were over after 9/11. It was time to put up or shut-up. He(saddam) chose to be shut-up.

CkG

Are you saying that if 9/11 hadn't have happened, we might not have gone to war?

9/11 showed us how dangerous outlaw regimes/failed states were. We couldn't take the chances any more. Hussein already had hundreds of bad marks against him. We took his threats more seriously after 9/11. Got it?

Are you saying that if 9/11 hadn't have happened, we might not have gone to war?

No, not really. Saddam was a threat before 9/11 and continued to be after. If you want to continue this "are you saying..." game post after post I'm done. It has it's place but the constant suppositions get tedious. If you have something to add then by all means say it.🙂

CkG

So, IYO, 9/11 had no bearing on the fact that we went to war, right?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Gaard
It was understood by most of the Security Council that 'serious consequences' meant war. I believe even France understood that. What else could it have meant? Sanctions? Those were kind of already in place.

They understood it meant war? Then why were we considering going back to the SC for another resolution (until we realized that it would be vetoed)? After all, 1441 already said 'serious consequences'...why bother going back? Was there anything written that said everyone understood what 'serious consequences' meant? (There must've been, otherwise you wouldn't make such claims, correct?)



Dari - If the reason that we went to war was because we got Bush in office, that negates the 'last straw' theory, right?

I don't believe there was anything written that said that they understood that. I'm pretty sure it was only verbal. I'll have to look it up (might take a while).

 

[povertystruck]

This is a really silly thread. Bush went to war for reasons other than national security. So I have a silly post.


U.S.: "Iraq has an agressive nuclear plan"

Iraq: "uhhh...no we don't"

N.K.: "We have a nuclear plan"

C.I.A. : "Mr. Bush their right, they do, and they have long range missiles capable of hitting......"

Bush: "Well at least they were honest, unlike Saddam. Honesty is the best policy. I want some info prepared for the press release when I announce that we are going to war, give some reasons. Try to link the 9/11 terrorists with Iraq, and plenty of WMD

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: povertystruck
This is a really silly thread. Bush went to war for reasons other than national security. So I have a silly post.


U.S.: "Iraq has an agressive nuclear plan"

Iraq: "uhhh...no we don't"

N.K.: "We have a nuclear plan"

C.I.A. : "Mr. Bush their right, they do, and they have long range missiles capable of hitting......"

Bush: "Well at least they were honest, unlike Saddam. Honesty is the best policy. I want some info prepared for the press release when I announce that we are going to war, give some reasons. Try to link the 9/11 terrorists with Iraq, and plenty of WMD

Oh, you can bet that 9/11 will be mentioned in this mid-September announcement that is planned. Will they try to link it or just use the sypmathy card? I don't know. But I'm fairly certain that it will be mentioned.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Gaard:

This is what I found on the understanding that 'serious consequences' meant war:

And that resolution is very important because everybody who signed up for that resolution, all 15 nations, to include France, said he is in material breach, we're giving him one last chance, the inspectors help him take that one last chance, and it if he doesn't comply, then serious consequences will follow. And those serious consequences, everybody who signed up, everybody who voted for that resolution, understood that serious consequences meant the likelihood of war.

Powel interview to TF-1 Television.

I'll see what else I can find.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Go read resolution 1441, it says only UN has the authority to interpret if Iraq violated the resolution, and only UN has the authority to decide what action to take. UN did not determine if Iraq violated the obligation stated in resolution 1441 and Iraq was cooperating with UN on inspection. Don't cite resolution 1441 if you or Bush Admin cannot abide by what is stated in 1441.

"Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions..."
"one final opportunity..."
"serious consequences..."
I ask you - what did they mean? War? What else does "final" and/or "serious consequences" mean?

Gaard - You are like my 4 year old with the repeated questions and suppositions. I told you once and that should be enough. Now say what you want to say or STFU(kindly ofcourse😉) Now just to show that I'll work with you if you wish to have an intelligent conversation or debate, the answer to your question is - No
🙂

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Thanks little guy.

Edit: Of course, it'd be better to have someone say "yeah, I knew what it meant" than to have someone say "yeah, they knew what it meant". Follow me?

 

[Gaard]

<<I'll work with you if you wish to have an intelligent conversation or debate, the answer to your question is - No >>

See, was that so hard?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Thanks little guy.

Edit: Of course, it'd be better to have someone say "yeah, I knew what it meant" than to have someone say "yeah, they knew what it meant". Follow me?

I agree. It would also be better to have found something that said "They understood that that serious consequences meant war" instead of him saying they understood it meant the likelihood of war.

Damn politicians.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
rchiu:

Of course there are going to be civilian casualties during a war. The way you worded it though, sounded like you were saying that we were purposely targeting those civilians. It sucks that several thousand civilians died but how many more would have died had Saddam stayed in power and the sanctions stayed in place?

The majority of Iraqi military did lay down their weapons and surrender to us. Most of the ones remaining were there to defend Saddam and his regime.

Saddam DID NOT represent the Sunni Muslims in Iraq. Hell he only started being religious after Desert Storm. Most saw Saddam for what he really was. I will be surprised how many supported him? Show me some numbers. He stayed in power by using Stalinist tactics.

The UN wasn't really doing its job enforcing its rules. Iraq violated its obligations so it faced the serious consequences talked about in Resolution 1441.

No, I did not say we purposely targeted civilians. I said civilian casualty is part of the war, and if a country started a war, civilian casualty is gonna be part of it and the country is to blame for the casualty. There is no such thing as, well we didn't targeted them so it ain't our fault.

Again, tell me how you know they are defending Saddam or their country or their way of life? For example, even if you are so unhappy about your government, let's say China invaded USA and say to you that all they wanted was to help you change your government, tell me you won't pickup your gun and fight for your country. When foreigner invades your country, no matter how unhappy you are about the present government, you fight because your country is above the government. We don't know how many Iraqi military were killed, all we can guess if 6000+ civilian died when missiles and guns were not aiming at them, there has to be be many more Iraqi military casualty when missiles and guns were aiming at them.

We can argue all day how many people supported Hussien, I am sure there are enough people that supported him to allow him survive politically, but you are right too that he had to rule with iron fist. But no matter what, the bottom line is this: We are talking about Iraqi people's politic and way of life, and it is up to them to fight for their freedom if they feel it is that important to them.

Go read resolution 1441, it says only UN has the authority to interpret if Iraq violated the resolution, and only UN has the authority to decide what action to take. UN did not determine if Iraq violated the obligation stated in resolution 1441 and Iraq was cooperating with UN on inspection. Don't cite resolution 1441 if you or Bush Admin cannot abide by what is stated in 1441.

And I want to remind you again, that Bush directly order the invasion and the killing of 6000+ civilian

To me that sounded like you were saying that Bush directly ordered the killing of 6000+ civilians. I interpreted that wrong I guess.

How do you know they were defending their country and not Saddam? You probably have about as many facts as I do. If I was in their position I sure wouldn't fight. Why would I help a brutal dictator stay in power? If somebody like Saddam was ruling this country and Canada (definitely not China) came down with their tank and occupied us, I would have no problem with that. I would however, be very critical of how the occupation is going.

How exactly could they have fought for their freedom if Saddam ruled the country with an iron fist? Not too many civilians had the means to take a stand. It's not like everybody was walking around with AK-47s.

I don't see where in Resolution 1441 it says only the UN could decide when Iraq was violating the resolution. I mean that's a given but I don't see it anywhere in the document. I don't recall Iraq ever accounting for all of its chemical and biological weapons and how (if) they were disposed of.