Is this what you voted for when you voted Bush?

[BBond]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: BBond
What was the pressing, unavoidable reason for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003???

What was the need to avoid dealing with finality with a dictator who's flouting the mandates of the UN on several occasions?

How is it unprovoked considering all the UN resolutions I just linked to?

Why do you continue to call the WMD concerns a lie even though we've been over the fact everyone did believe they existed a good dozen times by now?

The dictator was rendered harmless to the international community by a dozen years of sanctions. Dealing with Saddam "with finality" has produced more harm than his supposed refusal to honor the mandates of the UN. And the UN Security Council DID NOT condone, support, or approve the Bush administration's baseless attack on Iraq.

The UN resolutions you linked DID NOT give approval for the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. based on flimsy evidence hyped by Bush to justify an illegal, unprovoked, illegitimate attack.

THE WMD WHICH BUSH CLAIMED IRAQ POSSESSED THROUGH HIS USE OF SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE, MUCH OF WHICH WAS PROVEN FALSE AT THE VERY TIME HE USED IT, WAS NEVER BELIEVED TO EXIST BY "EVERYONE," AND INDEED WAS DECRIED AS FALSE BY THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS AS THEY CONDUCTED FRUITLESS SEARCHES OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS WHICH THEY WERE FORCED TO ABANDON WHEN BUSH DECIDED TO INVADE IRAQ WITHOUT UN SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. BUSH AND BLAIR WERE THE ONLY TWO "LEADERS" WHO BELIEVED THEIR OWN LIES. STOP RE-WRITING HISTORY AND STOP TRYING TO CONFER LEGITIMACY ON AN INVASION THAT IS CLEARLY THE PRODUCT OF LIES. THERE HAS BEEN NO WMD FOUND IN IRAQ. THERE WAS NO WMD IN IRAQ.

AGAIN, WHAT WAS THE PRESSING, UNAVOIDABLE REASON FOR THE UNPROVOKED INVASION OF IRAQ ON MARCH 19, 2003???

WHAT WAS THE REASON BUSH HAD TO INVADE IRAQ ON THAT DATE?

WHAT WAS THE THREAT?

WHERE IS THE WMD???

WHY ALL THIS CARNAGE???

THE U.S. HAS LOST ALL LEGITIMACY IN THE EYES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY BECAUSE BUSH LIED. HE SELECTED INTELLIGENCE TO JUSTIFY AN UNPROVOKED INVASION OF IRAQ AND NOW, AS YOU FOOLISHLY, STUBBORNLY INSIST OTHERWISE, THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RECOGNIZES THE ENTIRE IRAQ FIASCO AS A PRODUCT OF BUSH'S LIES AND THE COMPLICITY OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE TOO IGNORANT TO ADMIT THE TRUTH.

BUSH LIED. IRAQ IS A NATION OF CORPSES AND RUBBLE. AND YOU RE-WRITE HISTORY TO DEFEND THE DEATH, DESTRUCTION, AND THE LIARS.

WHAT A DISGRACE.

And there's nothing you can do about it. Sad isn't it?

Sad indeed.

There may be nothing I can do about it, but I don't have to be complicit in it, and I don't have to accept the lies as it seems so many Americans are so willing to do.

 

[dannybin1742]

I can better admire someone who is true to his goals than someone who flounders around to represent the popular opinion of the moment

well i see the bush advertising dollars went to good use in spreading lies and fear

Not only that. The unemployment rate in the EU is averaging 9.0%

i beleive is because they report actual unemployment, not just people looking for jobs

too many un-informed people run around with headline statistics and don't realise whats not reported, and as with no courses in basic economics dont' realise the way the US reports unemployment is based on the # of people looking for work, not those that can physically work.


there was very nice article on this about 5 or 6 months back and if you figure in all the things that are LEFT OUT of the unemployment figures, the real US unemployment is really between 10-12%

the jobs that have been created pay less, and are mostly goverment jobs, go read the figures they don't lie

also on WMD its been excuse after excuse after excuse about why they have not found them, and where they went

his suspicion that the destruction of a number of WMD was unaccounted for.

i find this funny, so by this rational, if a citizen has three guns with no liscences for them, and the police knew he them 10 year ago, but now ithey are gone and they fear that the person will commit murder, they could break down his door arrest him, and when they had no compulsory evidence, they could simply charge him with the crime of intent to kill and their evidence would be....you guessed it "the guns were UNACCOUNTED FOR, he was going to kill someone"

no one is arguing sadam was bad, not even liberals will say he was not bad, but was he really a threat? but ask yourself, how many other leaders of nations are bad, i can name a few countries, how about saudi arabia, iran, liberia... care to discuss why we didn't attack them?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: BBond
The dictator was rendered harmless to the international community by a dozen years of sanctions. Dealing with Saddam "with finality" has produced more harm than his supposed refusal to honor the mandates of the UN. And the UN Security Council DID NOT condone, support, or approve the Bush administration's baseless attack on Iraq.

The UN resolutions you linked DID NOT give approval for the invasion of Iraq

Ah, yes. Harmless but still sporting one of the top ten largest standing armies in the world. Harmless because he was not in a position to have time on his side when a key tenet of his regime became the celebration of damage upon the U.S. Harmless to us, so you say - though of course, perhaps not so harmless to his own citizens. But what do they matter? You've got a President you need to bash!

Resolution 707 requires that the Government of Iraq forthwith comply fully and without delay with all its international obligations, including those set out in the present resolution, in resolution 687 (1991), in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968 and its safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Perhaps you wish to re-read it?

The WMD which Bush claimed Iraq possessed through his use of selective intelligence, much of which was proven false at the very time he used it, was never believed to exist by "everyone," and indeed was decried as false by the weapons inspectors as they conducted fruitless searches over a period of months which they were forced to abandon when bush decided to invade iraq without UN Security Council approval. Bush and Blair were the only two "leaders" who believed their own lies.

I've gone ahead and changed the case of your post to regular sentence form so you can be taken at only the level of ridiculousness that you normally operate at.

Yet again, we try to get you the grasp a piece of what the Executive Director of the weapons search programme under the UN said before the war:

Dr. Blix: Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

If there is little evidence that the weapons have been destroyed, it's already been ten years, and a number of weapons inspectors have pronounced Iraq an 'immediate danger', why, perhaps Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair were on to something? In contrast you seem to believe that the weapons were destroyed, but in sort of overnight magic trick. It would be so neat if we could export that technology from the Iraqis. We could make 1,000 tons of refuse disappear just like they did with WMD!

What was the reason Bush had to invade Iraq on that date?

What was the threat?

On that date specifically? Well, it was probably good from a military point of view - being as it was not the hottest time of year in that region making it easier on U.S. and British soldiers.

The threat? We have a hostile dictator-led regime that can't place 1,000 tons of one weapon or 8,500 litres of another, and you want to know what the threat is. Perhaps you'd like to play hide-and-seek with the poor fellow for another decade and check back then to see if he's come up with anything better?

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

his suspicion that the destruction of a number of WMD was unaccounted for.

i find this funny, so by this rationale, if a citizen has three guns with no liscences for them, and the police knew he them 10 year ago, but now ithey are gone and they fear that the person will commit murder, they could break down his door arrest him, and when they had no compulsory evidence, they could simply charge him with the crime of intent to kill and their evidence would be....you guessed it "the guns were UNACCOUNTED FOR, he was going to kill someone"

no one is arguing sadam was bad, not even liberals will say he was not bad, but was he really a threat? but ask yourself, how many other leaders of nations are bad, i can name a few countries, how about saudi arabia, iran, liberia... care to discuss why we didn't attack them?

If you want to draw a parallel, it would go like this:

A citizen has three guns with no licenses for them. Ten years ago he shot up his neighbours in their house before the police swooped in and kicked his ass outta there. One of the caveats the citizen makes after his defeat is to burn his collection of one hundred guns and provide documentation - or more simply, allow observers during the event.

However, in the intervening period that citizen's been cited a number of times with flouting the agreement he signed as a result of those acts upon his neighbour. The chief of police durning those ten years has occasionally sent a couple of his men down to give him a harsh talkin' to but generally been a little lazy about reinforcement. Finally, a new chief comes in and doesn't like what his reports tell him. If the citizen has burned all one hundred of his weapons, why hasn't he allowed observers all along to witness as much? Why has he been such a handful to deal with in those intervening years? Can you really just misplace one hundred guns?

Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia, Iran or Liberia? Fine by me if it's fine by you, I'm all about the spread of democracy. I'd rather North Korea first myself but they're under the nuclear umbrella of China (they exist now and from the very beginning because of China, remember) - that could get dicey. Iran has been on the brink of revolution for years now, one good kick from within will bring the entire structure down and bring them back from the abyss. Iraq was a different story. With a one-time 4th largest army in the world, internal dissent was better than quashed. It was annihilated. If change was going to take place, it was pretty obviously going to have to come from the outside.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: theblackbox

Originally posted by: Genx87
Not to mention Europes economy has been stagnant for some time. China however could become the worlds largest economy in the coming decades. Just imagine the avg wage of a person in China at the US level. but instead of 300 million people you have over 1 billion. That is a shatload of buying power.

yeah, but their navy sucks, and they have more soldiers then they have weapons,so we could still kick their ass, or at least occupy their country and keep it messed up for a couple of years as we try to get free elections there.

You sir, have another thing coming if you think the US can just mess with China.

*I am not Chinese*

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

his suspicion that the destruction of a number of WMD was unaccounted for.

i find this funny, so by this rationale, if a citizen has three guns with no liscences for them, and the police knew he them 10 year ago, but now ithey are gone and they fear that the person will commit murder, they could break down his door arrest him, and when they had no compulsory evidence, they could simply charge him with the crime of intent to kill and their evidence would be....you guessed it "the guns were UNACCOUNTED FOR, he was going to kill someone"

no one is arguing sadam was bad, not even liberals will say he was not bad, but was he really a threat? but ask yourself, how many other leaders of nations are bad, i can name a few countries, how about saudi arabia, iran, liberia... care to discuss why we didn't attack them?

If you want to draw a parallel, it would go like this:

A citizen has three guns with no licenses for them. Ten years ago he shot up his neighbours in their house before the police swooped in and kicked his ass outta there. One of the caveats the citizen makes after his defeat is to burn his collection of one hundred guns and provide documentation - or more simply, allow observers during the event.

However, in the intervening period that citizen's been cited a number of times with flouting the agreement he signed as a result of those acts upon his neighbour. The chief of police durning those ten years has occasionally sent a couple of his men down to give him a harsh talkin' to but generally been a little lazy about reinforcement. Finally, a new chief comes in and doesn't like what his reports tell him. If the citizen has burned all one hundred of his weapons, why hasn't he allowed observers all along to witness as much? Why has he been such a handful to deal with in those intervening years? Can you really just misplace one hundred guns?

Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia, Iran or Liberia? Fine by me if it's fine by you, I'm all about the spread of democracy. I'd rather North Korea first myself but they're under the nuclear umbrella of China (they exist now and from the very beginning because of China, remember) - that could get dicey. Iran has been on the brink of revolution for years now, one good kick from within will bring the entire structure down and bring them back to the democracy. Iraq was a different story. With a one-time 4th largest army in the world, internal dissent was better than quashed. It was annihilated. If change was going to take place, it was pretty obviously going to have to come from the outside.

A lot of tough talk, yllus. What's with this "we" crap? You up there in Canada while American kids are dying in Iraq. And ready to send them off to any other nation whose resources you'd rather see plundered than purchased.

You're just a joke. Just like Bush. Tough cowboy as long as someone else is doing the actual fighting. You're all for the spread of demcoracy at the point of a gun so long as someone else is holding the gun. Ready to send someone else off to war in a heartbeat. Playing amateur historian while you're still wet behind the ears.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: yllus
What was the need to avoid dealing with finality with a dictator who's flouting the mandates of the UN on several occasions?

so when are we going to deal with bush?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: yllus

Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia, Iran or Liberia? Fine by me if it's fine by you, I'm all about the spread of democracy. I'd rather North Korea first myself but they're under the nuclear umbrella of China (they exist now and from the very beginning because of China, remember) - that could get dicey.

North Korea entered existance because of Russia. Its existance continued because of China.

Iran has been on the brink of revolution for years now, one good kick from within will bring the entire structure down and bring them back from the abyss. Iraq was a different story. With a one-time 4th largest army in the world, internal dissent was better than quashed. It was annihilated. If change was going to take place, it was pretty obviously going to have to come from the outside.

I believe "one-time" is the key part of the 4th largest army statement. And with your "4th largest army" argument, you could apply it just as easily to Iran, who if I recall is 5th or 6th atm, after the China, US, india, pakistan and maybe russia.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: yllus
What was the need to avoid dealing with finality with a dictator who's flouting the mandates of the UN on several occasions?

so when are we going to deal with bush?

:thumbsup:

yllus offers the Bush propaganda line but he can't answer the question, on March 19, 2003 what made the U.S. invasion of Iraq imperative? What was the compelling reason for Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, hundreds of thousands of injured, hundreds of billions of dollars, Iraq's cities reduced to rubble, the loss of U.S. esteem worldwide, and all to the aid of terrorist recruitment?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: yllus
What was the need to avoid dealing with finality with a dictator who's flouting the mandates of the UN on several occasions?

so when are we going to deal with bush?

When a majority of the countrymen finds him guilty of defending his nations' best interests, I imagine. Considering a majority of those people just elected him back to the highest office in the land it may be a bit of a wait.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
North Korea entered existance because of Russia. Its existance continued because of China.

While the Russian may have kicked off the affair it was (IIRC) a heavily Chinese-fought campaign. What I've read dealt more with the Chinese intervention in the affair than anything else and that could be colouring my view.

I believe "one-time" is the key part of the 4th largest army statement. And with your "4th largest army" argument, you could apply it just as easily to Iran, who if I recall is 5th or 6th atm, after the China, US, india, pakistan and maybe russia.

Yes, and?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: BBond
yllus offers the Bush propaganda line but he can't answer the question, on March 19, 2003 what made the U.S. invasion of Iraq imperative? What was the compelling reason for Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, hundreds of thousands of injured, hundreds of billions of dollars, Iraq's cities reduced to rubble, the loss of U.S. esteem worldwide, and all to the aid of terrorist recruitment?

Oh, indeed. You've so very got me on the run with your critical insights. I've only:

Linked a number of UN Resolutions making it clear to anyone except the extremely vapid that Iraq had a number of obligations it consistently refused to honour...

...asked what the fault was in deposing a known tyrant...

...posted multiple pages of quotes from UN weapons inspectors including Dr. Blix himself questioning where a stunningly large amount of WMD was prior to the war, with poor Mr. Hussein given only a decade to come forward with the information...

...inquired how an Iraq under Mr. Hussein is not a threat to the country when the aforementioned weapons can't be answered for...

...wondered why some people feel so perfectly safe when a tyrant with a known thirst for revenge, sadism and brutality publicly delights in the losses suffered by America.

No, BBond, an invasion wasn't imperative. Following your example, we request that Saddam personally walk into the White House with TNT strapped to his chest wearing nothing but an Iraqi flag before we believe that the poor misunderstood fellow is a threat to the country. Yes, anything to avoid being seen as aggressors by the world community, which couldn't get off its collective ass to go even to Yugoslavia without NATO throwing down first. :roll:

 

[phillyTIM]

Let Bush choke on his arrogance and let it be his downfall.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: BBond
yllus offers the Bush propaganda line but he can't answer the question, on March 19, 2003 what made the U.S. invasion of Iraq imperative? What was the compelling reason for Bush's unprovoked invasion of Iraq at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, hundreds of thousands of injured, hundreds of billions of dollars, Iraq's cities reduced to rubble, the loss of U.S. esteem worldwide, and all to the aid of terrorist recruitment?

Oh, indeed. You've so very got me on the run with your critical insights. I've only:

Linked a number of UN Resolutions making it clear to anyone except the extremely vapid that Iraq had a number of obligations it consistently refused to honour...

...asked what the fault was in deposing a known tyrant...

...posted multiple pages of quotes from UN weapons inspectors including Dr. Blix himself questioning where a stunningly large amount of WMD was prior to the war, with poor Mr. Hussein given only a decade to come forward with the information...

...inquired how an Iraq under Mr. Hussein is not a threat to the country when the aforementioned weapons can't be answered for...

...wondered why some people feel so perfectly safe when a tyrant with a known thirst for revenge, sadism and brutality publicly delights in the losses suffered by America.

No, BBond, an invasion wasn't imperative. Following your example, we request that Saddam personally walk into the White House with TNT strapped to his chest wearing nothing but an Iraqi flag before we believe that the poor misunderstood fellow is a threat to the country. Yes, anything to avoid being seen as aggressors by the world community, which couldn't get off its collective ass to go even to Yugoslavia without NATO throwing down first. :roll:

Well, you finally break down and admit the truth. Bush's invasion of Iraq wasn't imperative.

No WMD. No threat. No provocation. No reason to murder and maim hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and bomb their nation into rubble. Absolutely no need for the carnage.

Yet in the next sentence there you go again manufacturing threats.

There is no bogey man Saddam with TNT strapped to his chest.

Then, since you have been forced to admit there was no reason to invade Iraq, you obfuscate with a completely unrelated reference to Yugoslavia.

Now for the next question. When are you coming down to the USA to volunteer for military service in Iraq??? Or are you content in making your proclamations, supported by bad history and faulty logic, while safe and sound in Canada? All while someone else's kids die for Bush's invalid assumptions.

Come on down. Volunteer to learn history first hand in Iraq. You have all the answers historian. Casualties are mounting fast. Bush needs more compliant apoligists like you for cannon fodder.

 

[Genx87]

What was the need to avoid dealing with finality with a dictator who's flouting the mandates of the UN on several occasions?

How is it unprovoked considering all the UN resolutions I just linked to?

Why do you continue to call the WMD concerns a lie even though we've been over the fact everyone did believe they existed a good dozen times by now?

This is routine for the libs on this msgboard. Present them with facts and they just skim over it and continue on their merry way. I wouldnt get terribly upset by it. But get a good smile out of knowing you smacked them around again. When they start resorting to not addressing your points and continuing the standard "lies", "Bush's Fault", "US's Fault" crap. They are beat.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

What was the need to avoid dealing with finality with a dictator who's flouting the mandates of the UN on several occasions?

How is it unprovoked considering all the UN resolutions I just linked to?

Why do you continue to call the WMD concerns a lie even though we've been over the fact everyone did believe they existed a good dozen times by now?

This is routine for the libs on this msgboard. Present them with facts and they just skim over it and continue on their merry way. I wouldnt get terribly upset by it. But get a good smile out of knowing you smacked them around again. When they start resorting to not addressing your points and continuing the standard "lies", "Bush's Fault", "US's Fault" crap. They are beat.

Cool, let's kill..err..roll!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is routine for the libs on this msgboard. Present them with facts and they just skim over it and continue on their merry way.

Ahahahaha, facts. The FLL's here & the Country wouldn't know a fact if it bit them in the a$$.

Thanks for the joke of the day :thumbsup:

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

What was the need to avoid dealing with finality with a dictator who's flouting the mandates of the UN on several occasions?

How is it unprovoked considering all the UN resolutions I just linked to?

Why do you continue to call the WMD concerns a lie even though we've been over the fact everyone did believe they existed a good dozen times by now?

This is routine for the libs on this msgboard. Present them with facts and they just skim over it and continue on their merry way. I wouldnt get terribly upset by it. But get a good smile out of knowing you smacked them around again. When they start resorting to not addressing your points and continuing the standard "lies", "Bush's Fault", "US's Fault" crap. They are beat.

Let's see if this other genxer will break down and admit the truth.

On March 19, 2003, what precisely was the reason that made Bush's invasion of Iraq mandatory???

PS - UN resolutions won't suffice. The UN REFUSED TO CONDONE THE INVASION (along with the majority of NATO nations and, for that matter, the majority of the world's nations).

 

[Genx87]

i beleive is because they report actual unemployment, not just people looking for jobs

They report unemployment the same way the US dept of labor does.

This includes
1. Ages 16+
2. Are without work
3. Are available to start work within the next two weeks
4. Have actively sought work in the past 4 weeks.

If you meet the above then you are counted in the EU unemployment figures just like the US.
They do a household survey just like the US dept of labor does.

too many un-informed people run around with headline statistics and don't realise whats not reported, and as with no courses in basic economics dont' realise the way the US reports unemployment is based on the # of people looking for work, not those that can physically work.

That is funny considering you didnt have any idea on how the EU reports unemployment. Please dont call the kettle black.

there was very nice article on this about 5 or 6 months back and if you figure in all the things that are LEFT OUT of the unemployment figures, the real US unemployment is really between 10-12%

Same can be said for the EU but it would probably be more like 14-17%.

the jobs that have been created pay less, and are mostly goverment jobs, go read the figures they don't lie

Is that why actual income rose .3% in oct?!?!?!?!?

 

[Genx87]

Let's see if this other genxer will break down and admit the truth.

On March 19, 2003, what precisely was the reason that made Bush's invasion of Iraq mandatory???

PS - UN resolutions won't suffice. The UN REFUSED TO CONDONE THE INVASION (along with the majority of NATO nations and, for that matter, the majority of the world's nations).

Saddams failure to comply with UN resolution 687 - And yes it will suffice since it was a ceasefire agreement. You break ceasefire agreements and hostilities occur.

Saddams refusal to allow unfettered access to his weapons facilities

The very real threat of Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the the people who rammed planes into our skyscrapers.

Just because the UN security council refused to condone an action against a man who they were being bribed by, doesnt mean they refused to acknowledge the threat existed. Afterall if Saddam was as harmless as you indicate. Why didnt the UN lift sanctions on him and his country? I mean, there werent any WMD!

 

[BBond]

Some info on unemployment and practices from September 2004. Realize the unemployment rate varies widely between EU member nations. Some have excellent unemployment rates of ~2% while others negatively impact the average with standardized rates as high as 15% and more.

OECD Standardised Unemployment Rates (SURs) - September 2004

 

[asleepwalking00]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

his suspicion that the destruction of a number of WMD was unaccounted for.

i find this funny, so by this rationale, if a citizen has three guns with no liscences for them, and the police knew he them 10 year ago, but now ithey are gone and they fear that the person will commit murder, they could break down his door arrest him, and when they had no compulsory evidence, they could simply charge him with the crime of intent to kill and their evidence would be....you guessed it "the guns were UNACCOUNTED FOR, he was going to kill someone"

no one is arguing sadam was bad, not even liberals will say he was not bad, but was he really a threat? but ask yourself, how many other leaders of nations are bad, i can name a few countries, how about saudi arabia, iran, liberia... care to discuss why we didn't attack them?

If you want to draw a parallel, it would go like this:

A citizen has three guns with no licenses for them. Ten years ago he shot up his neighbours in their house before the police swooped in and kicked his ass outta there. One of the caveats the citizen makes after his defeat is to burn his collection of one hundred guns and provide documentation - or more simply, allow observers during the event.

However, in the intervening period that citizen's been cited a number of times with flouting the agreement he signed as a result of those acts upon his neighbour. The chief of police durning those ten years has occasionally sent a couple of his men down to give him a harsh talkin' to but generally been a little lazy about reinforcement. Finally, a new chief comes in and doesn't like what his reports tell him. If the citizen has burned all one hundred of his weapons, why hasn't he allowed observers all along to witness as much? Why has he been such a handful to deal with in those intervening years? Can you really just misplace one hundred guns?

You forgot the end of the story. The chief of police sends SWAT over to his house to bring the man in. He won't come out so they pepper his house with bullets. When the smoke clears, they find the man still alive in his basement so they bring him to jail. However his family, which had been upstairs, was killed by the police. Oh, and they never found any weapons either.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Let's see if this other genxer will break down and admit the truth.

On March 19, 2003, what precisely was the reason that made Bush's invasion of Iraq mandatory???

PS - UN resolutions won't suffice. The UN REFUSED TO CONDONE THE INVASION (along with the majority of NATO nations and, for that matter, the majority of the world's nations).

Saddams failure to comply with UN resolution 687 - And yes it will suffice since it was a ceasefire agreement. You break ceasefire agreements and hostilities occur.

Saddams refusal to allow unfettered access to his weapons facilities

The very real threat of Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the the people who rammed planes into our skyscrapers.

Just because the UN security council refused to condone an action against a man who they were being bribed by, doesnt mean they refused to acknowledge the threat existed. Afterall if Saddam was as harmless as you indicate. Why didnt the UN lift sanctions on him and his country? I mean, there werent any WMD!

The very real threat of non-existent "Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear weapons".

You're ridiculous.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: yllus
Oh, indeed. You've so very got me on the run with your critical insights. I've only:

Linked a number of UN Resolutions making it clear to anyone except the extremely vapid that Iraq had a number of obligations it consistently refused to honour... (1)

...asked what the fault was in deposing a known tyrant...

...posted multiple pages of quotes from UN weapons inspectors including Dr. Blix himself questioning where a stunningly large amount of WMD was prior to the war, with poor Mr. Hussein given only a decade to come forward with the information... (2)

...inquired how an Iraq under Mr. Hussein is not a threat to the country when the aforementioned weapons can't be answered for...

...wondered why some people feel so perfectly safe when a tyrant with a known thirst for revenge, sadism and brutality publicly delights in the losses suffered by America.

No, BBond, an invasion wasn't imperative. Following your example, we request that Saddam personally walk into the White House with TNT strapped to his chest wearing nothing but an Iraqi flag before we believe that the poor misunderstood fellow is a threat to the country. Yes, anything to avoid being seen as aggressors by the world community, which couldn't get off its collective ass to go even to Yugoslavia without NATO throwing down first. :roll:

Well, you finally break down and admit the truth. Bush's invasion of Iraq wasn't imperative.

No WMD. No threat. No provocation. (3) No reason to murder and maim hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and bomb their nation into rubble. Absolutely no need for the carnage.

Yet in the next sentence there you go again manufacturing threats.

There is no bogey man Saddam with TNT strapped to his chest.

Then, since you have been forced to admit there was no reason to invade Iraq, you obfuscate with a completely unrelated reference to Yugoslavia.

What is it that allows you to equate (1) and (2) with (3)? You're whining about others being obtuse while you can't grasp the simplest link between 1,000 tons of weapons being "missing" and that being both not a threat and contravening the UN resolutions? :roll:

Originally posted by: asleepwalking00
However his family, which had been upstairs, was killed by the police. Oh, and they never found any weapons either.

Right, because it's not as if they resisted at all. No, clear case of police brutality!

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: theblackbox
i live in the US, not the rest of the world. I voted libertarian, and didn't put a thought into what canada thought.

it's not a matter of what just one country thinks. it's a matter of what our worldwide economic partners think and the attitudes they will hold against us as the United States looses its role as the leading economic power to the EU and China in the next 20-30 years

LOSES. Not LOOSes.