One by one, they tell the truth

[tomywishbone]

"...It may have not been at today's numbers, but you have just admitted that the rivalry was there..."
-----------------

"rivalry":laugh: "rivalry" The Packers v. The Bears is a rivalry. The bloody carnage & madness in Iraq is wee little bit past rivalry. Rivalry?:laugh:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: sandorski
Who cares about "rivalry"?

There's Rivalry between the US and France. There's Rivalry between China and Japan. There's Rivalry between New York, NY and Los Angeles, Ca. What there isn't in all those Rivalries is chaos, mass killings, armies stuck in the middle and being attacked constantly. Your point remains Moot.

There may be rivalry between US and France, but that takes a civilized form. In Iraq, the rivalry takes a hateful, violent form.

You guys keep arguing that the US invasion is the source of all evils, and that it has upsetted the "balance" that existed, effectively implying that the Sunni-Shiia rivalry came to be only after the removal of Saddam. However, we all know that the rivalry was there, and in such a form that only one of the parties could exact vengeance on the other.

True -- the US upset the status quo, but represtnting that status quo as a "balance" is quite misleading, as it implies harmony and peaceful co-existance. Sometimes I wonder whether some of you pine for Saddam's "balance" of torture and murder, which, of course, you didn't know much about, as it did not appear prominently in the newspapers every day. Ignorace is indeed a bliss.

This goes back to my original point, and that is that none of you wish to admit that there were pre-existing conditions prior to the invasion, as well as external forces that inflammed the decades-old rivalry. I can't say that I'm surprised, since your stated goal is to lay the blame entirely and solely on the USA, while acknowledging any of the points I've raised would detract from your argument, and broaden the scope of the discussion.

Not the source of all evils, just the current evils. Iraq was in much better condition before the US invaded, now it's a mess and getting messier. It *is* the fault of the US and primarily the fault of GW Bush.

 

[ayabe]

I'm really kind of shocked that Limbaugh and a few others are jumping on this Surrender Monkey bandwagon and cannibalizing their own. They seem to think we just aren't trying hard enough or something and that Baker and the rest are traitors.

So much for supporting the troops.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Not the source of all evils, just the current evils. Iraq was in much better condition before the US invaded, now it's a mess and getting messier. It *is* the fault of the US and primarily the fault of GW Bush.

... and in the spirit of keeping the scope as narrow as possible, you avoid examining the reasons behind the mess and why it is getting messier.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: sandorski
Not the source of all evils, just the current evils. Iraq was in much better condition before the US invaded, now it's a mess and getting messier. It *is* the fault of the US and primarily the fault of GW Bush.

... and in the spirit of keeping the scope as narrow as possible, you avoid examining the reasons behind the mess and why it is getting messier.

It is because of the Invasion. This was an expected result and the reason Daddy Bush didn't do it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Every citizen of the US is responsible for what happened in Iraq because we elected George Bush, those who voted for him, those who did not vote, and those who voted against him but did not do enough to keep him from being elected.

Well, the surest way of stopping the President would be doing You Know What. Surely, you aren't proposing that, are you?

Besides, that's being a good citizen. You vote and let your voice be heard, everybody thanks you for doing your civic duty. You kill the President and you land in prison and become infamous. Then people would've speculated about how great a President Bush could've been. Now that we know Bush may go down in history as one of the Worst Presidents in American History, if you had a time machine, would you go back and do it?

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, _ _ _ _ _ BUSH.... SNL had a skit with 41 & 43 on a deer hunting trip, 41 debates this very dilemma with himself. To shoot 43 or not to shoot 43.

I specifically spoke of the way we the people can prevent disastrous Presidents, by not voting for them in the first place. I made not even a slight reference to any other way. I not only do to want to be associated even remotely to any suggestion of violent removal nor do I find that thought funny. It is all part and parcel of the same disastrous mentality that got us into war in the first place that violence can solve anything.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: sandorski
It is because of the Invasion. This was an expected result and the reason Daddy Bush didn't do it.

What is because of the invasion? You are being intentionally ambiguous in order to avoid examining the transition from a relatively calm Iraq after the fall of the Baghdad, to that of chaos and violence.

Also, I don't know what your agenda is, but there is no point in misrepresenting the gulf war in 1991 -- the coalition's mandate was to get Iraq out of Kuwait, and that's it. If I'm not mistkaen, it was the limited mandate that attracted so many countries into the coalition, as well as earning the support of the the nations in the region. If the coalition's mandate included a regime change, there is not doubt that many European countries would not have joined, while dictators in the ME would've opposed an anglo-european force coming in and instituting a new order (they would've been scared for their own position).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: sandorski
It is because of the Invasion. This was an expected result and the reason Daddy Bush didn't do it.

What is because of the invasion? You are being intentionally ambiguous in order to avoid examining the transition from a relatively calm Iraq after the fall of the Baghdad, to that of chaos and violence.

Also, I don't know what your agenda is, but there is no point in misrepresenting the gulf war in 1991 -- the coalition's mandate was to get Iraq out of Kuwait, and that's it. If I'm not mistkaen, it was the limited mandate that attracted so many countries into the coalition, as well as earning the support of the the nations in the region. If the coalition's mandate included a regime change, there is not doubt that many European countries would not have joined, while dictators in the ME would've opposed an anglo-european force coming in and instituting a new order (they would've been scared for their own position).

Ambiguous? Agenda? Not I, you.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Ambiguous? Agenda? Not I, you.

I guess our discourse is at an end, now that you've resorted to yoda-speak.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Nah, it's Moot because it's Moot. If all this was the everyday event prior to Bush's invasion, then it would not be Moot.

It is not moot in the least. Rivalries run deep. They were kept in check under Saddam's regime because he didn't tolerate it one bit: you fall in line, or you end up dead. This isn't the first time this has happened. Bosnia and Herzogovenia erupted into similar problems soon after Soviet Yugoslavia fell apart.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: crownjules

Originally posted by: sandorski

Nah, it's Moot because it's Moot. If all this was the everyday event prior to Bush's invasion, then it would not be Moot.

It is not moot in the least. Rivalries run deep. They were kept in check under Saddam's regime because he didn't tolerate it one bit: you fall in line, or you end up dead. This isn't the first time this has happened. Bosnia and Herzogovenia erupted into similar problems soon after Soviet Yugoslavia fell apart.

Yes they run deep, however, as you say, they were contained. Bush destroyed that container, the mess ensued.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
?One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.?
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Which is why the democrats supported the UN inspection efforts in Iraq, and the UN nations voted for them as well. That was the plan for the issue in your quote.

Bush violated his promises not to go to war in the inspections could work; they were working fine at the time he went to war.

?If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction program.?
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Ditto above; and Saddam had let the inspectors in at the time of the war. Hans Blix specifically said that the cooperation was adequate and recommended against war.

Bush ignored the UN and enforced his view of the UN resolution without the UN's agreement, unable to get them to pass a resolution for invading.

?Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.?
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

See above, for inspections. The inspectors had found and destroyed the WMD at the time of war - they had destroyed more armaments than the first gulf war.

?He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.?
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

If he had them, which he didn't, which we'd have confirmed had the inspectors been allowed to complete their inspections, as scheduled within a few months.

?We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq?s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.?
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

For inspections, the recommended approach - and attacks *if appropriate*, i.e., if Saddam refused the inspections.

?Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.?
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

As she advocated the resumption of the inspections, which had happened when Bush invaded.

?Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.?
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Over the long term, going back to the 80's. She did not recommend invasion over inspections when Bush invaded.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Yes they run deep, however, as you say, they were contained. Bush destroyed that container, the mess ensued.

With tens of thousands (or more) dead Kurds and Shiites, and many others tortured, arguing that the situation was "contained" couldn't be further from the truth, unless, as I've said earlier, you're pining for Saddam's imposed balance and facade of tranquility.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: sandorski
Yes they run deep, however, as you say, they were contained. Bush destroyed that container, the mess ensued.

With tens of thousands (or more) dead Kurds and Shiites, and many others tortured, arguing that the situation was "contained" couldn't be further from the truth, unless, as I've said earlier, you're pining for Saddam's imposed balance and facade of tranquility.

So, when the US government was injecting black men with Syphillis which killed many as a scientific experiment, was any nation in the world morally entitled to overthrow us?

Where do you draw the line between sovereignity and human rights abuses, exactly?

We have a system for this, imperfect though it is, the UN Security council; your alternative is a return a lawless, 'might is right' policy.

We had a policy to support regime change in Iraq, using means short of invasion. You can't have a perfect situation. You can have one you make worse.

 

[imported_dna]

Craig234, I have no idea what you're going on about.

The only point I've raised in this thread is the fact that you guys lay all the blame for the mess in Iraq on the USA, when in fact Iraqi are very much responsible. Like I said, you guys are referring to Iraq under Saddam as utopia. That is the only thing I'm challenging you with.

As for your accusations regarding injection of syphilis, I searched and came up with the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, and there is no mention of intetionally infecting anyone with Syphilis. Are you misrepresenting facts in order to boost your argument?

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: crownjules

Originally posted by: sandorski

Nah, it's Moot because it's Moot. If all this was the everyday event prior to Bush's invasion, then it would not be Moot.

It is not moot in the least. Rivalries run deep. They were kept in check under Saddam's regime because he didn't tolerate it one bit: you fall in line, or you end up dead. This isn't the first time this has happened. Bosnia and Herzogovenia erupted into similar problems soon after Soviet Yugoslavia fell apart.

Yes they run deep, however, as you say, they were contained. Bush destroyed that container, the mess ensued.

Ok, I think I misread/misinterpreted your first post. I thought you were arguing that GW isn't responsible for opening the can of worms.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: dna
Craig234, I have no idea what you're going on about.

The only point I've raised in this thread is the fact that you guys lay all the blame for the mess in Iraq on the USA, when in fact Iraqi are very much responsible. Like I said, you guys are referring to Iraq under Saddam as utopia. That is the only thing I'm challenging you with.

As for your accusations regarding injection of syphilis, I searched and came up with the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, and there is no mention of intetionally infecting anyone with Syphilis. Are you misrepresenting facts in order to boost your argument?

What he's saying is that, though it's not perfect, the UN Security takes care of these problems when the world sees it as such. Therefore, for a country to go outside the UN and claim to do its job is unheard of. People go outside the UN out of their own interests.

Yeah, you're right, people can say they want to get rid of this dictator or that dictator, but since life is far more complicated than that, you have to handle such situations in a delicate manner. You simply can't rush into a nation, overthrow its leader, and expect to fix all its problems. People knew from the beginning that, although Hussein had to go, the United States was doing it for selfish reasons.

If you don't understand then the anology would be like having a child rapist move on your block. Nobody likes him and wish he was just gone. Somebody, however, likes his gold watch and decides to kill two birds with one stone. People may be glad he's dead, but they'll be abhorred at the way in which he went away. Why? Because the reasoning behind the killing was selfish rather than honorable. Somebody killed him for his watch and thought the neighbors would look the other way because he's just a rapist.

You start precedents like that and no one knows where it'll end.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: dna
Craig234, I have no idea what you're going on about.

The only point I've raised in this thread is the fact that you guys lay all the blame for the mess in Iraq on the USA, when in fact Iraqi are very much responsible. Like I said, you guys are referring to Iraq under Saddam as utopia. That is the only thing I'm challenging you with.

As for your accusations regarding injection of syphilis, I searched and came up with the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, and there is no mention of intetionally infecting anyone with Syphilis. Are you misrepresenting facts in order to boost your argument?

no one is saying Iraq, under the control of Saddam, was a utopia. That is stupid.

If there was no invasion, then there would be no such threat to regional instability like we see today. That isn't too hard to understand.