Pre-emption strike and Iraq; Do you agree?

[AFSOC_Commando]

LunarRay,

Some good points and much better presentation to my point than many of the other tirades in this thread.

I do see that we will have to agree to disagree on a few of the points, but I do appreciate the calm manner in which you retorted, and I see that we do agree on a few points!!!

Take Care!

Todd

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: AFSOC_Commando
LunarRay,

Some good points and much better presentation to my point than many of the other tirades in this thread.

I do see that we will have to agree to disagree on a few of the points, but I do appreciate the calm manner in which you retorted, and I see that we do agree on a few points!!!

Take Care!

Todd

And I expected an avalanche of flames... I am happily surprised and thank full for your kind response.
I try to just look at what are the accepted facts distilled from objective sources (not many of those) and see what logically fits the missing pieces. Without a built in bias. Sorta like an audit of the situation.
Then until another bit of fact finds its way in I'm stuck with what I have. I don't try to skew the facts to support a liberal or other position. I could care less about that. I'm interested in who is trying to what to whom and why..

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: AFSOC_Commando
LunarRay,

Some good points and much better presentation to my point than many of the other tirades in this thread.

I do see that we will have to agree to disagree on a few of the points, but I do appreciate the calm manner in which you retorted, and I see that we do agree on a few points!!!

Take Care!

Todd

And I expected an avalanche of flames... I am happily surprised and thank full for your kind response.
I try to just look at what are the accepted facts distilled from objective sources (not many of those) and see what logically fits the missing pieces. Without a built in bias. Sorta like an audit of the situation.
Then until another bit of fact finds its way in I'm stuck with what I have. I don't try to skew the facts to support a liberal or other position. I could care less about that. I'm interested in who is trying to what to whom and why..

And this is why I have such great respect for your opinion, Ray.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: AFSOC_Commando
LunarRay,

Some good points and much better presentation to my point than many of the other tirades in this thread.

I do see that we will have to agree to disagree on a few of the points, but I do appreciate the calm manner in which you retorted, and I see that we do agree on a few points!!!

Take Care!

Todd

And I expected an avalanche of flames... I am happily surprised and thank full for your kind response.
I try to just look at what are the accepted facts distilled from objective sources (not many of those) and see what logically fits the missing pieces. Without a built in bias. Sorta like an audit of the situation.
Then until another bit of fact finds its way in I'm stuck with what I have. I don't try to skew the facts to support a liberal or other position. I could care less about that. I'm interested in who is trying to what to whom and why..

And this is why I have such great respect for your opinion, Ray.

That is very kind of you to say, Burnedout. I feel a lot like a sponge. I read your and a few other folks posts and let it soak in then add to or change my understanding where it is needed. I try to pay back the effort you folks put in by adding my two cents worth by my posts after I've recompiled my data into a reasonable body of information. Least ways as I see it..
The problem with Politics and certainly War stuff is; there is not an abundant supply of facts. The talking heads provide some info as the other media but, hard facts are, for good reason, not there.
If the President polled me with the following question back in '02: Do you support an armed invasion of Iraq for the purpose of eliminating Saddam Hussein at a cost of a few thousand American Troops regardless of the UN's lack of authority. I'd answer this way.. If you can show me how it does not violate the rule of international law that we've agreed to and if I were young enough to go myself then yes but, because I'm not young enough and I doubt you can convince me of its legality and even if you could, I don't want to agree to another Americans possible death no matter the nobility of the effort, I can't.
This is the dilemma I find my self in when reading many of the posts in this forum. Legality over Nobility, American over Foreigner.

 

[firewall]

US government knows how many wmd's it gave to Iraq. That is why they are so howling positive about it. I am quite sure they too overlooked many resolutions on this regard. It also has the largest stockpile of wmd's. So does that means that the use of force to disarm US is right and justified?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: asadasif
US government knows how many wmd's it gave to Iraq. That is why they are so howling positive about it. I am quite sure they too overlooked many resolutions on this regard. It also has the largest stockpile of wmd's. So does that means that the use of force to disarm US is right and justified?

Interesting proposition here.
Assume the following ascertion to be true:

The US provided to Iraq WMD illegally. We know how much we gave and know how much has been spent in the Kurd and Iran issue (I assume we can estimate close enough).

Is it right and justified to disarm Iraq by force? hmmmmm

With authority from the UN it would be justified which makes it right, I suppose. Or if there was an exigent circumstance regarding our self defense, Article 51 of the Charter would make it justified and again right.

As I see it, neither of the above conditions have been met, therefore, my response would be: NO!

 

[firewall]

I said disarm US, not Iraq since it has the largest stockpile of Nukes and wmd's apart from Russia.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: asadasif
I said disarm US, not Iraq since it has the largest stockpile of Nukes and wmd's apart from Russia.

Ahhh.. Sorry.

Even more interesting.
Well we are a threat to any small nation's sovereignty who don't have WMD except Iraq and probably some that do as well. So an exigent circumstance exists for them. I suppose they could cite the Iraqi issue as reason to believe under Article 51 of the Charter that if they invade the US to rid us of WMD and preserve their sovereignty it would be justified and right.

I guess you may now say that some bad guys were contemplating doing just that or if someone did invade the US who was a UN member. An interesting reversal of reasoning this.

You've opened a can o worms with this I think.. but, to me it does logically flow.