Study: False statements preceded war

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Is it nonsense that you would deny Iraqis what you yourself would undoubtedly desire in the same situation?

I don't think so.

Who was denying what? Even our own constitution states that rights are inalienable, not something given to us via the federal government. No, they are only there to protect those rights. Besides, we aren't there to spread freedom nor democracy.

TLC is just up to his usual logical fallacies (false dilemma this time) Keep it up Chicken gotta stay true to yourself :roll:

 

[colonel]

It still amazes me that people are still trying to blame Clinton for Bush's actions

It is just remarkable, like a broken record, friday Rush blame Clinton for the shity economy we are right now, republicans narrow minded.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: GrGr
You argue the US went in as because Saddam was not cooperating with the UN. I argue that Iraq would have been invaded whether he cooperated or not as the decision to invade was already made. Saddam (and WMD's) was only a pretext for the invasion.

I'm not sure why he's using that argument. His words in this thread... "the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else."

Maybe he means that we just used the 'not copperating' thing as just an excuse to go in.

Do I REALLY need to explain the difference to you between my opinion of the primary reason why we are in Iraq and why we went into Iraq without waiting for UN approval? They are really two separate issues so tell me you aren't that oblivious.

Besides that, notice how GrGr is deperately dodging and weaving to avoid answering the question I put to him?

What question? I answered it. Now you answer mine.

You're against dictatorships? Wonderfull. That's not what I asked though so you didn't really answer my question. When you do I'll be happy to address your questions.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: colonel

It still amazes me that people are still trying to blame Clinton for Bush's actions

It is just remarkable, like a broken record, friday Rush blame Clinton for the shity economy we are right now, republicans narrow minded.

Blame Clinton for the shitty economy we are in now? No. But if you blame Bush for the housing then you better blame Clinton for the tech bubble as well and THAT'S the difference for q few in here.

Personally I don't blame Clinton for not reigning in the outrageous speculation on dot-coms just like I don't blame Bush for failing to reign in the outrageous speculation on housing. Both failures cost us dearly. One did and the other will send us into a recession.

But for quite a few on this board it's Bush's fault for our current economy while they give Clinton a pass for his very similar faux pas. So I have to wonder who the partisans in here really are?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: GrGr
You argue the US went in as because Saddam was not cooperating with the UN. I argue that Iraq would have been invaded whether he cooperated or not as the decision to invade was already made. Saddam (and WMD's) was only a pretext for the invasion.

I'm not sure why he's using that argument. His words in this thread... "the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else."

Maybe he means that we just used the 'not copperating' thing as just an excuse to go in.

Do I REALLY need to explain the difference to you between my opinion of the primary reason why we are in Iraq and why we went into Iraq without waiting for UN approval? They are really two separate issues so tell me you aren't that oblivious.

Besides that, notice how GrGr is deperately dodging and weaving to avoid answering the question I put to him?

What question? I answered it. Now you answer mine.

You're against dictatorships? Wonderfull. That's not what I asked though so you didn't really answer my question. When you do I'll be happy to address your questions.

hehe typical TLC slithering you always must try and frame the issue.

There's nothing stopping you from answering my questions apart from your hypocrisy.

My answer in other words is: GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH. If I were Iraqi I would not accept Saddam's rule nor would I accept a Foreign Imperial Overlord, be it American or British eg.

Now let me hear your pitiful rationalizations TLC. Something tells me you would be a perfect little Quisling to a foreign invader.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: colonel

It still amazes me that people are still trying to blame Clinton for Bush's actions

It is just remarkable, like a broken record, friday Rush blame Clinton for the shity economy we are right now, republicans narrow minded.

This subject, whose economy is it, deserves its own thread. But I do find that whole anti-Clinton thing to be amazing.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: GrGr
You argue the US went in as because Saddam was not cooperating with the UN. I argue that Iraq would have been invaded whether he cooperated or not as the decision to invade was already made. Saddam (and WMD's) was only a pretext for the invasion.

I'm not sure why he's using that argument. His words in this thread... "the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else."

Maybe he means that we just used the 'not copperating' thing as just an excuse to go in.

Do I REALLY need to explain the difference to you between my opinion of the primary reason why we are in Iraq and why we went into Iraq without waiting for UN approval? They are really two separate issues so tell me you aren't that oblivious.

Besides that, notice how GrGr is deperately dodging and weaving to avoid answering the question I put to him?

What question? I answered it. Now you answer mine.

You're against dictatorships? Wonderfull. That's not what I asked though so you didn't really answer my question. When you do I'll be happy to address your questions.

hehe typical TLC slithering you always must try and frame the issue.

Ironic, considering your dodging my question by trying to reframe the issue yourself.

There's nothing stopping you from answering my questions apart from your hypocrisy.

My answer in other words is: GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH. If I were Iraqi I would not accept Saddam's rule nor would I accept a Foreign Imperial Overlord, be it American or British eg.

Good thing we gave their country back to them, eh? That way you don't have to worry about us being imperial overlords. But clearly you just can't help spewing your typical rhetorical trash anyway.

Now let me hear your pitiful rationalizations TLC. Something tells me you would be a perfect little Quisling to a foreign invader.

It depends on the invader. I kind of like the Canadians so if they invaded to rid of us a brutal dictator like Saddam, and then gave us our country back, I doubt I'd be against that sort of thing. If it was Chavez, otoh, or someone similar to his ilk I'd very likely have a problem with it.

As far as the UN, something you conveniently overlook is that Saddam failed to comply with his obligations to the UN for years. He dicked around and dicked around while the UN gave him more than his fair share of chances to make it right. The UN failed to comply with its own obligations to do the right thing in regard to Saddam and clearly had no intent to ever make it right. After receiving a final chance, for which he STILL failed to comply, the US was right to invade without UN approval; approval that we all know would never have come because Saddam had a number of the countries on the SC under his thumb subverting the process, not to mention a couple of UN members being bribed in the Food for Oil scam. So stop with the pretense that comparing the the US bypassing the UN approval was the same as Saddam not complying with multiple resolutions for years. There is no comparison in that respect. So your lame attempt to build some equivalence straw man is really what's pitiful here.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: GrGr
You argue the US went in as because Saddam was not cooperating with the UN. I argue that Iraq would have been invaded whether he cooperated or not as the decision to invade was already made. Saddam (and WMD's) was only a pretext for the invasion.

I'm not sure why he's using that argument. His words in this thread... "the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else."

Maybe he means that we just used the 'not copperating' thing as just an excuse to go in.

Do I REALLY need to explain the difference to you between my opinion of the primary reason why we are in Iraq and why we went into Iraq without waiting for UN approval? They are really two separate issues so tell me you aren't that oblivious.

Besides that, notice how GrGr is deperately dodging and weaving to avoid answering the question I put to him?

What question? I answered it. Now you answer mine.

You're against dictatorships? Wonderfull. That's not what I asked though so you didn't really answer my question. When you do I'll be happy to address your questions.

hehe typical TLC slithering you always must try and frame the issue.

Ironic, considering your dodging my question by trying to reframe the issue yourself.

Meh, I have answered all your questions straight up. They are not hard to answer exactly. :roll:

There's nothing stopping you from answering my questions apart from your hypocrisy.

My answer in other words is: GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH. If I were Iraqi I would not accept Saddam's rule nor would I accept a Foreign Imperial Overlord, be it American or British eg.

Good thing we gave their country back to them, eh? That way you don't have to worry about us being imperial overlords. But clearly you just can't help spewing your typical rhetorical trash anyway.

Ahahaha, sure the US has given Iraq back to the Iraqis. You are insane for spouting that drivel. So all the 130,000 US troops currently present in Iraq are just delusional and they really aren't there at all. It's all just a figment of their imagination, tomorrow they will wake up in their own beds at home back in the good ol US of A :roll:

Now let me hear your pitiful rationalizations TLC. Something tells me you would be a perfect little Quisling to a foreign invader.

It depends on the invader. I kind of like the Canadians so if they invaded to rid of us a brutal dictator like Saddam, and then gave us our country back, I doubt I'd be against that sort of thing. If it was Chavez, otoh, or someone similar to his ilk I'd very likely have a problem with it.

Answer your own question, don't create a new one convenient for you again :roll: If you were an Iraqi would you embrace Foreign invaders who intend to stay for the next few decades?

As far as the UN, something you conveniently overlook is that Saddam failed to comply with his obligations to the UN for years. He dicked around and dicked around while the UN gave him more than his fair share of chances to make it right. The UN failed to comply with its own obligations to do the right thing in regard to Saddam and clearly had no intent to ever make it right. After receiving a final chance, for which he STILL failed to comply, the US was right to invade without UN approval; approval that we all know would never have come because Saddam had a number of the countries on the SC under his thumb subverting the process, not to mention a couple of UN members being bribed in the Food for Oil scam. So stop with the pretense that comparing the the US bypassing the UN approval was the same as Saddam not complying with multiple resolutions for years. There is no comparison in that respect. So your lame attempt to build some equivalence straw man is really what's pitiful here.

So your answer to my question what the difference between Saddam breaking UN law and Bush breaking the same law is simply their (and your) rationalizations. Got ya.

Your argument about Saddam defying the UN is completely and utterly irrelevant. The US does not have a divine right to break the law.

The bottom line is both Saddam and Bush broke UN law and invaded a foreign nation out of self interest, both had imperial agendas. You are a first rate hypocrite for supporting one over the other.

George Orwell had your and your ilks measure decades ago, yay for Nationalists with double standards. :roll:

"Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them. There is almost no kind of outrage-----torture, imprisonment without trial, assassination, the bombing of civilians... which does not change its moral color when it is committed by 'our' side. The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

Bleh

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Ahahaha, sure the US has given Iraq back to the Iraqis. You are insane for spouting that drivel. So all the 130,000 US troops currently present in Iraq are just delusional and they really aren't there at all. It's all just a figment of their imagination, tomorrow they will wake up in their own beds at home back in the good ol US of A :roll:

Sorry to burst your rhetorical bubble but having those troops in Iraq doesn't mean the Iraqis aren't in charge of Iraq anymore than having troops in Germany means that we are still Germany's "imperial overlords."

If you expect to be taken seriously at all, stop making unfounded assertions that don't stand up to the least bit of scrutiny.

Answer your own question, don't create a new one convenient for you again :roll: If you were an Iraqi would you embrace Foreign invaders who intend to stay for the next few decades?

If I were an Iraqi I'd rather have Americans in my country for decades than suffer those same decades under the brutality of Saddam or his sons.

So your answer to my question what the difference between Saddam breaking UN law and Bush breaking the same law is simply their (and your) rationalizations. Got ya.

My answer is that they are not the same law in the first place, nor are the situation even remotely similar. But I imagine you'll keep trying to somehow deludedly insist that they are the very same thing.

Your argument about Saddam defying the UN is completely and utterly irrelevant. The US does not have a divine right to break the law.

The bottom line is both Saddam and Bush broke UN law and invaded a foreign nation out of self interest, both had imperial agendas. You are a first rate hypocrite for supporting one over the other.

George Orwell had your and your ilks measure decades ago, yay for Nationalists with double standards. :roll:

Sadam wanted to annex Kuwait. We have no such intentions with Iraq. Your failure to acknowledge that difference only seves to make you look the fool.

btw, Orwell had warnings about both the left and the right. Maybe you should pay atention to everything he had to say instead of only what you want to hear from him? That seems to be a big problem with the lefties these days.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
Ahahaha, sure the US has given Iraq back to the Iraqis. You are insane for spouting that drivel. So all the 130,000 US troops currently present in Iraq are just delusional and they really aren't there at all. It's all just a figment of their imagination, tomorrow they will wake up in their own beds at home back in the good ol US of A :roll:

Sorry to burst your rhetorical bubble but having those troops in Iraq doesn't mean the Iraqis aren't in charge of Iraq anymore than having troops in Germany means that we are still Germany's "imperial overlords."

If you expect to be taken seriously at all, stop making unfounded assertions that don't stand up to the least bit of scrutiny.

LOL. The Iraqi "government" is barely in charge of the Green Zone, and let's face it, The US rules the Green Zone. This is a typical bullshit statement of yours nobody buys.

The US appoints ministers and dictates Iraqi law and pulls strings left right and center etc etc etc

I don't see that happening in Germany. :roll:

Answer your own question, don't create a new one convenient for you again :roll: If you were an Iraqi would you embrace Foreign invaders who intend to stay for the next few decades?

If I were an Iraqi I'd rather have Americans in my country for decades than suffer those same decades under the brutality of Saddam or his sons.

So your answer to my question what the difference between Saddam breaking UN law and Bush breaking the same law is simply their (and your) rationalizations. Got ya.

My answer is that they are not the same law in the first place, nor are the situation even remotely similar. But I imagine you'll keep trying to somehow deludedly insist that they are the very same thing.

Of course the UN Charter is and remains the UN Charter. Try and prove otherwise :roll:

Your argument about Saddam defying the UN is completely and utterly irrelevant. The US does not have a divine right to break the law.

The bottom line is both Saddam and Bush broke UN law and invaded a foreign nation out of self interest, both had imperial agendas. You are a first rate hypocrite for supporting one over the other.

George Orwell had your and your ilks measure decades ago, yay for Nationalists with double standards. :roll:

Sadam wanted to annex Kuwait. We have no such intentions with Iraq. Your failure to acknowledge that difference only seves to make you look the fool.

Right the US "only" wants to annex Iraq for a few decades and build a few "permanent" bases :roll: Sure go ahead and claim that the US invasion is not about "annexing" Iraq, but for all intents and purposes it is attempting just that. Look at the Green Zone monstrosity and the other military bases for proof. And ultimately, again, it does not matter what your rationalizations for Imperialism are. You know as well as everybody else here that the US had a host of reasons for invading Iraq. Cue the Bush administrations desperate lies to create the invasion.

btw, Orwell had warnings about both the left and the right. Maybe you should pay atention to everything he had to say instead of only what you want to hear from him? That seems to be a big problem with the lefties these days.

But he was spot on with that one :roll: Besides surely it applies to left leaning Nationalists as well as Right leaning ones.

 

[GrGr]

Here is Iraqi "Sovereignty" in all it's glory:

The coalition made much of bringing democracy to the 'liberated' country by handing the reins to the Iraqi government. But, as Jonathan Steele relates in this final extract from his new book, it also ensured that it retained complete control

Wednesday January 23, 2008
The Guardian

A US military transport plane regularly lifts off from Amman in Jordan and lands at the "American side" of Baghdad's international airport. This is the Baghdad shuttle: no visas required, no need to show a passport to any Iraqi official. For embassy staff, contractors, and other civilians working for the occupation it is the perfect beeline into the "other Iraq", the set of vast US-controlled compounds where Iraq's real power resides. If you have access to a helicopter, you can be whisked aloft from Baghdad airport to your final destination in the Green Zone in 10 minutes. For less important people, the trip to the Green Zone entails overland travel, a 30-minute ride in an armour-plated US bus called a Rhino. On this trip you cannot avoid spotting a few Iraqis, but in your sealed vehicle you still do not need to notify any locals of your arrival in their country.

Article continues
These high-handed arrangements apply even more starkly to VIPs. US congressmen and senators, the secretaries of state and defense and other cabinet ministers, and of course the vice-president and president of the United States land in Baghdad without even the formality of an invitation. In no other country of the world are foreign leaders able to show up at whim. In Iraq, they can.

Many of these high-level visitors proceed to lecture their "hosts" on how to run the country. In the best imperial manner, they recommend who to sack from the cabinet, and who to appoint. They insist on certain laws being passed or demand changes in the constitution.

They even tell elected Iraqi leaders to resign, as I witnessed on April 3 2006. The scene was Iraqi prime minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's office deep in the Green Zone. A fleet of bullet-proofed Chevrolet Suburban SUVs with tinted windows was parked in the drive. American security guards in mirrored sunglasses and baseball caps patrolled the entrance with their forefingers clamped on the triggers of submachine-guns. There was no sign of any Iraqi security personnel.

Inside, almost like a hostage, Jaafari was being harangued by secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw. The two had decided only one day earlier to make the trip to Baghdad, exasperated that the prime minister was continuing to resist a steady flow of hints from the US ambassador that it was time to go. All kinds of arguments were trotted out. Iraq needed a leader who could unify the country. The government must clamp down on Shia militias. The cabinet had to be led by a man who could command support across the spectrum, including from Kurds and Sunni Arabs.

Jaafari did not listen, or at least he did not obey. Not even a phone call from Bush in the White House had done the trick. Now he was being given his marching orders by Rice and Straw in person.

To claim that the Iraqis rule Iraq is just more complete TLC Bullshit.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
Ahahaha, sure the US has given Iraq back to the Iraqis. You are insane for spouting that drivel. So all the 130,000 US troops currently present in Iraq are just delusional and they really aren't there at all. It's all just a figment of their imagination, tomorrow they will wake up in their own beds at home back in the good ol US of A :roll:

Sorry to burst your rhetorical bubble but having those troops in Iraq doesn't mean the Iraqis aren't in charge of Iraq anymore than having troops in Germany means that we are still Germany's "imperial overlords."

If you expect to be taken seriously at all, stop making unfounded assertions that don't stand up to the least bit of scrutiny.

Answer your own question, don't create a new one convenient for you again :roll: If you were an Iraqi would you embrace Foreign invaders who intend to stay for the next few decades?

If I were an Iraqi I'd rather have Americans in my country for decades than suffer those same decades under the brutality of Saddam or his sons.

So your answer to my question what the difference between Saddam breaking UN law and Bush breaking the same law is simply their (and your) rationalizations. Got ya.

My answer is that they are not the same law in the first place, nor are the situation even remotely similar. But I imagine you'll keep trying to somehow deludedly insist that they are the very same thing.

Your argument about Saddam defying the UN is completely and utterly irrelevant. The US does not have a divine right to break the law.

The bottom line is both Saddam and Bush broke UN law and invaded a foreign nation out of self interest, both had imperial agendas. You are a first rate hypocrite for supporting one over the other.

George Orwell had your and your ilks measure decades ago, yay for Nationalists with double standards. :roll:

Sadam wanted to annex Kuwait. We have no such intentions with Iraq. Your failure to acknowledge that difference only seves to make you look the fool.

btw, Orwell had warnings about both the left and the right. Maybe you should pay atention to everything he had to say instead of only what you want to hear from him? That seems to be a big problem with the lefties these days.

I don't know where you lost it.....but you certainly did somewhere.

Comparing having a presence in Germany with having a standing army in Iraq that is daily engaging in conflict is like comparing buying an egg at the grocery store with pulling one out of the hen's ass.

If you expect to be taken seriously (which your chances of that are fading dramatically with posts such as this) stop they hyperbole and the intellectual dishonesty and stick to the actual topic.

As for your "if I was an Iraqi -- I'd rather have been invaded than live under Saddam" answer....what if you are a Sunni and a Ba'athist? Would you still rather have lost every bit of power and/or upper hand that you had to have been bombarded and have you or your family members killed?

How is Saddam's invasion of a sovereign country without international approval and/or support different from the US's invasion of a sovereign country without international approval and/or support?

And you say annexation I say expansionism. Pretty much synonymous.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
Ahahaha, sure the US has given Iraq back to the Iraqis. You are insane for spouting that drivel. So all the 130,000 US troops currently present in Iraq are just delusional and they really aren't there at all. It's all just a figment of their imagination, tomorrow they will wake up in their own beds at home back in the good ol US of A :roll:

Sorry to burst your rhetorical bubble but having those troops in Iraq doesn't mean the Iraqis aren't in charge of Iraq anymore than having troops in Germany means that we are still Germany's "imperial overlords."

If you expect to be taken seriously at all, stop making unfounded assertions that don't stand up to the least bit of scrutiny.

Answer your own question, don't create a new one convenient for you again :roll: If you were an Iraqi would you embrace Foreign invaders who intend to stay for the next few decades?

If I were an Iraqi I'd rather have Americans in my country for decades than suffer those same decades under the brutality of Saddam or his sons.

So your answer to my question what the difference between Saddam breaking UN law and Bush breaking the same law is simply their (and your) rationalizations. Got ya.

My answer is that they are not the same law in the first place, nor are the situation even remotely similar. But I imagine you'll keep trying to somehow deludedly insist that they are the very same thing.

Your argument about Saddam defying the UN is completely and utterly irrelevant. The US does not have a divine right to break the law.

The bottom line is both Saddam and Bush broke UN law and invaded a foreign nation out of self interest, both had imperial agendas. You are a first rate hypocrite for supporting one over the other.

George Orwell had your and your ilks measure decades ago, yay for Nationalists with double standards. :roll:

Sadam wanted to annex Kuwait. We have no such intentions with Iraq. Your failure to acknowledge that difference only seves to make you look the fool.

btw, Orwell had warnings about both the left and the right. Maybe you should pay atention to everything he had to say instead of only what you want to hear from him? That seems to be a big problem with the lefties these days.

I don't know where you lost it.....but you certainly did somewhere.

Comparing having a presence in Germany with having a standing army in Iraq that is daily engaging in conflict is like comparing buying an egg at the grocery store with pulling one out of the hen's ass.

If you expect to be taken seriously (which your chances of that are fading dramatically with posts such as this) stop they hyperbole and the intellectual dishonesty and stick to the actual topic.

As for your "if I was an Iraqi -- I'd rather have been invaded than live under Saddam" answer....what if you are a Sunni and a Ba'athist? Would you still rather have lost every bit of power and/or upper hand that you had to have been bombarded and have you or your family members killed?

How is Saddam's invasion of a sovereign country without international approval and/or support different from the US's invasion of a sovereign country without international approval and/or support?

And you say annexation I say expansionism. Pretty much synonymous.

Lost it? I don't think you found it in the first place. I'm not sure what's so difficult to grasp? Part of the point is exactly that. There is zero strife in Germany and yet we are still there...for how many decades now? Are we Germany's imperial overlords? Was that point really so difficult for you to understand that I had to explain it to you?

:roll:

Sheesh. Taken seriously. The irony from you guys is busting me up.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Lost it? I don't think you found it in the first place. I'm not sure what's so difficult to grasp? Part of the point is exactly that. There is zero strife in Germany and yet we are still there...for how many decades now? Are we Germany's imperial overlords? Was that point really so difficult for you to understand that I had to explain it to you?

:roll:

Sheesh. Taken seriously. The irony from you guys is busting me up.

Anyone attempting to compare the postwar occupation of Germany and the invasion and occupation of Iraq is an idiot. They are nothing alike, and we've been over this before. You remind me of that guy from Momento, who can't make any new memories. Almost every one of the arguments you are attempting to use here has been specifically refuted before, and yet you soldier on like nothing has happened.

I did like how you argued that the US had to defy the UN charter in order to keep Iraq from defying the UN though, that was pretty hilarious.

I guess I admire your single minded devotion to your cause, but you would think some sense of shame or honesty would eventually stop you from continuing to post in threads such as these.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Lost it? I don't think you found it in the first place. I'm not sure what's so difficult to grasp? Part of the point is exactly that. There is zero strife in Germany and yet we are still there...for how many decades now? Are we Germany's imperial overlords? Was that point really so difficult for you to understand that I had to explain it to you?

:roll:

Sheesh. Taken seriously. The irony from you guys is busting me up.

Anyone attempting to compare the postwar occupation of Germany and the invasion and occupation of Iraq is an idiot. They are nothing alike, and we've been over this before. You remind me of that guy from Momento, who can't make any new memories. Almost every one of the arguments you are attempting to use here has been specifically refuted before, and yet you soldier on like nothing has happened.

I did like how you argued that the US had to defy the UN charter in order to keep Iraq from defying the UN though, that was pretty hilarious.

I guess I admire your single minded devotion to your cause, but you would think some sense of shame or honesty would eventually stop you from continuing to post in threads such as these.

The only real comparison I'm making is that we have troops in both places. I'm not comparing conditions nor claiming anythin else similar. In fact, I'm pointing out the are different because THAT'S PART OF THE FUCKING POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Since you don' seem to get it, along with a few other of the usual unhinged ones I'll repeat it again - THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT!

And speaking of comparisons, you guys are the ones pretending that the US ignoring the UN and Iraq ignoring the UN were identical, absolutely no difference, while completely ignoring any shades of gray.

More irony. Delicious. Shame? What do you know about shame? You appear to have none.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

The only real comparison I'm making is that we have troops in both places. I'm not comparing conditions nor claiming anythin else similar. In fact, I'm pointing out the are different because THAT'S PART OF THE FUCKING POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Since you don' seem to get it, along with a few other of the usual unhinged ones I'll repeat it again - THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT!

And speaking of comparisons, you guys are the ones pretending that the US ignoring the UN and Iraq ignoring the UN were identical, absolutely no difference, while completely ignoring any shades of gray.

More irony. Delicious. Shame? What do you know about shame? You appear to have none.

I never said they were equivalent. I just thought it was hypocritical to use the argument that we must violate the UN charter... to uphold the UN charter. And it is. Come on, at least try to keep up.

You were trying to make the argument that the US having hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, currently the only credible force standing between the Iraqi government and all the people who want to kill them, was not a sign of their lack of sovereignty because we have lots of troops in Germany. The two situations are nothing alike, and the argument you are trying to make by saying that is hilariously bad.

Trust me, never bring up Germany in one of these threads again. You'll thank me later.

EDIT: fixed quotes

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

The only real comparison I'm making is that we have troops in both places. I'm not comparing conditions nor claiming anythin else similar. In fact, I'm pointing out the are different because THAT'S PART OF THE FUCKING POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Since you don' seem to get it, along with a few other of the usual unhinged ones I'll repeat it again - THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT!

And speaking of comparisons, you guys are the ones pretending that the US ignoring the UN and Iraq ignoring the UN were identical, absolutely no difference, while completely ignoring any shades of gray.

More irony. Delicious. Shame? What do you know about shame? You appear to have none.

I never said they were equivalent. I just thought it was hypocritical to use the argument that we must violate the UN charter... to uphold the UN charter. And it is. Come on, at least try to keep up.

It seems your problem then is that you don't understand my statements. I never claimed we were invading Iraq to uphold any UN charter. That's your straw man. We gave the UN the finger because it was clear they weren't going to do what they should have done a long, long time ago. It wasn't about the UN. It was about Saddam.

You were trying to make the argument that the US having hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, currently the only credible force standing between the Iraqi government and all the people who want to kill them, was not a sign of their lack of sovereignty because we have lots of troops in Germany. The two situations are nothing alike, and the argument you are trying to make by saying that is hilariously bad.

Trust me, never bring up Germany in one of these threads again. You'll thank me later.

EDIT: fixed quotes

Your argument is crap, as usual.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/...aq.handover/index.html

Old news that I'm sure you're well aware of. Helping the Iraqi government with their security does not invalidate their sovereignty and you should well know that.

Trust me, never bring up Iraq in one of these threads again. Your BDS prevents you from a proper analysis of anything Iraq-related, you fall right down the rhetorical well, and end up sounder dumber than Larry the Cable Guy on a 3-day bender. Just stop. You'll thank me later.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

The only real comparison I'm making is that we have troops in both places. I'm not comparing conditions nor claiming anythin else similar. In fact, I'm pointing out the are different because THAT'S PART OF THE FUCKING POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Since you don' seem to get it, along with a few other of the usual unhinged ones I'll repeat it again - THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT!

And speaking of comparisons, you guys are the ones pretending that the US ignoring the UN and Iraq ignoring the UN were identical, absolutely no difference, while completely ignoring any shades of gray.

More irony. Delicious. Shame? What do you know about shame? You appear to have none.

I never said they were equivalent. I just thought it was hypocritical to use the argument that we must violate the UN charter... to uphold the UN charter. And it is. Come on, at least try to keep up.

It seems your problem then is that you don't understand my statements. I never claimed we were invading Iraq to uphold any UN charter. That's your straw man. We gave the UN the finger because it was clear they weren't going to do what they should have done a long, long time ago. It wasn't about the UN. It was about Saddam.

You were trying to make the argument that the US having hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, currently the only credible force standing between the Iraqi government and all the people who want to kill them, was not a sign of their lack of sovereignty because we have lots of troops in Germany. The two situations are nothing alike, and the argument you are trying to make by saying that is hilariously bad.

Trust me, never bring up Germany in one of these threads again. You'll thank me later.

EDIT: fixed quotes

Your argument is crap, as usual.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/...aq.handover/index.html

Old news that I'm sure you're well aware of. Helping the Iraqi government with their security does not invalidate their sovereignty and you should well know that.

Trust me, never bring up Iraq in one of these threads again. Your BDS prevents you from a proper analysis of anything Iraq-related, you fall right down the rhetorical well, and end up sounder dumber than Larry the Cable Guy on a 3-day bender. Just stop. You'll thank me later.

The reason you gave for us invading earlier in this same thread was that Saddam didn't comply with UNSC resolutions. Now you're saying it's not about the UN. Interesting. Your arguments are actually eating themselves now, and its fun to watch.

Here's a little help for you on the issue of sovereignty. First tip is just because someone says "you're sovereign now", doesn't mean that it's actually true. I know that the people in the white house seem to think that once they declare something it's reality, but that's not actually how things work. The definition of sovereignty is as follows:

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.

Now tell me... just TRY to tell me that the Iraqi government fits that definition. They exist at the will of our government, because you know as well as I do that if we remove our protection of them that they won't last long. Only a supremely ignorant person would call that sovereignty.

Don't you get it at this point? You can't argue this topic well because you simply just don't know enough about it. I feel like I'm having to teach you basic concepts just so I can show you how you're wrong. I know you mostly just participate in these threads because you like trash talking, but I'm serious, you are embarassing yourself. Your IDS (Iraq Delusionment Syndrome) is keeping you from being able to understand the situation in an objective manner. (see? I can make up stupid acronyms too.)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The reason you gave for us invading earlier in this same thread was that Saddam didn't comply with UNSC resolutions. Now you're saying it's not about the UN. Interesting. Your arguments are actually eating themselves now, and its fun to watch.

Wow. Just...wow.

Besides your blatant and moronic attempt at twisting my words, you can't keep your own words straight. Maybe I'm just typing too fast for you? In that case, let me 'splain it r..e..a...l s...l...o...w f...o...r y...o...u.

a) Yes we invaded Iraq because Saddam would not comply with the UNSC resolutions.

b) We DID NOT invade to "to uphold the UN charter." That was impossible because the UN never had the nads to actually include a clause or statement that invasion was imminent if Iraq failed to comply. They refused to do that, in fact. That's why none of the resolutions had any teeth, and apparently Saddam enjoyed gum-jobs.

c) Saying we invaded because Saddam failed to comply with the UN sanctions does not imply that we invaded to uphold the UN charter. We invaded because we thought he still had WMDs (along with a number of other reasons) and we all knew the UN wasn't going to ever put their foot down. Not with a few countries running interference for Saddam in the SC.

Now are those too difficult for you to comprehend? I dumbed them down for you benefit as much as possible, but they still may not get through your thick skull, considering your track record so far.

Here's a little help for you on the issue of sovereignty. First tip is just because someone says "you're sovereign now", doesn't mean that it's actually true. I know that the people in the white house seem to think that once they declare something it's reality, but that's not actually how things work. The definition of sovereignty is as follows:

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.

Now tell me... just TRY to tell me that the Iraqi government fits that definition. They exist at the will of our government, because you know as well as I do that if we remove our protection of them that they won't last long. Only a supremely ignorant person would call that sovereignty.

Don't you get it at this point? You can't argue this topic well because you simply just don't know enough about it. I feel like I'm having to teach you basic concepts just so I can show you how you're wrong. I know you mostly just participate in these threads because you like trash talking, but I'm serious, you are embarassing yourself. Your IDS (Iraq Delusionment Syndrome) is keeping you from being able to understand the situation in an objective manner. (see? I can make up stupid acronyms too.)

pssst. Your C&P from Black's Law is a general legal definition of sovereign, not sovereignty.

Do you understand the difference or do I need to spell that out for you real slow as well?

The basic definition of sovereignty is: "Supreme control of a territory." Iraq has that control. They have since 2004.

Now, you were saying something about someone not arguing the topic well because they just don't know enogh? Sounds like a self-indictment on your part. Congrats on proving your ignorance for all to plainly see.

 

[dmcowen674]

I see all the Bush apologists alive and well in here despite having their hero's lies printed in black and white for the history books.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I see all the Bush apologists alive and well in here despite having their hero's lies printed in black and white for the history books.

My hero right now is Obama. I hope he replaces Bush and I'll be more than glad to see Bush gone. However, even if Hillary gets into office, as much as I find her revolting and disgusting, I will look at the facts of any situation involving her and base my opinion on those facts instead of taking a partisan stance. If she is right, I will say so.

And that's the difference between me and the BDS crew in here too.

Welcome back, Dave.

 

[fskimospy]

So you are honestly trying to argue that Iraq's government has supreme control over Iraq? Is this why they never leave the green zone that's guarded by US troops? Sure Iraq's central government has that supreme control. If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you. Way not to realize the difference between de jure sovereignty and de facto sovereignty by the way. I feel like I ask this a lot, but I have to know if you are being this ignorant on purpose? Iraq's central government relies on the US's troops to such a heavy level to enforce its control over the territory of Iraq that no intelligent person could call Iraq a sovereign nation in its current situation. Any nation reliant upon a foreign power to control territory does not actually control that territory. That's not even politics 101, that's 'using your brain 101'.

Now on to your amazing argument for why we invaded:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

a) Yes we invaded Iraq because Saddam would not comply with the UNSC resolutions.

b) We DID NOT invade to "to uphold the UN charter." That was impossible because the UN never had the nads to actually include a clause or statement that invasion was imminent if Iraq failed to comply. They refused to do that, in fact. That's why none of the resolutions had any teeth, and apparently Saddam enjoyed gum-jobs.

c) Saying we invaded because Saddam failed to comply with the UN sanctions does not imply that we invaded to uphold the UN charter. We invaded because we thought he still had WMDs (along with a number of other reasons) and we all knew the UN wasn't going to ever put their foot down. Not with a few countries running interference for Saddam in the SC.

Your logic for the invasion is getting truly dizzying at this point. Again, its fun to watch your arguments eat themselves. So let me see if I've got what you're saying straight.

We invaded because Saddam would not abide by UNSC resolutions, but NOT to uphold the UN but because we thought he had WMDs. (the only reason for which these were not allowed him being by virtue of the UN that we're NOT invading to support, but actually doing so against its wishes) Anyone else getting a little woozy here? Truly an amazing justification. What is funny is that you're trying SO HARD not to be beaten down by me yet again... and it's just not working. I'm enjoying watching you grasping at straws though, always good entertainment.

If you say it was just about WMD, then we should have invaded half a dozen other countries for the same reasons. If you say it has something to do with the violation of UN resolutions then we're still hypocrites for violating the UN charter to uphold UN resolutions. You can't win this. You don't have either the education or the brainpower.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Your logic for the invasion is getting truly dizzying at this point. Again, its fun to watch your arguments eat themselves. So let me see if I've got what you're saying straight.

No doubt the truth makes you dizzy. Doesn't surprise me.

If you say it was just about WMD, then we should have invaded half a dozen other countries for the same reasons. If you say it has something to do with the violation of UN resolutions then we're still hypocrites for violating the UN charter to uphold UN resolutions. You can't win this. You don't have either the education or the brainpower.

lol again. How many of those other countries invaded a neighbor, were under Chapter VII resolutions, and agreed to comply with disarmament?

You really should stop bringing up any subject that even feigns to pimp your alleged intelligence because you've proven time and time again that you have none. Maybe in your own mind you do, but you sure don't demonstrate any in here. Please come back when you manage to procure some.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Your logic for the invasion is getting truly dizzying at this point. Again, its fun to watch your arguments eat themselves. So let me see if I've got what you're saying straight.

No doubt the truth makes you dizzy. Doesn't surprise me.

If you say it was just about WMD, then we should have invaded half a dozen other countries for the same reasons. If you say it has something to do with the violation of UN resolutions then we're still hypocrites for violating the UN charter to uphold UN resolutions. You can't win this. You don't have either the education or the brainpower.

lol again. How many of those other countries invaded a neighbor, were under Chapter VII resolutions, and agreed to comply with disarmament?

You really should stop bringing up any subject that even feigns to pimp your alleged intelligence because you've proven time and time again that you have none. Maybe in your own mind you do, but you sure don't demonstrate any in here. Please come back when you manage to procure some.

I'm so glad you asked, North Korea invaded a neighbor, agreed not to develop nuclear weapons under the NPT, then violated the treaty only to withdraw in order to keep cooking them up. When's the invasion? Way to try and duck the actual point of what I said though. I also noticed that you've now dropped the sovereignty argument. I'm sure you will start to pretend that didn't exist either. I also noticed that you didn't address the circular nature of your justification. Shocking.

My problem with your arguments isn't that we disagree. There are plenty of people in here that I disagree with, it's that you make statements that are simply factually inaccurate in order to prop them up. That's why I say you don't know enough about this subject.

Poor poor TLC. Did you ever notice how nobody comes to your defense in here? You might try to make the argument that its because there aren't enough conservatives/war supporters, but you're wrong. There are plenty of people that support the war here, but it seems to me that you're radioactive even to them. Did you ever stop to think why that might be?

God damn it, now that I think about it why did I even bother with you again? I feel bad because I even predicted this myself earlier in this thread. Originally we were talking about Hans Blix's statements but after you got owned on those you kept shopping around for a new argument. I guess you got me though, as you said enough dumb things to get me to bite again. Now I'm sitting around arguing about the nature of Iraqi sovereignty and trying to show you why the justifications you're making for the war are simply not logically coherant. It's like this with you in EVERY SINGLE THREAD YOU PARTICIPATE IN.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm so glad you asked, North Korea invaded a neighbor, agreed not to develop nuclear weapons under the NPT, then violated the treaty only to withdraw in order to keep cooking them up. When's the invasion? Way to try and duck the actual point of what I said though. I also noticed that you've now dropped the sovereignty argument. I'm sure you will start to pretend that didn't exist either. I also noticed that you didn't address the circular nature of your justification. Shocking.

Did you happen to notice I said "Chapter VII resolutions?" The Chapter VII resolution part is important because only Chapter VII resolutions may contain provisions for military enforcement in the event of non-compliance. Until very recently (Res. 1718) there were no resolutions applied to NK that cited Chapter VII. And even 1718 does not allow for automatic military enforcement in the event of non-compliance.

The devil is in the details. Details that you generally overlook, which is why your arguments are so often weak and losing ones. You only know the superficial facts because apparently you don't want to know the facts that obliterate your argument. I guess that would be ignorance by bias on your part. It's why bias, which you clearly have, should never be used to formulate knowledge. Makes you stupid.

btw, I was not the one that dropped the sovereignty argument. You failed to respond in any meaningful manner after I demonstrated that you were being intellectually dishonest, or maybe just plain ignorant, by trying to use the legal definition of sovereign in place of sovereignty. You sidestepped me calling you out on that. Instead you followed up with your typical modus operandi - switching gears, feigning intelligence once again, and trying to sound as if you know what you're talking about when you so clearly do not.

My problem with your arguments isn't that we disagree. There are plenty of people in here that I disagree with, it's that you make statements that are simply factually inaccurate in order to prop them up. That's why I say you don't know enough about this subject.

My problem is not that we disagree, it's the complete irony with which you make your statements. You prove your lack of detailed knowledge time and time again; construct parallels where none truly exist, and then finish with your usual "You don't know enough..." flourish when it's clearly you who are the one wallowing in ignorance.

Poor poor TLC. Did you ever notice how nobody comes to your defense in here? You might try to make the argument that its because there aren't enough conservatives/war supporters, but you're wrong. There are plenty of people that support the war here, but it seems to me that you're radioactive even to them. Did you ever stop to think why that might be?

God damn it, now that I think about it why did I even bother with you again? I feel bad because I even predicted this myself earlier in this thread. Originally we were talking about Hans Blix's statements but after you got owned on those you kept shopping around for a new argument. I guess you got me though, as you said enough dumb things to get me to bite again. Now I'm sitting around arguing about the nature of Iraqi sovereignty and trying to show you why the justifications you're making for the war are simply not logically coherant. It's like this with you in EVERY SINGLE THREAD YOU PARTICIPATE IN.

Did you ever stop to think that I don't need to have someone come along to fluff me up? If you do that says more about you and your seeming lack of ability to come up with any sort of enduring rebuttal that withstands the least bit of scrutiny.

The fact is here that we are both tools. But you're a dumb tool and it's so easy to smack you around that nobody would feel the need to defend me. They can just place their hands behind their head and laugh at me pummeling you senseless in every thread that you puff up and try to butt heads with me in.

It's been a pleasure doing it yet again. Come back anytime to give it another shot.