U.S. seeks multinational Iraq force (Finally)

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD - <<If we knew then what we know now, would we have attacked? probably not,>>
The liberation of the Iraqis isn't that important when our security isn't threatened, is it?

Unfortunately that seems to have been out position for ~12 years.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
True, It could have been "un-necessary" and the one person standing in the way of that avoidance was Saddam. He had 12 years to comply, which would have, according to the UN, provided security to the region and international peace. Infact even got an ultimatum by Bush to resolve it peaceably before the invasion. I just wish people would put the blame for the attack where it belongs(for the slow of mind - Saddam).

Hashed to death elsewhere, but a quick reminder: in the months leading up to the invasion, Iraq claimed it was complying and the UN inspectors reported there was no evidence of significant non-compliance. In hindsight now, we see Iraq may well have been telling the truth. It would appear compliance was not enough to prevent the attack, thus leaving the blame on Bush & Co.

No, Iraq wasn't in compliance and the UN never deemed it so. The were supposedly cooperating a tad better but they still had things hidden. Wasn't there a missile that was illegal for them to posses? Wasn't the weapons report last december? deemed to be false? Wasn't the honus on Saddam/Iraq to account for the weapons it possesed?(yes) Did they do that to the satisfaction of the UN?(No)

Yeah, I guess Iraq/Saddam was telling the truth

Hashed to death elsewhere, but: (1) The U.N. was investigating whether Iraq was in compliance or not. (2) They rated a "B" on their cooperation according to Blix. Having "things hidden" doesn't necessarily mean non-compliance. (3) Blix claimed their al Samoud missles slightly exceeded the maximum range allowed. Iraq disagreed but began destoying the missles anyway. (4) Don't think so. Deemed false by whom? Can you back this up? (5) You don't invade another country for incomplete paperwork. (5) To Bush's satisfaction? No. To the U.N.'s satisfaction? Mixed response.

(7) Where are the WMD's? Where is the "mushroom cloud"? Where are the "thousands of litres ..."? Where are the UAV's they were going to use to attack the continental U.S.? Where are the ties to 9/11? Yes, I guess Bush & Co. "was telling the truth".

1. The UN never said they were in FULL compliance - have you read what it had to comply with and do?(687)
2. cooperation with inspectors isn't compliance. and Yes, having "hidden things" does mean non-compliance - (687)
3. out of range is out of range. There is no debate - the line was crossed.(687)
4. ? to what does this refer? I'm pretty sure you need to refer to 687 or 678 no matter what you were refering to
5. One of MANY things Iraq was not in compliance with. So yes, non-compliance means that we can bring security to the area by any means necessary.(678&687)
5.(6?) UN's. 1441 reiterated Iraq's non-compliance.
7. Iraq never accounted for them(WMDs), which is one of the reasons we needed to secure the area.(678&687)

The honus was on Saddam and Iraq(687) - not Bush.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Hashed to death elsewhere, but: (1) The U.N. was investigating whether Iraq was in compliance or not. (2) They rated a "B" on their cooperation according to Blix. Having "things hidden" doesn't necessarily mean non-compliance. (3) Blix claimed their al Samoud missles slightly exceeded the maximum range allowed. Iraq disagreed but began destoying the missles anyway. (4) Don't think so. Deemed false by whom? Can you back this up? (5) You don't invade another country for incomplete paperwork. (5) To Bush's satisfaction? No. To the U.N.'s satisfaction? Mixed response.

(7) Where are the WMD's? Where is the "mushroom cloud"? Where are the "thousands of litres ..."? Where are the UAV's they were going to use to attack the continental U.S.? Where are the ties to 9/11? Yes, I guess Bush & Co. "was telling the truth".

1. The UN never said they were in FULL compliance - have you read what it had to comply with and do?(687)
2. cooperation with inspectors isn't compliance. and Yes, having "hidden things" does mean non-compliance - (687)
3. out of range is out of range. There is no debate - the line was crossed.(687)
4. ? to what does this refer? I'm pretty sure you need to refer to 687 or 678 no matter what you were refering to
5. One of MANY things Iraq was not in compliance with. So yes, non-compliance means that we can bring security to the area by any means necessary.(678&687)
5.(6?) UN's. 1441 reiterated Iraq's non-compliance.
7. Iraq never accounted for them(WMDs), which is one of the reasons we needed to secure the area.(678&687)

The honus was on Saddam and Iraq(687) - not Bush.

CkG

Hashed to death elsewhere: we'll just have to agree to disagree again. My standard for killing thousands of innocent people is a bit higher than yours. I believe we have a moral responsibility to do better than technicalities and unsubstantiated innuendo.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Hashed to death elsewhere, but: (1) The U.N. was investigating whether Iraq was in compliance or not. (2) They rated a "B" on their cooperation according to Blix. Having "things hidden" doesn't necessarily mean non-compliance. (3) Blix claimed their al Samoud missles slightly exceeded the maximum range allowed. Iraq disagreed but began destoying the missles anyway. (4) Don't think so. Deemed false by whom? Can you back this up? (5) You don't invade another country for incomplete paperwork. (5) To Bush's satisfaction? No. To the U.N.'s satisfaction? Mixed response.

(7) Where are the WMD's? Where is the "mushroom cloud"? Where are the "thousands of litres ..."? Where are the UAV's they were going to use to attack the continental U.S.? Where are the ties to 9/11? Yes, I guess Bush & Co. "was telling the truth".

1. The UN never said they were in FULL compliance - have you read what it had to comply with and do?(687)
2. cooperation with inspectors isn't compliance. and Yes, having "hidden things" does mean non-compliance - (687)
3. out of range is out of range. There is no debate - the line was crossed.(687)
4. ? to what does this refer? I'm pretty sure you need to refer to 687 or 678 no matter what you were refering to
5. One of MANY things Iraq was not in compliance with. So yes, non-compliance means that we can bring security to the area by any means necessary.(678&687)
5.(6?) UN's. 1441 reiterated Iraq's non-compliance.
7. Iraq never accounted for them(WMDs), which is one of the reasons we needed to secure the area.(678&687)

The honus was on Saddam and Iraq(687) - not Bush.

CkG

Hashed to death elsewhere: we'll just have to agree to disagree again. My standard for killing thousands of innocent people is a bit higher than yours. I believe we have a moral responsibility to do better than technicalities and unsubstantiated innuendo.

I know it has been hashed to death elsewhere but people keep spewing "illegal war" and the like. It needs to be addressed when it happens. Some here are incapable of understanding the other side's point of view or accepting it as a valid opinion. Thank you for realizing this. The reason I seem to be soooo adamant about this thing is precisely because of the accusations and assertions that are thrown out as FACT when they really are opinions.
I believe we have a moral obligation to stand behind our demands when security and int'l peace are at risk. You can call years upon years of intel "unsubstantiated innuendo" if you wish but again, the honus was on Iraq because it was an aggressor state which was compelled to prove it's ability to be peaceable - it did not. Bringing the emotion of "innocent" deaths is a weak argument, and can be countered with "how many more innocents would have continued to be killed under Saddam's rule?". Sometimes peace is achieved through force - and this is one such case.

But as you said - you and I will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

<<"how many more innocents would have continued to be killed under Saddam's rule?". >>

Take out any perceived threat to us or our interests and the answer would be "Who cares".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<"how many more innocents would have continued to be killed under Saddam's rule?". >>

Take out any perceived threat to us or our interests and the answer would be "Who cares".

Seems to be so Heck we had 10+ years of appeasement - who cares if we allowed it to be 2 or 3 decades

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<"how many more innocents would have continued to be killed under Saddam's rule?". >>

Take out any perceived threat to us or our interests and the answer would be "Who cares".

Exactly. How many innocent civilians have died under North Korea's Kim Jong-il? What have we done about it? Jack sh!t. So don't give me this crap about how we cared so much about the Iraqi people, 'cause I'm not buying it. It's just a convenient excuse now that the other ones haven't panned out.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

What is interesting is that the JS resolution doesn't say Bush had to go through the UN, and infact it does say that it recognized his efforts in doing such things. Nothing was in there to force or tell him he had to continue The people who voted for that should have done a better job if they now think that Bush misused the military. They are just as culpable as Bush would be IF somehow the invasion was determined to be "illegal". What ended up happening was that Bush got permission to use force to remove Saddam and used a BROAD COALITION to enforce the resolutions the UN wasn't resolute enough to follow through with.

It's too bad that Bush has to be "forced" to do the right thing. You would think he would do it on his own accord. In the end though, Bush enforced UN Resolutions by ignoring UN authority. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that - then it's truly the backwards, topsy-turvy world that Moonbeam says we live in

No hypocrisy - read 678 It says "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolutions 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area..." Now this is before the "cease-fire" and terms(687) but since those terms were broken by Iraq the previous resolutions come into play since 687 stopped us from militarily enforcing the previous resolutions. Iraq broke that cease-fire and so we were compelled to enforce the said previous resolutions.

Like I said - I don't expect YOU or anyone else to agree with the above but the pieces do fit and the logic is sound, however interpretation of law can result in different opinions depending on one's ideals and principles.

CkG

Look Cad, you can spout UN Resolutions until you're blue in the face. The fact is the U.S. went to the United Nations in order to get a new resolution that specifically authorized force to disarm Iraq. That authorization was never given. You can spin and contort PREVIOUS resolutions all day long, but the fact remains: The U.S. never got UN authorization to use force. But whatever, I'm sick of arguing this over and over and over. Obviously no one is budging on this.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<"how many more innocents would have continued to be killed under Saddam's rule?". >>

Take out any perceived threat to us or our interests and the answer would be "Who cares".

Exactly. How many innocent civilians have died under North Korea's Kim Jong-il? What have we done about it? Jack sh!t. So don't give me this crap about how we cared so much about the Iraqi people, 'cause I'm not buying it. It's just a convenient excuse now that the other ones haven't panned out.

What has the UN done in regards to NK?

True as it may be that without the other things we probably would have continued turning a blind eye - it was a factor and was definately one of the many reasons to act.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

What is interesting is that the JS resolution doesn't say Bush had to go through the UN, and infact it does say that it recognized his efforts in doing such things. Nothing was in there to force or tell him he had to continue The people who voted for that should have done a better job if they now think that Bush misused the military. They are just as culpable as Bush would be IF somehow the invasion was determined to be "illegal". What ended up happening was that Bush got permission to use force to remove Saddam and used a BROAD COALITION to enforce the resolutions the UN wasn't resolute enough to follow through with.

It's too bad that Bush has to be "forced" to do the right thing. You would think he would do it on his own accord. In the end though, Bush enforced UN Resolutions by ignoring UN authority. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that - then it's truly the backwards, topsy-turvy world that Moonbeam says we live in

No hypocrisy - read 678 It says "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolutions 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area..." Now this is before the "cease-fire" and terms(687) but since those terms were broken by Iraq the previous resolutions come into play since 687 stopped us from militarily enforcing the previous resolutions. Iraq broke that cease-fire and so we were compelled to enforce the said previous resolutions.

Like I said - I don't expect YOU or anyone else to agree with the above but the pieces do fit and the logic is sound, however interpretation of law can result in different opinions depending on one's ideals and principles.

CkG

Look Cad, you can spout UN Resolutions until you're blue in the face. The fact is the U.S. went to the United Nations in order to get a new resolution that specifically authorized force to disarm Iraq. That authorization was never given. You can spin and contort PREVIOUS resolutions all day long, but the fact remains: The U.S. never got UN authorization to use force. But whatever, I'm sick of arguing this over and over and over. Obviously no one is budging on this.

Look DealMonkey you can make accusations so you stay blue in the face but the FACT remains - the resolutions DO exist and should have been enforced years ago(IMO). I'm not distorting or spinning them - I'm presenting them and my interpretation which I acknowledge as MY OPINION - and other's should acknowledge thier accusations as their own interpretaion and opinion.
Yup - I'm sick of debating it too but I'm also sick of seeing and hearing accusations based on opinions being thrown out in thread after thread as "fact".

I'll add you to my list of agreeable disagreers

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]
I believe we have a moral obligation to stand behind our demands when security and int'l peace are at risk. You can call years upon years of intel "unsubstantiated innuendo" if you wish but again, the honus was on Iraq because it was an aggressor state which was compelled to prove it's ability to be peaceable - it did not. Bringing the emotion of "innocent" deaths is a weak argument, and can be countered with "how many more innocents would have continued to be killed under Saddam's rule?". Sometimes peace is achieved through force - and this is one such case.

I think the "innocent deaths" issue is the show-stopper. Human life is not a numbers game. When we decide to take thousands of innocent lives, not because we are defending ourselves, but because we have become an aggressor, then we lower ourselves to Hussein's level. We become brutal thugs just like him. As the world's last superpower, I believe we have an obligation to be better than this, to lead by example.

Perhaps more people would have died under Hussein, but that is irrelevant to our actions. We chose to play God, unilaterally forcing our own agenda -- an imperialist agenda in my view -- on the people of Iraq. That's wrong, no matter how much good might come from it.

If we are to claim the moral high ground as the world's policeman, we must follow the "law" as set by the U.N. No matter how much you try to rationalize it, the indisputable fact is that the March 2003 United Nations did NOT give us the OK to invade Iraq. It did not happen, we knew they would not approve it, so we pushed them aside and did what Bush wanted. Pretending it was authorized based on old resolutions is simply dishonest. That was then, this is (was) now. Had we sought U.N. approval, it would have been denied.

But as you say, our opinions differ on this. We're fortunate to live in a country where we're free to express this disagreement.



(Friendly tip, CkG: you meant "onus", not "honus")

 

[LeadMagnet]

Polital Cartoon

Perhaps this si the way these sort of thing should be solved?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Polital Cartoon

Perhaps this si the way these sort of thing should be solved?

Nah, that would only give Texas (and other rural states) an unfair disadvantage.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Polital Cartoon

Perhaps this si the way these sort of thing should be solved?

Nah, that would only give Texas (and other rural states) an unfair disadvantage.

That would explain a few things.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]
I believe we have a moral obligation to stand behind our demands when security and int'l peace are at risk. You can call years upon years of intel "unsubstantiated innuendo" if you wish but again, the honus was on Iraq because it was an aggressor state which was compelled to prove it's ability to be peaceable - it did not. Bringing the emotion of "innocent" deaths is a weak argument, and can be countered with "how many more innocents would have continued to be killed under Saddam's rule?". Sometimes peace is achieved through force - and this is one such case.

I think the "innocent deaths" issue is the show-stopper. Human life is not a numbers game. When we decide to take thousands of innocent lives, not because we are defending ourselves, but because we have become an aggressor, then we lower ourselves to Hussein's level. We become brutal thugs just like him. As the world's last superpower, I believe we have an obligation to be better than this, to lead by example.

Perhaps more people would have died under Hussein, but that is irrelevant to our actions. We chose to play God, unilaterally forcing our own agenda -- an imperialist agenda in my view -- on the people of Iraq. That's wrong, no matter how much good might come from it.

If we are to claim the moral high ground as the world's policeman, we must follow the "law" as set by the U.N. No matter how much you try to rationalize it, the indisputable fact is that the March 2003 United Nations did NOT give us the OK to invade Iraq. It did not happen, we knew they would not approve it, so we pushed them aside and did what Bush wanted. Pretending it was authorized based on old resolutions is simply dishonest. That was then, this is (was) now. Had we sought U.N. approval, it would have been denied.

But as you say, our opinions differ on this. We're fortunate to live in a country where we're free to express this disagreement.



(Friendly tip, CkG: you meant "onus", not "honus")

Dasm spell checker

Anywho, The "irrelevance" of Saddam killing his own matches the "irrelevance" of the "innocent deaths". One can't be relevant without the other being equally as relevant which I was pointing out. It isn't stooping to his level either - and it would be dishonest to equate the two as murder. Saddam targeted, tortured, and killed his own people - we did not. Like I said - Sometimes peace is achieved through force - and this is one such case.

You can choose to IGNORE Saddam's ~12yrs of non-compliance and try to claim the UN was doing something about it, but the truth is that they weren't. Yes a few token things happened like allowing fly-overs and such but that was only because he was backed into a corner. Then while still backed into the corner he didn't take choose the option of FULL compliance which would have stayed the WAR. You can try to blame this all on the US and Bush if you want but the one and only person to blame this on is Saddam since he was the only one with the power to end the sanctions and the threat of WAR.
There is no "rationalizing" - just proof(IMO) that the war wasn't illegal as certain people want to spout. It is NOT dishonest to enforce our half of the ceasefire agreement, infact it would be dishonest to ignore it's legality in respect to "today".
You can get down off your moral high-horse and back to the reality that Saddam needed to be accountable for his non-compliance. What kind of example does it set to let Saddam get away with things if we and/or the UN expect to have any validity. Saddam broke the rules - don't ever forget that little bit of info.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Polital Cartoon

Perhaps this si the way these sort of thing should be solved?

Nah, that would only give Texas (and other rural states) an unfair disadvantage.

That would explain a few things.

Yes it would

CkG

 

[Orsorum]

What about the ten years before the twelve previous years of non-compliance, CkG? Wasn't he just as bad of a guy then?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
What about the ten years before the twelve previous years of non-compliance, CkG? Wasn't he just as bad of a guy then?

I think it has been established to be so - yes.

He became a menace to the region causing the security of the region to be unstable and affected int'l peace about 13 years ago though which is what all this is stemming from. Is it right that we and the rest of the UN ignore ruthless and murderous dictators? - no and I have said such in response to others who have questioned that as a motive. This issue was bigger than those infractions though, but it doesn't mean we still must ignore it. The fact that it was ignored before hand doesn't mean it can't and wasn't used as a reason for the UN or the US to act against Saddam.

CkG

 

[busmaster11]

Oh man I love it. Baby bush and his goons go off half-cocked and unilaterally spewing politically arrogant bullsh!t and claiming the right to attqck anyone they chose in the name of defending American, thereby pissing off half the nations in the world.

LOL

And now they want the UN to come in, get some troops and help spell ours, because we've gotten ourselves in such a mess we don't know WTF to do about it.

You don't have to know a lot of history to see that this regime is as big a pile of steaming dog turd that you've ever hope to see.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Oh man I love it. Baby bush and his goons go off half-cocked and unilaterally spewing politically arrogant bullsh!t and claiming the right to attqck anyone they chose in the name of defending American, thereby pissing off half the nations in the world.

LOL

And now they want the UN to come in, get some troops and help spell ours, because we've gotten ourselves in such a mess we don't know WTF to do about it.

You don't have to know a lot of history to see that this regime is as big a pile of steaming dog turd that you've ever hope to see.

You know, I was going to reply to this and point out how wrong you were. Then I noticed the "Bush baby and his goons" in your post and decided that you are just too plain stupid to waste my time on any more than my pointing out the obvious.

Let me know when you grow up a little.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Oh man I love it. Baby bush and his goons go off half-cocked and unilaterally spewing politically arrogant bullsh!t and claiming the right to attqck anyone they chose in the name of defending American, thereby pissing off half the nations in the world.

LOL

And now they want the UN to come in, get some troops and help spell ours, because we've gotten ourselves in such a mess we don't know WTF to do about it.

You don't have to know a lot of history to see that this regime is as big a pile of steaming dog turd that you've ever hope to see.

You know, I was going to reply to this and point out how wrong you were. Then I noticed the "Bush baby and his goons" in your post and decided that you are just too plain stupid to waste my time on any more than my pointing out the obvious.

Let me know when you grow up a little.

I had the reply window open, a few lines written, then arrived at the same conclusions you did, sir. "No war for Oil."

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum
What about the ten years before the twelve previous years of non-compliance, CkG? Wasn't he just as bad of a guy then?

I think it has been established to be so - yes.

He became a menace to the region causing the security of the region to be unstable and affected int'l peace about 13 years ago though which is what all this is stemming from. Is it right that we and the rest of the UN ignore ruthless and murderous dictators? - no and I have said such in response to others who have questioned that as a motive. This issue was bigger than those infractions though, but it doesn't mean we still must ignore it. The fact that it was ignored before hand doesn't mean it can't and wasn't used as a reason for the UN or the US to act against Saddam.

CkG

We're conveniently ignoring many, many ruthless dictators as we speak. What about Kim Jong Il? Where were you, Cad, when 2-3 million North Koreans were starved to death from '95-'99? Where was the outrage and hand-wringing? What about half of Africa, which at any given point in time is embroiled in drought, famine, and/or horrible human attrocities by warlords, dictators, or revolutionaries. My point is, we have a long history of ignoring brutal dictators (or installing them)as long as they parallel our needs geopolitically. Using your excuse in Iraq seems a little disingenuous, now doesn't it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum
What about the ten years before the twelve previous years of non-compliance, CkG? Wasn't he just as bad of a guy then?

I think it has been established to be so - yes.

He became a menace to the region causing the security of the region to be unstable and affected int'l peace about 13 years ago though which is what all this is stemming from. Is it right that we and the rest of the UN ignore ruthless and murderous dictators? - no and I have said such in response to others who have questioned that as a motive. This issue was bigger than those infractions though, but it doesn't mean we still must ignore it. The fact that it was ignored before hand doesn't mean it can't and wasn't used as a reason for the UN or the US to act against Saddam.

CkG

We're conveniently ignoring many, many ruthless dictators as we speak. What about Kim Jong Il? Where were you, Cad, when 2-3 million North Koreans were starved to death from '95-'99? Where was the outrage and hand-wringing? What about half of Africa, which at any given point in time is embroiled in drought, famine, and/or horrible human attrocities by warlords, dictators, or revolutionaries. My point is, we have a long history of ignoring brutal dictators (or installing them)as long as they parallel our needs geopolitically. Using your excuse in Iraq seems a little disingenuous, now doesn't it?

<sigh>
DealMonkey - I've said multiple times and did in that post.

Is it right that we and the rest of the UN ignore ruthless and murderous dictators? - no and I have said such in response to others who have questioned that as a motive.

I also wasn't using it as an "excuse" - it was merely a rebuttle to the bleeding heart accusation of the "innocent deaths" issue. You can't say we should continue to ignore the existing MURDER just because we may cause "innocent deaths".

We agree on this issue but it doesn't change the fact that it is one of the reasons we did the right thing in regards to Iraq.

CkG

 

[phillyTIM]

Funny how much time & effort the bush apologists have & waste to defend their "hero".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Funny how much time & effort the bush apologists have & waste to defend their "hero".

Funny how much time & effort the Bush haters have & waste bashing their "enemy".

CkG