What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Ah yes. Let's drag out that dusty old strawman of an argument that if people really wanted democracy it would come from within and will be done without outside help.

Except that doesn't jibe with history, even our own history, as without the French helping us we never would have defeated the British.
Tell me, TLC. What's the difference between that situation and what occurred in Iraq? I know you know the difference. I just want to know if you're willing to admit it in public view.
It doesn't matter.

The claim is made around here that democracy must come from within, not without. There are no caveats made in that statement If you don't like the US example, discard it. There are others.
Ah...what's wrong, TLC? Chicken? Afraid to answer lest you reveal yourself to be the hypocrite you are?
conjur, when you begin answering some of the points I've brought up in this without rhetoric, diversion, or just plain ignoring them then maybe, just maybe, I'd take the time to answer your attempt at this thread derailment. Until then, don't hold your breath.

Not really It was an overthow of the people with outside help. Without the French help we would have been smacked down and singing God Save the Queen today.
It started internally. It didn't start with outside intervention. And, given enough time, who's to say we couldn't have won w/o the help of the French? You don't know.[/quote]
I do know, because I have researched it and it's practically a concensus amongst historians that without French help we would have been brutally beaten by the Brits.

You implied it in your statement:

"If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them?"

It implies that the Iraqis really didn't want democracy and that we had to force it on them.

If you meant it elsewise, please clarify because that's the way I parsed your statement and the intent I got from it.
No, I was referring to your stance that the Iraqis wanted democracy and tying that to Bush's statement that we wouldn't force democracy upon those who want it. That would mean the Iraqis want democracy, we wouldn't force them to move to a democracy so they'd have to move to a democracy on their own. However, as we seen by the loss of 1,440 American soldiers and $160 billion that we did force democracy upon them. You can't have it both ways.[/quote]
Actually, you weren't referrig to my stance. It was one of your replies to ntdz that I remarked on.

And your explanation seems a bit shaky and convoluted.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,458
527
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Under the WMD assumption, he was a threat, it turned out though he was a lion with no teeth nor claws. I think if we knew that there were no WMDs, then you are right, we should not have gone to war, but we cant change the past...only work hard for a better future.
Not even under the WMD assumption (which was quite debated among the various intelligence agencies.) If Saddam had a nuclear warhead and eleventy billion tons of Anthrax and Ricin, how was he going to attack the U.S.? Send it FedEx?
He smuggles it (or pays someone off) onto a cargo ship...it sails into New York Harbor...then BOOM or LA or SF etc...etc... Where there is a will there is a way.
Woulda shoulda coulda. Saddam didn't have collaborative relationships with al Qaeda and he didn't have WMDs (which was pretty much known before the invasion.)

But he did have relations with the french, germans and russians... It was proven that he did have arms that were banned under the 1991 cease fire including some advanced fighters he buried in the desert...

I am only coming up with an answer to how he could deliver a warhead...remember...the boom part is not that big and would fit in a small crate.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: conjur
Woulda shoulda coulda. Saddam didn't have collaborative relationships with al Qaeda and he didn't have WMDs (which was pretty much known before the invasion.)
But he did have relations with the french, germans and russians... It was proven that he did have arms that were banned under the 1991 cease fire including some advanced fighters he buried in the desert...

I am only coming up with an answer to how he could deliver a warhead...remember...the boom part is not that big and would fit in a small crate.
:laugh: Buried fighter jets? Yeah...what a threat those were! :roll:

And the arms that were found that were banned? Missiles that went an extra 20km or so. Wow. Nuke 'em!!
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Ah yes. Let's drag out that dusty old strawman of an argument that if people really wanted democracy it would come from within and will be done without outside help.

Except that doesn't jibe with history, even our own history, as without the French helping us we never would have defeated the British.
Tell me, TLC. What's the difference between that situation and what occurred in Iraq? I know you know the difference. I just want to know if you're willing to admit it in public view.
It doesn't matter.

The claim is made around here that democracy must come from within, not without. There are no caveats made in that statement If you don't like the US example, discard it. There are others.
Ah...what's wrong, TLC? Chicken? Afraid to answer lest you reveal yourself to be the hypocrite you are?
conjur, when you begin answering some of the points I've brought up in this without rhetoric, diversion, or just plain ignoring them then maybe, just maybe, I'd take the time to answer your attempt at this thread derailment. Until then, don't hold your breath.
Just answer the question:

What is the difference between the American revolution (with French assistance later on) and the Iraq invasion?


Not really It was an overthow of the people with outside help. Without the French help we would have been smacked down and singing God Save the Queen today.
It started internally. It didn't start with outside intervention. And, given enough time, who's to say we couldn't have won w/o the help of the French? You don't know.
I do know, because I have researched it and it's practically a concensus amongst historians that without French help we would have been brutally beaten by the Brits.
At that point in time. That doesn't mean there would never have been another attempt.

You implied it in your statement:

"If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them?"

It implies that the Iraqis really didn't want democracy and that we had to force it on them.

If you meant it elsewise, please clarify because that's the way I parsed your statement and the intent I got from it.
No, I was referring to your stance that the Iraqis wanted democracy and tying that to Bush's statement that we wouldn't force democracy upon those who want it. That would mean the Iraqis want democracy, we wouldn't force them to move to a democracy so they'd have to move to a democracy on their own. However, as we seen by the loss of 1,440 American soldiers and $160 billion that we did force democracy upon them. You can't have it both ways.
Actually, you weren't referrig to my stance. It was one of your replies to ntdz that I remarked on.

And your explanation sems a bit shaky and convoluted.
My explanation may seem shaky because it's based upon the ignorant spewings of Bush. Not my fault he speaks like a 3rd-grade. Now, answer the question.

If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them?



P.S. Again, learn how to quote. Stop being so damn lazy.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along??
What if Hitler had stuck with being a wallpaper hanger? What if the Pope suddenly found out he was Jewish? What if shrimp, ham and pepperoni pizza was declared kosher?

Saddam was nobody's good guy, but Bush's multiple, varying excuses for his war will never excuse the way he went about this. The ends in no way justify his means. He lied to Congress and the American people about why he committed our troops to 1,400 deaths (admitted, so far), large multiples of that wounded, and larger numbers of dead and wounded Iraqi's and others. He lied about committing our country to generations of multi-trilliion dollar indebtedness. He lied in the name of his messianic grand vision.

The man's a freaking meglomaniac, and his motivations are pure evil. No matter what happens, now, he will never be "right" about what he did and how he did it. :|

 

ITJunkie

Platinum Member
Apr 17, 2003
2,512
0
76
www.techange.com
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Those who claim that Bush was wrong will cling tenaciously to that little lifeboat of their own construction - the claim that the invasion was ONLY about WMDs - and patently ignore anything else. They do so because their partisan hatred and closed-mindedness absolutely refuses to allow them to admit that just maybe, possibly, there's a small chance they were wrong. If democracy is successful in Iraq - and most of the RBH'rs claimed it would never even get this far, though many have suddenly and conveniently become amnesiacs about that claim - they'll never, ever attribute one iota of that success to Bush. They'll paint an entirely different picture, revising history along the way, per their usual, and pretend Bush was no influence whatsoever.

But these same folks will be the first to tell you that everyone else is blinded to the truth. :laugh:

But why Iraq? Why not one of the half dozen African nations that are and have been under the thumb of similar dictators? Yes, yes I know the line of "The middle east needs democracy" but what the middle east needs is stability.

Hopefully, that will come but the lack of cultural understanding makes it problematic at best and down right disastrous at worst.

You can put any face on this that you want but the bottom line is this war was poorly planned, poorly manned and poorly executed. Don't take this as a hit against the troops either...they have my 100% support and I would vote for any tax package that would give them proper equipment and manpower to do the job right. But they were sent over there with too few men and too little equipment for this to be considered a success.

So FVCK BUSH...he's a gawddamn idiot and this country would be much better off if he was out of office.

Not that Kerry would have been any better, though :)
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Ah yes. Let's drag out that dusty old strawman of an argument that if people really wanted democracy it would come from within and will be done without outside help.

Except that doesn't jibe with history, even our own history, as without the French helping us we never would have defeated the British.
Tell me, TLC. What's the difference between that situation and what occurred in Iraq? I know you know the difference. I just want to know if you're willing to admit it in public view.
It doesn't matter.

The claim is made around here that democracy must come from within, not without. There are no caveats made in that statement If you don't like the US example, discard it. There are others.
Ah...what's wrong, TLC? Chicken? Afraid to answer lest you reveal yourself to be the hypocrite you are?
conjur, when you begin answering some of the points I've brought up in this without rhetoric, diversion, or just plain ignoring them then maybe, just maybe, I'd take the time to answer your attempt at this thread derailment. Until then, don't hold your breath.
Just answer the question:

What is the difference between the American revolution (with French assistance later on) and the Iraq invasion?
They wear different funny hats?

Look conjur, when you stop evading my questions and comments, I'll stop evading this one. You left things unanswered or seem to just skip over them when you don't want to answer them. I'll do the same so long as you do.

Not really It was an overthow of the people with outside help. Without the French help we would have been smacked down and singing God Save the Queen today.
It started internally. It didn't start with outside intervention. And, given enough time, who's to say we couldn't have won w/o the help of the French? You don't know.
I do know, because I have researched it and it's practically a concensus amongst historians that without French help we would have been brutally beaten by the Brits.
At that point in time. That doesn't mean there would never have been another attempt.[/quote]
Doesn't mean there would have either.

You implied it in your statement:

"If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them?"

It implies that the Iraqis really didn't want democracy and that we had to force it on them.

If you meant it elsewise, please clarify because that's the way I parsed your statement and the intent I got from it.
No, I was referring to your stance that the Iraqis wanted democracy and tying that to Bush's statement that we wouldn't force democracy upon those who want it. That would mean the Iraqis want democracy, we wouldn't force them to move to a democracy so they'd have to move to a democracy on their own. However, as we seen by the loss of 1,440 American soldiers and $160 billion that we did force democracy upon them. You can't have it both ways.
Actually, you weren't referrig to my stance. It was one of your replies to ntdz that I remarked on.

And your explanation sems a bit shaky and convoluted.
My explanation may seem shaky because it's based upon the ignorant spewings of Bush. Not my fault he speaks like a 3rd-grade. Now, answer the question.

If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them?[/quote]
We forced it on them? Hmm. Maybe I didn't see the lines of military soldiers with guns tranied on voters, marching them down the street to the polls. Or maybe I missed the death threats for those who refused to vote.

Oh, wait. What am I talking about? Death for not voting was the last regime's thing. And death FOR voting this time was the insurgent promise, yet they voted anyway in large numbers.

So tell me how we "focred it on them?"

P.S. Again, learn how to quote. Stop being so damn lazy.
If I had the time to be lazy I'd fix the quotes. As I'm doing about 4 other things while I post here as well, I don't have the time. If you don't like it, tough sh!t.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Just answer the question:

What is the difference between the American revolution (with French assistance later on) and the Iraq invasion?
They wear different funny hats?

Look conjur, when you stop evading my questions and comments, I'll stop evading this one. You left things unanswered or seem to just skip over them when you don't want to answer them. I'll do the same so long as you do.
I've not avoided one question of yours.

Now, again, CsG, Jr:

What is the difference between the American revolution (with French assistance later on) and the Iraq invasion?

Doesn't mean there would have either.
True. But you're trying to compare two separate events, hence my question above.

My explanation may seem shaky because it's based upon the ignorant spewings of Bush. Not my fault he speaks like a 3rd-grade. Now, answer the question.

If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them?
We forced it on them? Hmm. Maybe I didn't see the lines of military soldiers with guns tranied on voters, marching them down the street to the polls. Or maybe I missed the death threats for those who refused to vote.

Oh, wait. What am I talking about? Death for not voting was the last regime's thing. And death FOR voting this time was the insurgent promise, yet they voted anyway in large numbers.

So tell me how we "focred it on them?"
Let me give you a little hint:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...03/03/20030319-17.html
10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

If I had the time to be lazy I'd fix the quotes. As I'm doing about 4 other things while I post here as well, I don't have the time. If you don't like it, tough sh!t.
Typical.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
There is a distinction between justifiable reasons for going to war in Iraq, and the justifications provided by the Bush Administration.

I have brought this point up before, but I cannot fathom how Bush, or any leader for that matter, could knowingly and quite ignorantly drive the nation towards war for no apparent reason other then some vast right wing ideology of American superiority.

The stakes on the table go far beyond WMD, oil or supposed links to Al Quaida.

I fault the Bush Administration for attempting to dumb down the war into a black and white world of WMDs and WOT...the nuances of foreign policy, particularly the decision to use military force, is far more complex then the justifications given for this war, as well as the arguments against it.

On the one hand I look at the response of Iraqi's living in America...most of them refugees of Saddam's regime, and for the most part overwhelmingly in favor of the war...given the response to the elections on Sunday, it appears that the Iraqis are quite thrilled to be a part of the democratic process. However, the occupation has taken a large toll on Iraq such that the people there are grateful Saddam is gone yet resentful against their liberators...not exactly what we had in mind.

I am glad the world is rid of Saddam Hussein...I believe the UN was far too patient and lenient in dealing with him for the last ten years. Containment strategy essentially ensured that the world would have to babysit Iraq until the passing of Saddam, either through violent or natural causes.

I honestly believe that Iraq was destined to go the same route as the Balkans...of course it is easy for me to project a possible future, but humor me this scenario...like Tito, Saddam maintained an iron fist over various ethnic/religious factions that essentially hated one another...the only thing that kept the fabric of Yugoslavian society together was Tito...like Tito, Saddam did not have a designated successor, and you can be sure that the brothers Hussein would have initiated a power struggle, with every general, faction and religious leader jumping into the fray for their piece of the pie...the end of Saddam's regime had the potential to launch a civil war in Iraq that would have pulled in Syria and Iran at a minimum, and set the stage for a larger Middle Eastern war...like we witnessed in the Balkans.

So forcefully removing Saddam from this perspective was perhaps logical and even jutified...however, this was not the reason our Administration gave for this war, and as such it is difficult to justify the ends when the rational is so flawed.
 

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2004
2,201
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
You tell me. You think democracy is da shiznit or something. Democracy can be grand but it can have its tyrannical moments, too. You like to ignore those, though.


And, yes, UN violations:
http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html
A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"

1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.


Oh...this one's a bit more up-to-date:
http://bitterfact.tripod.com/israel/unresolutions.html
UN Resolutions pertaining to Iraq: (16)

Resolution 678 - November 29, 1990,
Resolution 686 - March 2, 1991,
Resolution 687 - April 3, 1991,
Resolution 688 - April 5, 1991,
Resolution 707 - August 15, 1991,
Resolution 715 - October 11, 1991,
Resolution 949 - October 15, 1994,
Resolution 1051 - March 27, 1996,
Resolution 1060 - June 12, 1996,
Resolution 1115 - June 21, 1997,
Resolution 1134 - October 23, 1997,
Resolution 1137 - November 12, 1997,
Resolution 1154 - March 2, 1998,
Resolution 1194 - September 9, 1998,
Resolution 1205 - November 5, 1998,
Resolution 1284 - December 17, 1999.
UN Security Council Resolutions pertaining to Israel: 1955-2002 (70)

(UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947) approved the creation of Israel, the Jewish State by calling for the partition of the British-ruled palestine. In this resolution itseft, Israel has never accepted the following elements.

1. The creation of a Palestinian State, whose boundaries are specified.
2. The designation of Jerusalem as an International zone.
3. The adoption of a constitution for the Jewish State, of which the State of Israel does not have till today.
4. "No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in a Jewish State should be allowed except for public purposes".
5. Persons residing in Palestine shall "become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights."
6. Jaffa should be an Arab Enclave in the Jewish State. (More on this...)

Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
Resolution 248: "... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation""
Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians" 39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'"
Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'"
Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"
Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops" 55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Resolution 904: "..Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others"
Resolution1073: ".. Deeply concerned about the tragic events in Jerusalem and the areas of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip, resulting in a high number of deaths and injuries among the Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 1322: "..Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life"
Resolution 1397: "..Demands immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction. "
Resolution 1402: ".. calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah."
Resolution 1403: "..Demands the implementation of its resolution 1402 (2002) without delay ."
Resolution 1405: "..Deeply concerned about the dire humanitarian situation of the Palestinian civilian population in the Jenin refugee camp."

For the UN to be an aribiter of legitimacy, it would have to first be able to distinguish between right and wrong, between good and evil. But its charter and its membership preclude that. How can any group granting the worst despotisms in the world and freest and greatest democracies the same standing and rights be a judge of right and wrong? The UN, by its charter, equates Syria with the United States, China with Britian, and the Sudan (where chattel slavery is still practiced) with Isreal. What Kofi Annan and the UN demand is that the legitimacy of the decisions and actions of free nations be dependent upon the approval of the despotisms. It is fraud on the world and will continue as long as we tolerate it.

J. Babban, Inside the Asylum
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
This is pathetic.

If there had been no mention of WMD's, not a single American soldier would be in Iraq today. We didn't go there to free Iraqi's, that was icing on the cake. And we found no cake.

For months and months, we heard nothing but gallons of this, tons of that, and x amount of UN resolutions pertaining to WMD's.

It's like Bush took 100 billion bucks of OUR money into a casino, and even though he has lost the vast majority of it, he lucked out once and actually hit, and people think this whole trip was a grand idea.

The war in Iraq is a part of the "war on terror," but not the way some of you see it. It's our policies and actions like the ones in Iraq that make us a target to people like Al Qaida.
 

NetGuySC

Golden Member
Nov 19, 1999
1,643
4
81
It is my opinion that Hussein shipped out all of the WMD's overland to a neighboring country.

Doesn't bother me that we didn't find and wmd's, Hussein has been dicking with us for years and it was time to put a stop to it.
 

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
They are just bitter dissenters who will never know what it's like to care for someone else.

i hope you're not a republican because what you just said goes right in the face of what social security is all about, somthing that republicans rich have hated since its inception

millions for war, pennies for SS


:thumbsup: great logic
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Just answer the question:

What is the difference between the American revolution (with French assistance later on) and the Iraq invasion?
They wear different funny hats?

Look conjur, when you stop evading my questions and comments, I'll stop evading this one. You left things unanswered or seem to just skip over them when you don't want to answer them. I'll do the same so long as you do.
I've not avoided one question of yours.

Now, again, CsG, Jr:

What is the difference between the American revolution (with French assistance later on) and the Iraq invasion?
I know. I'll use the standard conjur response to just about anything: :cookie:

And here's the question you avoided:

"Where did I say Iraq was the REAL threat? "

Quit playing that con game and provide an answer. After I asked that initially you ignored it, rephrased the same question, and then asked it again. Answer my question.

Doesn't mean there would have either.
True. But you're trying to compare two separate events, hence my question above.
And hence my previous repsonse that if you didn't like that example, pick another.

My explanation may seem shaky because it's based upon the ignorant spewings of Bush. Not my fault he speaks like a 3rd-grade. Now, answer the question.

If the Iraqis wanted democracy, why did we force it upon them?
We forced it on them? Hmm. Maybe I didn't see the lines of military soldiers with guns tranied on voters, marching them down the street to the polls. Or maybe I missed the death threats for those who refused to vote.

Oh, wait. What am I talking about? Death for not voting was the last regime's thing. And death FOR voting this time was the insurgent promise, yet they voted anyway in large numbers.

So tell me how we "focred it on them?"
Let me give you a little hint:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...03/03/20030319-17.html
10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
[/quote]
I don't even want to know how you jump from that to "we forced it on them."

You need another one of these :cookie:

If I had the time to be lazy I'd fix the quotes. As I'm doing about 4 other things while I post here as well, I don't have the time. If you don't like it, tough sh!t.
Typical.
I realize you annointed yourself the quote nazi in here but, sorry, I didn't vote for you in that position.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
i hope you're not a republican because what you just said goes right in the face of what social security is all about, somthing that republicans rich have hated since its inception

Totally OT, but perhaps Republicans, and not just rich one or Neo Cons for that matter, despise Social Security because it is a broke system...many conservatives prefer the free market alternative to the government one when providing for their retirement and health care.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Just answer the question:

What is the difference between the American revolution (with French assistance later on) and the Iraq invasion?
They wear different funny hats?

Look conjur, when you stop evading my questions and comments, I'll stop evading this one. You left things unanswered or seem to just skip over them when you don't want to answer them. I'll do the same so long as you do.
I've not avoided one question of yours.

Now, again, CsG, Jr:

Originally posted by: conjur
And you can guarantee that diplomacy and not going into Iraq would have defended us from the REAL threat?

Come on, TLC. Stop playing that CsG game of ambiguity and diversion. Just answer the fvcking question.

That would be your game conjur. Oh, and I guess you don't think the rules apply to you - I believe someone using you in a thread to "deride" someone else got handed a vacation.

*shrug* Here's your well deserved - :cookie:

CsG
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I reserve my final judgment on whether our adventure in Iraq was a success or not for the future.

Nice conservative position. Heh heh...




I think some people are a little too eager to try and draft the history books already . . .

I agree with you, on this statement, about the position,,, that the Democratic leadership has taken. :)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: bamacre

If there had been no mention of WMD's, not a single American soldier would be in Iraq today. We didn't go there to free Iraqi's, that was icing on the cake. And we found no cake.

For months and months, we heard nothing but gallons of this, tons of that, and x amount of UN resolutions pertaining to WMD's.

You must be delusional, it was never mentioned that there was WMD in Iraq.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
So many straw men, so little time.

First of all, the "Bush lied about WMD" straw man. You might as well claim that the Cold War was immoral as well because Eisenhower lied about "the missile gap."

#2, WMD would be the only moral justification for war in Iraq. That means that you've ruled out for all time the other cited ancilliary reasons as a just reason. Since WMD is the single moral touchstone you seem to gravitate to I don't want to ever hear you citing humanitarian reasons, genocide, democracy, regional stability, or strategic and economic interests to justify taking action anywhere else. It would have been morally wrong for us to intervene in the Holocaust, no WMDs. Wrong to intervene when the Chinese crushed the Tiannamen Square protesters, no WMDs. Wrong to intervene in Somalia, no WMD. Wrong in every other case, since you cannot allow for them to be moral reasons in Iraq.

#3, people who want democracy will fight for and win it themselves, we shouldn't have "forced" it on them. The French Resistance to the Vichy. Tiannamen Square. Prague Spring. The uprising of the Kurds and nerve gassing of the city of Halajba. History is littered with examples of those who fought for their freedom, sometimes succeeding with outside help, sometimes being left to fend for themselves and crushed. Yes, we should proudly have left Saddam in power to nerve gas and torture more of his subjects, as only "those who will fight for themselves" (and win) are deserving of your support.

#4, $200B for the Iraqis instead of Americans. My, don't your principles come cheap. I guess human rights are something you find nice to talk about but not act upon when it comes with a price tag.

#5, "but North Korea and Sudan were much worse and we didn't invade them!" Pointing to a different evil doesn't make the comparison item "good." It just means you know how to redirect to a red herring. You don't think it would have been right to invade them either, but you'll cite them anyway as if this somehow makes you a good person to talk about how bad they are while you still wouldn't have done a damn thing to help a North Korean or Sudanese.



So how many other self-indulgent answers can you give to the question of why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: bamacre

If there had been no mention of WMD's, not a single American soldier would be in Iraq today. We didn't go there to free Iraqi's, that was icing on the cake. And we found no cake.

For months and months, we heard nothing but gallons of this, tons of that, and x amount of UN resolutions pertaining to WMD's.
What did those resolutions have to say about WMDs? iirc, they still claimed Saddam had not fully complied and made the case that Saddam still had WMDs. The UN told us that and retold us that for 12+ years too. Clinton told us that for 8 years.

Ooh, but those tricksy Rovecons pulling the Bush puppet strings, they were what convinced us all in such a short amount of time.

And sure, the WMD issue was in everyone's face. It was the primary sticking point at the UN concerning Iraq so we heard about it over and over and over. But just because it's seared into your brain, like a John Kerry visit to Cambodia, it doesn't mean that was the only reason that the US went to war against Iraq. Numerous reasons were spelled out in documents that are available to the public. Feel free to peruse them and see for yourself. The reasons are there. Like the law, ignorance of those reasons is no excuse for not knowing they are there.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: bamacre

If there had been no mention of WMD's, not a single American soldier would be in Iraq today. We didn't go there to free Iraqi's, that was icing on the cake. And we found no cake.

For months and months, we heard nothing but gallons of this, tons of that, and x amount of UN resolutions pertaining to WMD's.

You must be delusional, it was never mentioned that there was WMD in Iraq.

:D

I'm laughing at the fact that we can fight till the bitter end in other threads, and completely agree in this one. Same goes for Conjur. I hope people like me assist you in better fine-tuning your definition of the term, "RRR FLL." :)

OT, but worth mentioning. Ever since the DNC's commercial during the inauguration, the D's have been busy. That next day, the company I work for got maybe 5 or 6 projects for Democratic committees (I work in market research), 3 of which were directy for the DNC. We will surely see some pandering to Christians from them in the following years. If I can remember to snag the results, maybe I'll post them.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: tss4
Its an interesting question. Can a strong prosperour democracy be forged at the barrel of a gun. I said no. Looks increasingly like I might be wrong. I'd say its a hard pill to swallow, but its easier than watching us fail in Iraq.

Have there ever been any that haven't been formed from the barrel of a gun? Name some.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre

If there had been no mention of WMD's, not a single American soldier would be in Iraq today. We didn't go there to free Iraqi's, that was icing on the cake. And we found no cake.

For months and months, we heard nothing but gallons of this, tons of that, and x amount of UN resolutions pertaining to WMD's.
What did those resolutions have to say about WMDs? iirc, they still claimed Saddam had not fully complied and made the case that Saddam still had WMDs. The UN told us that and retold us that for 12+ years too. Clinton told us that for 8 years.

Ooh, but those tricksy Rovecons pulling the Bush puppet strings, they were what convinced us all in such a short amount of time.

And sure, the WMD issue was in everyone's face. It was the primary sticking point at the UN concerning Iraq so we heard about it over and over and over. But just because it's seared into your brain, like a John Kerry visit to Cambodia, it doesn't mean that was the only reason that the US went to war against Iraq. Numerous reasons were spelled out in documents that are available to the public. Feel free to peruse them and see for yourself. The reasons are there. Like the law, ignorance of those reasons is no excuse for not knowing they are there.


Yes, but the UN knew the end didn't justify the means, and some of them obviously had their hand in the cookie jar. If you can remember, most countries in the UN had the position of "Saddam probably has banned weapons, but he is contained, and invasion isn't worth it." We didn't have the UN support, not that it's necessary, I agree, but it does help, as proven in Gulf War 1. Might I add that Bush Sr. said he did not have UN support to follow through and take out Saddam himself given we had the opportunity to do so. But maybe that's what the UN and Bush Sr had in mind anyway?

And Saddam was contained, for the most part. However I will admit that there may have been high uncertainty of the fate of Iraq had Saddam died still leader, and his sons, or someone worse, took over. It's been reported, iirc, that Saddam didn't have as much control over some things in Iraq as he thought. The truth is, who knows what Iraq could have became after Saddam's death, he was getting old.

But that was not the pretest for war. WMD's were. It's already been proven that the US knew nothing about what Saddam had. We acted without proper intelligence, and we knew it wasn't proper. Hell, they were feeding BS to Clinton before feeding BS to the UN, and the UN was eating it up, that and the cookies in the cookie jar (and Clinton ate it up because he got in trouble for eating, well something else). They were willing to continue all resolutions and dish out punishment and sanctions on Iraq, but they didn't want invasion. They didn't want their cookie jar to empty out.

Was Saddam profiting off the oil-for-food too? I'd bet on it. Maybe Saddam wanted these sanctions too, making money and giving his constituency a boogy-man at the same time.

Ok I am rambling. :)
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Those who claim that Bush was wrong will cling tenaciously to that little lifeboat of their own construction - the claim that the invasion was ONLY about WMDs - and patently ignore anything else. They do so because their partisan hatred and closed-mindedness absolutely refuses to allow them to admit that just maybe, possibly, there's a small chance they were wrong. If democracy is successful in Iraq - and most of the RBH'rs claimed it would never even get this far, though many have suddenly and conveniently become amnesiacs about that claim - they'll never, ever attribute one iota of that success to Bush. They'll paint an entirely different picture, revising history along the way, per their usual, and pretend Bush was no influence whatsoever.

But these same folks will be the first to tell you that everyone else is blinded to the truth. :laugh:

I'm trying to figure out how Hilary is going to get credit for it.