Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > 41 days in Iraq, or 10 million children insured? Hmmm.... which will I choose?

41 days in Iraq, or 10 million children insured? Hmmm.... which will I choose? (Page 4)
Thread Tools
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You can't claim to be fiscally responsible while choosing to hand money over to a deceitful, corrupt, and fiscally irresponsible government to "insure 10 million children".

If the government were as corrupt and fiscally irresponsible as you claim, you wouldn't advocate handing them one solitary dime of your money.
I don't think that the government is broadly corrupt and fiscally irresponsible. I've never said this. Perhaps peeb has? Or Crash Harddrive, are you confusing us again? (I'm tie, by the way. ) Only parts of it are. (To satisfy your need for black-and-white explanations, yes, I do mean exactly those parts with an (R) after their names .)

Look, I'm sorry, but I'm judging you by your record. You keep on saying that you are fiscally responsible, etc., but then the policies you support aren't.

You can't tell me that another 12 years and 13 UN Resolutions against Iraq would be cheaper. You can't tell me that the implications of inaction would be any cheaper tie. You can't tell me any of these things. I can tell you that we've repeatedly engaged Iraq through the last 3 Presidencies and that the problem wasn't going to go away.
You did your Clinton act, so now you are trying a Rumsfeld?

That's nonsense. Of course I can tell you all of that. We know how much the last twelve years and 13 UN resolutions cost, so we can predict how much the next 12 years and 13 resolutions will cost. About the same.* So yes, the implications of inaction would be cheaper. About one to two trillion dollars cheaper.

* Well, given inflation etc., a very conservative estimate would be twice as much.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 07:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
I don't think that the government is broadly corrupt and fiscally irresponsible. I've never said this. Perhaps peeb has? Or Crash Harddrive, are you confusing us again? (I'm tie, by the way. ) Only parts of it are. (To satisfy your need for black-and-white explanations, yes, I do mean exactly those parts with an (R) after their names .)
That's why I brought up the fact that action in Iraq was supported by a wealth of those with a (D) after their name also. i.e. that's what "both sides of the aisle" means. You know, the ones that were in on the duping you're all up in arms about?

Originally Posted by tie
I'd like to hear it from other parties than the liars who started this war
Where did you say the government was deceitful?

Originally Posted by tie
Are preemptive strikes based on fabricated WMD intelligence in the Constitution?
Where did you say the government was corrupt?

As far as the "fiscal irresponsibility of action in Iraq" is concerned, That wasn't just (R)s. It was a wealth of publically-elected officials from both sides of the aisle that touted the same reasons for the necessity of action in Iraq that Bush has claimed. When you say, "you people", you conveniently exclude a party of those partially responsible for a long history of action in Iraq.

Look, I'm sorry, but I'm judging you by your record. You keep on saying that you are fiscally responsible, etc., but then the policies you support aren't.
You mentioned one policy tie. A policy you're having an extremely difficult time discussing like a mature adult. I don't think the Federal Government only has integrity with regard to those issues upon which it was never commissioned to serve such as global temperature, and health care. I don't believe the Federal Government all of a sudden is "deceitful" regarding war, but honest about the use of our tax dollar on other items.

We disagree on the implications of Iraq and you've not indicated why war with them next year or the year after that would be any cheaper. You've not indicated why inaction against them would be any cheaper.

I have David Kay's testimony to give.
I have a wealth of statements and actions of those from both sides of the aisle advocating action against Iraq.
I have a wealth of publically-elected officials and the statements made by an International collective advocating "serious consequences" for non-compliance and the actions of both (R)s and (D)s over the last 20 years of Iraq policy to show you. You've likewise given absolutely nothing, but the below;

- you've called people stupid in this thread tie.
- you started off by saying I sounded Clintonian
- now you're saying I sound like Rumsfeld
- You indict exclusively (R)s (but with a little tongue-face because you know you'll have to back-peddle from the statement)

How about knocking off the fruitless insults, partisan quackery, and sarcasm. I don't care if I sound like Homer Simpson. Could you please then actually address one point made by Clinton, Rumsfeld, Homer Simpson, or whoever else it is you feel people sound like? Because so far, all you're really doing is sticking out tongues and slobbering on yourself.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
The point is, the proposal was made that Dems should offer to do what the Republicans are doing, only more so. That is so obviously rubbish, that it's hard not to caricature it.

The proposal was made that if the Republicans offer something good, the Democrats should offer to do more of it.

Whether you think the idea is good is obviously still up for discussion, but earlier in the thread, after having dismissed the idea because of its source, you then agreed the idea should be judged on its merits. Somewhere between there and here you switched on the autopilot and are again dismissing the idea based on its source.


Originally Posted by peeb View Post
The fact that Republicans have barely done anything that is not an out-and-out attack on America and its values seems lost on you.

I don't think it would be possible for you to be less informed about my opinion. Since you asked by way of completely misrepresenting me, as far as I'm concerned the Republicans in Congress might as well be wearing hammer and sickle lapel pins. At best, the vestigial remnants of their right wing philosophy slough off a greasy parody of a right wing idea every now and then. I don't see the current environment as favorable to the Democrats spontaneously dumping Federalism, so the lamentable state of affairs is that anything resembling right wing policy is going to come from a politically bi-confused commie Republican.

Do you think I'm pleased this folded, spindled and mutilated flap of dead skin is all I've got to work with? The only thing in my favor is that when you ream a good idea it doesn't make it a bad idea, just a good idea that's been reamed. Giving a tax credit as an incentive is a good idea, take a wild guess at who the reamers are.


Originally Posted by peeb View Post
If by 'move forward' you mean stop pointing out what a train-wreck this administration has been? It'll be a while.

You can double what I said above for the administration. So that's two flaps of skin for those of you keeping score at home.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 11:25 AM
 
I'm not sure what that confused rant really means, but it doesn't make me more inclined to consider your views on healthcare more seriously. The fact is that the extreme right wing has squandered it's seat at the table on the healthcare debate by behaving as if it had no interest in it. The country will move forward with a slightly less rabidly right wing solution.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
I'm not sure what that confused rant really means, but it doesn't make me more inclined to consider your views on healthcare more seriously. The fact is that the extreme right wing has squandered it's seat at the table on the healthcare debate by behaving as if it had no interest in it. The country will move forward with a slightly less rabidly right wing solution.
Once again Article I Section 8
NARA | The National Archives Experience
Tell me where you see health care.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...3/#post3497826
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Where did you say the government was deceitful? Where did you say the government was corrupt?
As I said, some parts of the government are deceitful and corrupt. I admitted that I believed this before, I'll admit it again. Feel free to point it out every time in bold-face, too.

As far as the "fiscal irresponsibility of action in Iraq" is concerned, That wasn't just (R)s. It was a wealth of publically-elected officials from both sides of the aisle that touted the same reasons for the necessity of action in Iraq that Bush has claimed. When you say, "you people", you conveniently exclude a party of those partially responsible for a long history of action in Iraq.
I'm not sure what you mean by "long history of action in Iraq." The biggest action (by two orders of magnitude if you measure in dollars) started not all that long ago. And the responsibility for starting the war lies mostly with the president, not the (R)s or (D)s in Congress. The (R)s and (D)s in Congress largely went along with the lies the president told them. They shouldn't have, but they did.

I don't believe the Federal Government all of a sudden is "deceitful" regarding war, but honest about the use of our tax dollar on other items.
I don't see why not. They are different parts of the government. It is easy for the government to be deceitful regarding war. As we saw, it only takes a small group of people at the top to direct operations and to dictate exactly what intelligence will or will not be released to the public. A bureaucracy managing health care is very different.

You've not indicated why inaction against them would be any cheaper.
Please read my post. I said precisely this! That was my whole point! Should I say it again? Inaction against Iraq -- i.e., maintaining sanctions, the no-fly zone, a military presence in the region -- would have cost two orders of magnitude less than the current war. I'll say it again in my next post if you like.

- you've called people stupid in this thread tie.
...
Because so far, all you're really doing is sticking out tongues and slobbering on yourself.
And calling people stupid ruins my credibility for you? Pot, kettle.

- You indict exclusively (R)s (but with a little tongue-face because you know you'll have to back-peddle from the statement)
No, I definitely do not. The smiley face indicates a joke. Sorry I have to spell it out for you.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 04:25 PM
 
OpinionJournal - Extra
Who Is Lying About Iraq?
A campaign of distortion aims to discredit the liberation.

BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Monday, November 14, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.
Further down in the article:
Yet even stipulating--which I do only for the sake of argument--that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Mr. Bush was lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Mr. Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.

How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was "a slam dunk." This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Mr. Tenet had the backing of all 15 agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and--yes--France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix--who headed the U.N. team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past--lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:

The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km [105 miles] southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

Mr. Blix now claims that he was only being "cautious" here, but if, as he now also adds, the Bush administration "misled itself" in interpreting the evidence before it, he at the very least lent it a helping hand.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 04:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Once again Article I Section 8
NARA | The National Archives Experience
Tell me where you see health care.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...3/#post3497826
Once again, you posted irrelevant links. You really think that the constitution forbids the federal government from becoming involved with health care? You really think that there is a constitutional excuse for the Iraq war? You're in worse trouble than I thought.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Once again, you posted irrelevant links. You really think that the constitution forbids the federal government from becoming involved with health care? You really think that there is a constitutional excuse for the Iraq war? You're in worse trouble than I thought.
The Constitution is irrelevant?

You really think that the constitution forbids the federal government from becoming involved with health care?
And education and housing and many other things it is involved in. These are best addressed at the local level and by charitable and fraternal organizations.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The Constitution is irrelevant?
Randomly linking to it is.
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
And education and housing and many other things it is involved in. These are best addressed at the local level and by charitable and fraternal organizations.
Good luck with that. In the meantime, the rest of the world will turn as normal, and the Feds will concern themselves with the business of government. Do you, by chance, own a cabin in the woods stocked with food and ammunition?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Do you, by chance, own a cabin in the woods stocked with food and ammunition?
Is this necessary?
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by "long history of action in Iraq." The biggest action (by two orders of magnitude if you measure in dollars) started not all that long ago. And the responsibility for starting the war lies mostly with the president, not the (R)s or (D)s in Congress. The (R)s and (D)s in Congress largely went along with the lies the president told them. They shouldn't have, but they did.
They did because of the wealth of information chongo has posted. I know facts are pesky and inconvenient, but truth be told-Iraqi action has gone through both (R)s and (D)s as Presidents. You say the smiley face was indicative of a joke then you go on to defend the point/ joke?

I don't see why not. They are different parts of the government. It is easy for the government to be deceitful regarding war. As we saw, it only takes a small group of people at the top to direct operations and to dictate exactly what intelligence will or will not be released to the public. A bureaucracy managing health care is very different.
Really? Different than the ones who've squandered our public education dollar? Our Social Security dollar? They're not really that different at all. I'd rather the government focus on that which it is commissioned to focus on... national security. They suck at intervening with the private sector because they have no reason to be fiscally responsible. While aspects of the war in Iraq serve also to illustrate this point, we disagree on the implications of continued lobbing of the occasional missile, economic sanctions, and the selling of WMD materials and plans to rogue nations. Very expensive indeed and believe me, the Iraq war would not be any cheaper had it been started next year, or the year after that, or under a (D).

Please read my post. I said precisely this! That was my whole point! Should I say it again? Inaction against Iraq -- i.e., maintaining sanctions, the no-fly zone, a military presence in the region -- would have cost two orders of magnitude less than the current war. I'll say it again in my next post if you like.
That's not what I asked you. Try again.

And calling people stupid ruins my credibility for you? Pot, kettle.
Originally Posted by tie
No, I definitely do not. The smiley face indicates a joke. Sorry I have to spell it out for you.
Why is it the ones posting facts aren't resorting to the sort of nonsense I see people like you and peeb resorting to? Seriously. BTW, you've already lost all credibility with me because of this nonsense. For example, you used the tongue face so that when the point was buried six feet under you could back-peddle by claiming it was a joke. You've been doing this for as long as you've been posting here. Unfortunately, you had to pop back in to try and make the point again by defending the "joke" above. Hence, you're slobbering on yourself. This is a statement about your style of discourse, not your intellect.

If you have a deficiency trust me, I'll continue using your own statements to exploit it. I don't need to call you names.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Oct 4, 2007 at 06:27 PM. )
ebuddy
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 06:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
That's nonsense. Of course I can tell you all of that. We know how much the last twelve years and 13 UN resolutions cost, so we can predict how much the next 12 years and 13 resolutions will cost. About the same.* So yes, the implications of inaction would be cheaper. About one to two trillion dollars cheaper.

* Well, given inflation etc., a very conservative estimate would be twice as much.
Of course maintaining sanctions and no-fly zones would have been orders of magnitude cheaper, in blood and treasure, plus, it would not have caused a dramatic increase in the number of terrorist attacks in the world.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 09:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I know facts are pesky and inconvenient, but truth be told-Iraqi action has gone through both (R)s and (D)s as Presidents.
No, it has not. The war started in 2003. It is easy to draw a difference between the war and action before the war. As I have said twice so far in this thread---and I'll say it again---the war is costing two orders of magnitude more. This is an important distinction! (Especially when you are trying to argue that you are fiscally responsible, losing track of a factor of 100 doesn't make you look so good.)

Really? Different than the ones who've squandered our public education dollar? Our Social Security dollar? They're not really that different at all.
Sorry, I was referring to the bureaucrats who administer the program. You seem to be referring to Congress. If that is your complaint, then I misinterpreted you. I agree that Congress can't be trusted not to blow up hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money...

While aspects of the war in Iraq serve also to illustrate this point, we disagree on the implications of continued lobbing of the occasional missile, economic sanctions, and the selling of WMD materials and plans to rogue nations. Very expensive indeed and believe me, the Iraq war would not be any cheaper had it been started next year, or the year after that, or under a (D).
Why would the war have started the next year or the year after that, or under a (D)? You need to make an argument here. And unfortunately, the most compelling arguments that were made to support the war all turned out to be lies. So there is very little left for you. The "continued lobbing of the occasional missile" justifies a two trillion dollar war to you? Are you serious?! Nor was maintaining economic sanctions very expensive. (Sanctions cost Iraq, but not the US. [And not that it matters, but the costs of sanctions to Iraqis aren't higher than the costs of a steady war.]) "Selling of WMD materials and plans to rogue nations." Just like Pakistan did? Just like North Korea has done? This is not enough to justify starting a war.

So, 1. these implications are not "very expensive indeed." We can make good estimates of how much they would cost, and it is two orders of magnitude less than the war. And, 2. there is no reason to think that the status quo wasn't maintainable indefinitely. In particular, there is no reason to think that we would need to go to war with Iraq a year or two years later, or "under a (D)" as you put it.

For example, you used the tongue face so that when the point was buried six feet under you could back-peddle by claiming it was a joke.
No, I used the smiley face because it was a joke. You replied to it as if I were serious, and are still going on about it. Oh well, here's another one you can play with: Everybody with an (R) after his or her name is an evil terrorist working on behalf of the devil. Feel free to bury the point six feet under now, and then boast about it for the next three or four posts. Everybody else can figure this out, but you seem to have a mental block on smiley faces on the internet.

I don't need to call you names.
Well, then maybe stop? Or not, whatever.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 09:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Of course maintaining sanctions and no-fly zones would have been orders of magnitude cheaper, in blood and treasure, plus, it would not have caused a dramatic increase in the number of terrorist attacks in the world.
and all the terrorism would end if Israel, as Admenijad would like to do, was "wiped off the map" (it wouldn't)
When will people see that Bin Laden, Admenijad, and others like them do not want peace, they want us dead, plain and simple. The Ayatollah Khomeini called us the "great Satan" long before the Iraq war and called for our destruction.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 09:56 PM
 
WTF has Admenijad and Bin Laden got to do with Iraq? It's this kind of ignorance that got the US into the mess it's in now.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 11:02 PM
 
WTF has Admenijad and Bin Laden got to do with Iraq? It's this kind of ignorance that got the US into the mess it's in now.
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Of course maintaining sanctions and no-fly zones would have been orders of magnitude cheaper, in blood and treasure, plus, it would not have caused a dramatic increase in the number of terrorist attacks in the world.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 12:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
When will people see that Bin Laden, Admenijad, and others like them do not want peace, they want us dead, plain and simple.
You want peace and are willing to kill anyone to get it.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 12:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
and all the terrorism would end if Israel, as Admenijad would like to do, was "wiped off the map" (it wouldn't)
When will people see that Bin Laden, Admenijad, and others like them do not want peace, they want us dead, plain and simple. The Ayatollah Khomeini called us the "great Satan" long before the Iraq war and called for our destruction.
Lots of people want us dead. Fortunately, the majority of them are idiots. Ahmadinejad is a case in point. There's a reason they live in backward third-world countries that contribute almost nothing -- no manufacturing, no services, no science or technology, just oil. And there's a reason the US has the strongest economy and Americans the most freedoms on earth. Yes, we need to worry about these guys, but they are basically deadbeat addicts (to their oil dollars, not drugs). Giving up our freedoms or wasting trillions of dollars looking for invented WMD aren't the solution.

You do realize that you are spelling "Admenijad" incorrectly, and that Khomeini was from Iran and not Iraq?

Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
You want peace and are willing to kill anyone to get it.
Whenever I use a smiley face, it seems to drive ebuddy half insane, but this one is worth it.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
and all the terrorism would end if Israel, as Admenijad would like to do, was "wiped off the map" (it wouldn't)
When will people see that Bin Laden, Admenijad, and others like them do not want peace, they want us dead, plain and simple. The Ayatollah Khomeini called us the "great Satan" long before the Iraq war and called for our destruction.
No, they don't want you dead, they want your system dead, democracy, government, foreign policy, replaced by an islamic government.

That means they want complete regime-change to what they truly believe is the best for them and you. Much like the west seeks the spread of capitalism and democracy, they seek the spread of islamic governance.

When they say they want Israel and the US destroyed, they mean the destruction of the political entities they represent and symbolise, just like Reagan seeked the destruction of the Soviet-Union.

Taliesin
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
No, it has not. The war started in 2003.
Right, and it ended in 2003 with the defeat of Saddam's elite guard and the capture of Saddam himself.

It is easy to draw a difference between the war and action before the war. As I have said twice so far in this thread---and I'll say it again---the war is costing two orders of magnitude more. This is an important distinction! (Especially when you are trying to argue that you are fiscally responsible, losing track of a factor of 100 doesn't make you look so good.)
What we're fighting now are elements that want a fascist governance, and some of those who want to defend the old regime albeit in a covert fashion against our attempt to build a nation. No one claimed action in Iraq was going to be cheap, but just how expensive would it be to continue allowing Iraq to develop WMDs and what would Israeli action against this threat pose? You need to read all of David Kay's testimony, not just the part about no WMDs found. A continued Iraq/Iran arms race both vowing Israel's destruction and facilitating the necessity of Israeli action propelling the entire region into an Arab/Israeli war doesn't sound cheap to me. Especially considering the degree of interests both China and Russia have at stake in the Middle East. Of course, I'm assuming you're familiar with the wealth of pacts between these two entities.

Why would the war have started the next year or the year after that, or under a (D)? You need to make an argument here. And unfortunately, the most compelling arguments that were made to support the war all turned out to be lies. So there is very little left for you. The "continued lobbing of the occasional missile" justifies a two trillion dollar war to you? Are you serious?! Nor was maintaining economic sanctions very expensive. (Sanctions cost Iraq, but not the US. [And not that it matters, but the costs of sanctions to Iraqis aren't higher than the costs of a steady war.]) "Selling of WMD materials and plans to rogue nations." Just like Pakistan did? Just like North Korea has done? This is not enough to justify starting a war.
I would start by asking you what changed between 1998 and 2003? What changed in five years tie? (I'm not referring to 9/11, I'm interested in knowing what conditions existed in 1998 when it was generally accepted necessary for regime change that did not exist in 2003.) I'd also like to dispell a myth supposed by some that all entities should be addressed in the same manner. N. Korea is effectively contained. Any action against N. Korea would be extremely volatile considering its proximity to China. To deny this is patently moronic IMO. Not withstanding, this Administration has made it clear how it regards N. Korea. Pakistan? Pakistan is a key frontline ally in the U.S.-led anti-terrorism coalition. Granted, there are a host of problems with Pakistan, but again-there's nothing to suggest that all entities must be regarded in the exact same fashion.

- The advanced nuclear weapons development program in Iraq is well documented. The potential sale of this program is even more well documented.

- Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998

- in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235)

- members of al Qaida were known and documented to be in Iraq. Even if you disagree with this general statement, to deny their existence in Iraq today would be silly. Their mobility was astounding eh?

- UN Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949

- Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677

- Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

My arguments have been that this is not only the general attitude and action of the President, but of the International Body that authors the resolutions discussed above and of publically-elected officials from both sides of the aisle in the US that authorized the President's actions. As long as the above conditions remained, evidence suggests action in Iraq was inevitable. Action in Iraq would not have been less expensive had it begun later. If others (i.e. Israel) been compelled to act, the outcome would have been much more dire. Period. The case is really pretty cut and dry.

So, 1. these implications are not "very expensive indeed." We can make good estimates of how much they would cost, and it is two orders of magnitude less than the war. And, 2. there is no reason to think that the status quo wasn't maintainable indefinitely. In particular, there is no reason to think that we would need to go to war with Iraq a year or two years later, or "under a (D)" as you put it.
The foundation for our current action was authorized and in fact built under a (D) Administration. Again, little had changed between 1998 and 2003 and the above conditions for authorized regime-change remained. Iraq continued in breach of the above resolutions invoking the final call of "serious consequences" against Iraq for continued non-compliance. The Iraq situation had been building throughout three Presidencies and all evidence suggests action against Iraq was not a matter of "if", but "when". Again, had we not acted in 2003, we would've acted in 2005, 2007, 2009, or shortly thereafter. You can pretend none of the above conditions existed, but each of them have been found to exist and nothing suggests action was avoidable. At least, to those old enough to have been literate by 1998.

No, I used the smiley face because it was a joke. You replied to it as if I were serious, and are still going on about it. Oh well, here's another one you can play with: Everybody with an (R) after his or her name is an evil terrorist working on behalf of the devil.
Now that one is a little more apparent, but would still be questionable if you had popped in to defend that "joke" with some evidences in subsequent posts. BTW, it wasn't a smiley face or a winkee face, it was a tongue face. A smiley face is amicable. A winkee face is to indicate a tease of sorts and a tongue face indicates "pbbbblllltttt". In your case, a way of making an argument you know you can't defend. Anyone who has read a post of yours has seen it and how it is used.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 10:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Whenever I use a smiley face, it seems to drive ebuddy half insane, but this one is worth it.
I have to remind my 13 year old child that it is not acceptable to insult someone, then say "just kidding" afterwards. If this was your style, I'd say it was simply immature. In your case, it was not a smiley face or a winkee face, but a tongue face used to make a statement you knew you couldn't defend.

If this is your idea of fun, you'll have to decide whether a life of complete social retardation is worth it.
ebuddy
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 11:25 AM
 
Chongo, the graphic is cute, but it's you who has not answered the question. WTF has Admenijad and Bin Laden got to do with Iraq? It's this kind of ignorance that got the US into the mess it's in now.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Chongo, the graphic is cute, but it's you who has not answered the question. WTF has Admenijad and Bin Laden got to do with Iraq? It's this kind of ignorance that got the US into the mess it's in now.
ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia

EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia
Hezbollah Training Also Linked to Iraq Violence

U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

Iraqi insurgents using Austrian rifles from Iran - Telegraph


Iraqi insurgents using Austrian rifles from Iran

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 7:05pm GMT 13/02/2007
Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

More than 100 of the.50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.

The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/wo...d-weapons.html

U.S. Presents Evidence of Iranian Weapons in Iraq

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: February 11, 2007

BAGHDAD, Feb. 11 — After weeks of internal debate, senior United States military officials today literally put on the table their first public evidence for the contentious assertion that Iran is supplying Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with deadly weaponry, including a roadside bomb that pierces American armor.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 12:23 PM
 
Why not just lob uninsured kids at the Terrorists?
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 02:16 PM
 
Oh Dear Chongo - could you be more wrong headed? These accusations of involvement stem directly from the US fiasco there. Without that, there would be no opportunity for either. The US made this problem, these folks did not have this involvement before the US interference.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Oh Dear Chongo - could you be more wrong headed? These accusations of involvement stem directly from the US fiasco there. Without that, there would be no opportunity for either. The US made this problem, these folks did not have this involvement before the US interference.
Saddam made this by among other things, violating the ceasefire agreement. Had he done what he agreed to we would not be where we are today.
And I'm sure you believe despite the evidense presented, OJ is innocent.
BTW I have this lovely property for sale.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Saddam made this by among other things, violating the ceasefire agreement. Had he done what he agreed to we would not be where we are today.
And I'm sure you believe despite the evidense presented, OJ is innocent.
So it's Saddam Hussein's fault that the US just HAD to invade Iraq, creating havoc that would not have happened otherwise? You're too funny.
The US made a vast blunder, creating a terrorist problem that was not there before, and turning a contained, small problem into a regionally destabilizing disaster. You can blame Saddam for a lot, but not for US stupidity.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
The US made a vast blunder, creating a terrorist problem that was not there before, and turning a contained, small problem into a regionally destabilizing disaster.
Saddam and Al Qaeda made a vast blunder, creating a US military presence that was not there before and destabilizing the region.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 09:02 PM
 
Since when was the Middle East a stable area?
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
As long as the above conditions remained, evidence suggests action in Iraq was inevitable. Action in Iraq would not have been less expensive had it begun later. If others (i.e. Israel) been compelled to act, the outcome would have been much more dire. Period. The case is really pretty cut and dry.

The foundation for our current action was authorized and in fact built under a (D) Administration. Again, little had changed between 1998 and 2003 and the above conditions for authorized regime-change remained. Iraq continued in breach of the above resolutions invoking the final call of "serious consequences" against Iraq for continued non-compliance. The Iraq situation had been building throughout three Presidencies and all evidence suggests action against Iraq was not a matter of "if", but "when". Again, had we not acted in 2003, we would've acted in 2005, 2007, 2009, or shortly thereafter. You can pretend none of the above conditions existed, but each of them have been found to exist and nothing suggests action was avoidable.
Your evidence is very poor. You are arguing that it was inevitable that our spending on Iraq go up by two orders of magnitude, and it just wasn't. We had a status quo. It wasn't satisfactory -- I agree with you on that -- but you haven't made an argument that change was inevitable. In late 2002 and early 2003, it seemed that international support had been redoubled and sanctions and inspections could be maintained.

Why do you waste your time saying things like:
- members of al Qaida were known and documented to be in Iraq. Even if you disagree with this general statement, to deny their existence in Iraq today would be silly. Their mobility was astounding eh?
as evidence that war would be inevitable? Or,
- Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
Or talking about (D)s versus (R)s? The only way you could convince me that war was inevitable is by showing that the sanctions would collapse and Iraq would develop its army and its weapons to take on its neighbors or the US. Or, if you could argue that Iraq would start supporting terrorism against the US (supporting terrorism against Israel is terrible but fortunately or unfortunately not enough to draw the US in). But the sanctions were not going to collapse. You are yourself arguing that the "international Body that authors the resolutions discussed above" was largely against Iraq. As long as this remained the case, Iraq was a contained threat for the US.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
At least, to those old enough to have been literate by 1998.

If this is your idea of fun, you'll have to decide whether a life of complete social retardation is worth it.

I don't need to call you names.
I just like collecting these, carry on.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 09:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Saddam and Al Qaeda made a vast blunder, creating a US military presence that was not there before and destabilizing the region.
As Chongo points out, this doesn't make sense. At least peeb's statement parsed.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 09:21 PM
 
Jihad was declared on the U.S. long before we ever went into Iraq
Significant Terrorist Incidents 1961-2003: A Brief Chronology
lowlights from the list:

Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003: A Brief Chronology

Ambassador to Sudan Assassinated, March 2, 1973: U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Cleo A. Noel and other diplomats were assassinated at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum by members of the Black September organization

(The Black September group was founded after King Hussein threw the PLO and Arafat out of Jordon when he attempted a coup)

Ambassador to Afghanistan Assassinated, February 14, 1979: Four Afghans kidnapped U.S. Ambassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul and demanded the release of various "religious figures." Dubs was killed, along with four alleged terrorists, when Afghan police stormed the hotel room where he was being held.

Hostage Crisis, November 4, 1979: After President Carter agreed to admit the Shah of Iran into the US, Iranian radicals seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon released, but the remaining 53 were held until their release on January 20, 1981. our good buddy Admenijad was the leader

Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut, April 18, 1983: Sixty-three people, including the CIA’s Middle East director, were killed and 120 were injured in a 400-pound suicide truck-bomb attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, October 23, 1983: Simultaneous suicide truck-bomb attacks were made on American and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon. A 12,000-pound bomb destroyed the U.S. compound, killing 242 Americans, while 58 French troops were killed when a 400-pound device destroyed a French base. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Kidnapping of Embassy Official, March 16, 1984: The Islamic Jihad kidnapped and later murdered Political Officer William Buckley in Beirut, Lebanon. Other U.S. citizens not connected to the U.S. government were seized over a succeeding two-year period.

TWA Hijacking, June 14, 1985: A Trans-World Airlines flight was hijacked en route to Rome from Athens by two Lebanese Hizballah terrorists and forced to fly to Beirut. The eight crew members and 145 passengers were held for seventeen days, during which one American hostage, a U.S. Navy sailor, was murdered. After being flown twice to Algiers, the aircraft was returned to Beirut after Israel released 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners.

Achille Lauro Hijacking, October 7, 1985: Four Palestinian Liberation Front terrorists seized the Italian cruise liner in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, taking more than 700 hostages. One U.S. passenger was murdered before the Egyptian government offered the terrorists safe haven in return for the hostages’ freedom.

Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, November 23, 1985: An EgyptAir airplane bound from Athens to Malta and carrying several U.S. citizens was hijacked by the Abu Nidal Group.

Airport Attacks in Rome and Vienna, December 27, 1985: Four gunmen belonging to the Abu Nidal Organization attacked the El Al and Trans World Airlines ticket counters at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci Airport with grenades and automatic rifles. Thirteen persons were killed and 75 were wounded before Italian police and Israeli security guards killed three of the gunmen and captured the fourth. Three more Abu Nidal gunmen attacked the El Al ticket counter at Vienna’s Schwechat Airport, killing three persons and wounding 30. Austrian police killed one of the gunmen and captured the others.

Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986: A Palestinian splinter group detonated a bomb as TWA Flight 840 approached Athens airport, killing four U.S. citizens.

Berlin Discothèque Bombing, April 5, 1986: Two U.S. soldiers were killed and 79 American servicemen were injured in a Libyan bomb attack on a nightclub in West Berlin, West Germany. In retaliation U.S. military jets bombed targets in and around Tripoli and Benghazi.

Kidnapping of William Higgins, February 17, 1988: U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel W. Higgins was kidnapped and murdered by the Iranian-backed Hizballah group while serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO) in southern Lebanon.

Naples USO Attack, April 14, 1988: The Organization of Jihad Brigades exploded a car-bomb outside a USO Club in Naples, Italy, killing one U.S. sailor.

Attack on U.S. Diplomat in Greece, June 28, 1988: The Defense Attaché of the U.S. Embassy in Greece was killed when a car-bomb was detonated outside his home in Athens.

Pan Am 103 Bombing, December 21, 1988: Pan American Airlines Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, by a bomb believed to have been placed on the aircraft by Libyan terrorists in Frankfurt, West Germany. All 259 people on board were killed.
Attempted Iraqi Attacks on U.S. Posts, January 18-19, 1991: Iraqi agents planted bombs at the U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia’s home residence and at the USIS library in Manila.
( Last edited by Chongo; Oct 5, 2007 at 09:27 PM. )
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 02:06 AM
 
Congo,

The bottom line is that there are evil dictators in many countries, and what seems to us as despicable atrocities happening right as we speak. How come the US media never covers Darfur, for example?

Read Bob Woodward's books. I'm really starting to believe that he is absolutely right. We went into Iraq because Bush single-handedly thinks that it is his presidential duty to spread his version of freedom around the world. When pressed into asking about his inspiration, it ultimately comes down to his religious beliefs.

Of course, there are other countries he could have chosen, but I guess that Iraq was the easiest sell and a country most screaming for attention at the time.

This was never about weapons, about our security, or even our interests. This was about Bush wanting to spread his version of freedom while ironically we have to give up some of ours in exchange.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 04:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
I'm not sure what that confused rant really means, but it doesn't make me more inclined to consider your views on healthcare more seriously.

Aww, shucks.


Originally Posted by peeb View Post
The fact is that the extreme right wing has squandered it's seat at the table on the healthcare debate by behaving as if it had no interest in it. The country will move forward with a slightly less rabidly right wing solution.

Sigh.

Things that are "extreme right wing":

The Bill of Rights
Legalizing Drugs
The ACLU (try me on this one and make my day)


Things that are not "extreme right wing":

George Bush and Dick Cheney
Opposing the legality of abortion on moral grounds
Police States (wait, I already said Dick Cheney)

Since your turn-off is apparently people who get a little frothy now and again, I'll tell you what my turn-off is, people who can't look outside their own dopey labeling scheme.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 04:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The bottom line is that there are evil dictators in many countries, and what seems to us as despicable atrocities happening right as we speak. How come the US media never covers Darfur, for example?
What's funny is US conservatives are afraid that universal healthcare will destroy their Way Of Life, but they'll happily overthrow foreign governments, along with their entire infrastructure, and expect the natives to throw flowers.

C'mon. It's funny.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 07:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How come the US media never covers Darfur, for example?
Maybe because it's Muslims slaughtering Christians, which makes it odd that it's a Hollywood cause celeb
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 09:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Your evidence is very poor. You are arguing that it was inevitable that our spending on Iraq go up by two orders of magnitude, and it just wasn't. We had a status quo. It wasn't satisfactory -- I agree with you on that -- but you haven't made an argument that change was inevitable. In late 2002 and early 2003, it seemed that international support had been redoubled and sanctions and inspections could be maintained.
Per David Kay Testimony in 2003;
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.

With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.

BTW; this is just to name a few. So... when you say "We had a status quo. It wasn't satisfactory..." how can you then go on to say that change wasn't inevitable? At least I've given you something tie.

Why do you waste your time saying things like:
It's not a waste of time at all. These are all points that have evidence. Evidence you're ignoring.

as evidence that war would be inevitable? Or,
... because these comprise the long list of policies enacted against Saddam and that Saddam continued in conflict with those policies. Policies drafted by an International Body that threatened "serious consequences" for non-compliance. If we had been engaged in economic sanctions and UN inspections for over 12 years and 13 Resolutions, "serious consequences" does not mean another 12 years of failed economic sanctions and 13 more UN Resolutions. We'll have to disagree on whether or not this is sufficient evidence for a necessary change in policy or inevitable military action against Iraq.

Or talking about (D)s versus (R)s? The only way you could convince me that war was inevitable is by showing that the sanctions would collapse and Iraq would develop its army and its weapons to take on its neighbors or the US.
done.

Or, if you could argue that Iraq would start supporting terrorism against the US (supporting terrorism against Israel is terrible but fortunately or unfortunately not enough to draw the US in). But the sanctions were not going to collapse. You are yourself arguing that the "international Body that authors the resolutions discussed above" was largely against Iraq. As long as this remained the case, Iraq was a contained threat for the US.
A wealth of evidence suggests that Saddam was not contained and that he had a wealth of Programs for which he was not telling the UN.

I just like collecting these, carry on.
They weren't insults directed at you. If you were old enough to have been literate by 1998, you would've in fact recalled what it was I provided you based on news accounts of that time.

You said it was "worth it" to flame-bait and then mischaracterized the context of the situation up to and including lying about what emoticon you're using to do it. I told you that if this is your idea of fun, you'll have to decide if being socially hindered (socially-retarded by definition) is worth it. That's only an insult should you choose to meet the criteria.
ebuddy
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Things that are not "extreme right wing":

George Bush and Dick Cheney
Opposing the legality of abortion on moral grounds
Police States (wait, I already said Dick Cheney)

Since your turn-off is apparently people who get a little frothy now and again, I'll tell you what my turn-off is, people who can't look outside their own dopey labeling scheme.
That is why I am all for riding our country of political labels. Vote for the person running, not the "team" he is running on.

Too many people vote for the PARTY regardless of who is running. And I am not just blaming the left or the right. Both sides do it.

If voting record shows anything to anyone, it shows the American people don't vote for anyone TOO far to the right, or TOO far to the left.

For example, Kerry's voting record is the most "liberal" of all the senator. While I would not consider him a Far lefty, He was a bit too leftist for the American public. Plus no one really knew what he stood for or what he didn't. He was very ambiguous.

The devil you know...
Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
What's funny is US conservatives are afraid that universal healthcare will destroy their Way Of Life, but they'll happily overthrow foreign governments, along with their entire infrastructure, and expect the natives to throw flowers.
Well the Iraqi populace isn't the problem. It's the resistance that is. Even the media now is actually being honest that these two groups are two different ones.

The ones that went and voted.. they would probably gladly give you any flower they had.



These people are who we are down there for. These people certainly aren't throwing rocks, or firing at us.

And I don't think a socialized healthcare system would ruin my life. I just don't think it would provide as good of healthcare as I have now. And since I like the healthcare I have now, I really don't want to get care that is worse.

Would you?
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 10:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
P
A wealth of evidence suggests that Saddam was not contained and that he had a wealth of Programs for which he was not telling the UN.
Yup. And it wasn't just a Bush thing either..

Even if Saddam didn't have ANYTHING, he was crying wolf.

From the Great Bill Clinton

CNN - Clinton demands total access for U.N. arms inspectors - February 17, 1998
"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.

The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:

5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs

Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world."


He accused Iraq of trying to thwart U.N. inspections by reinterpreting the meaning of Gulf War resolutions as to which sites can be inspected, for how long and by which inspectors.

Clinton, who has ordered military forces to the gulf region in case a military strike is needed, warned Hussein not to continue to delay or oppose the U.N. demands on weapons inspections: "He, and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences."

"A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can, and will, leave him (Hussein) significantly worse off than he is now, in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors," Clinton said.

"Force can never be the first answer," he emphasized, "but sometimes it's the only answer."

The real kicker..

"Reacting to Clinton's speech, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz denounced the threat of military action.

" The United States doesn't have authorization by the Security Council to attack Iraq by military means," he told CNN in a telephone interview from Baghdad.

Washington insists U.N. resolutions in effect since the Gulf War provide all the authorization needed for an attack.


It was a legit excuse then. But not when Bush is in office, and it's election time!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Even if Saddam didn't have ANYTHING, he was crying wolf.

Big time.

Most of what I've seen points towards the whole thing being an intentional misinformation campaign by Saddam.

If you think that was a bad decision on his part, get a load of this... he wasn't worried about the repercussions of this policy because he thought he could kick our asses.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Congo,

The bottom line is that there are evil dictators in many countries, and what seems to us as despicable atrocities happening right as we speak. How come the US media never covers Darfur, for example?
We went there once to help Kuwait out and left. Some Iraqi's believed we were going to free them from Saddam then. We did not. That actually lost Bush Sr. a lot of points. I remember voting FOR Clinton because he said he'd be harder on Saddam than Bush Sr was. Of course he lied, but hey, I was 18 and naive. So we were basically going back to finish what we started. Bush SR figured he would have another 4 years. Clinton didn't do anything really major in the 8 years he was in office even though he wagged his finger a lot before election.
Read Bob Woodward's books. I'm really starting to believe that he is absolutely right. We went into Iraq because Bush single-handedly thinks that it is his presidential duty to spread his version of freedom around the world. When pressed into asking about his inspiration, it ultimately comes down to his religious beliefs.
His version of freedom? No. I think he wants to spread democracy around the globe so people live in freedom without fear. You are wording it to make it sound like what Bush wants is a bad thing. That simply isn't true. Bush isn't the best speaker. I give you that.

Having said that, many prophets in the Bible were men that people would have never guessed would be "picked" for such "missions"

Maybe he does feel he has a greater calling. As long as it isn't murdering people in gas chambers, or trying to take over the world or other type things, I am all for it. And no, America trying to give people FREEDOM isn't America taking it over.
Of course, there are other countries he could have chosen, but I guess that Iraq was the easiest sell and a country most screaming for attention at the time.
Or because Saddam was part of the problem that was going on at the time.... yeah I think that was it.
This was never about weapons, about our security, or even our interests. This was about Bush wanting to spread his version of freedom while ironically we have to give up some of ours in exchange.
Why did Clinton say the same things? You know Clinton himself said that nothing good would happen to, or come out of Iraq until Saddam was gotten rid of.

He knew what needed to be done, but didn't want to do it.

I mean this sounds like Bush word for word.

Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world."
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Big time.

Most of what I've seen points towards the whole thing being an intentional misinformation campaign by Saddam.

If you think that was a bad decision on his part, get a load of this... he wasn't worried about the repercussions of this policy because he thought he could kick our asses.
He was more worried about the Kurds than us. He thought the "deals" he made with other countries secured the UN vote that would stop the invasion.

That we'd just come in there, land and launch a few missles and warn him. Like was going on the past 8 years before.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 11:19 AM
 
And just in case anyone else thinks it was just a Bush thing.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

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

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

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

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

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

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

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

These same people made an about face turn all around the same time. And it happened to fall right before election season.

I wouldn't call that a coincidence. And the spin they made just to win an election really tore our nation into two and polarized it's people even more than before.

They say you reap what you sow.. or that Karma is a bitch.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 11:44 AM
 
Now, now, there you go again confusing them with facts, and quotes (on video to boot!).
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 12:11 PM
 
Why weren't those people called liars? Or being accused of some grandiose plot?

You know I don't know what made Bush think Iraq had WMDs after reading all of those..

And there is tons more. I just didn't want to flood the board anymore than I did.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Why weren't those people called liars? Or being accused of some grandiose plot?
Because they didn't squander thousands of lives and billions of dollars on their mistake.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Because they didn't squander thousands of lives and billions of dollars on their mistake.
Did Bush twist their arms to vote yes?
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 07:39 PM
 
He was the President. The buck stops there.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2007, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Because they didn't squander thousands of lives and billions of dollars on their mistake.
There's nothing to suggest that war in Iraq would've been less costly had it been started two years later, or two years from now, or under a (D).
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2007, 07:58 PM
 
I thought if it was for the children it must be good.
( Last edited by Chongo; Oct 7, 2007 at 08:10 PM. )
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:11 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2