[Busemann]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I love how you think things have been "debunked and smacked down so many times."

Let's recap:
1. I pointed out that Bush said you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Iraq. Actually the full quote is even worse: "They work in concert." I'm not sure if he meant to use the future tense there or if he intentionally used the present tense.

2. ebuddy said "Can you list some differences between Saddam and al Qaeda for me BRussell?"

3. I responded that Saddam did not attack us on 9/11, and al Qaeda did.

So who's the moonbat again?

I'd say that, if I could summarize why so many of us think the Iraq war was a bad idea, I could do so very succinctly as follows:

AL QAEDA ATTACKED THE US ON 9/11, AND SADDAM DIDN'T.

Blah blah blah more liberal propoganda from the farrrr left. Look we had to retaliate against 9/11, if Saddam didn't want to lose his country he shouldn't have messed with the best.

All I know is that Moslems are tricky people, I worked with one for a few years and was always on the lookout, I got a bad feeling from him, and if I hadnt showed tibor who's boss God knows what would happen.

pro sadam people like you guys are not helping because you are helping the terrorists. if we didn't show them who to respect they would just hit us again.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Blah blah blah more liberal propoganda from the farrrr left. Look we had to retaliate against terrorists before they see our in-action yet again as a weakness

Fixed that part above for you.

I suggest you do some reading

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Look we had to retaliate against 9/11, if Saddam didn't want to lose his country he shouldn't have messed with the best.

Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. Attacking Iraq in retailiation for 9/11 is like kicking your cat for the mess your dog made.

Originally Posted by Busemann

All I know is that Moslems are tricky people, I worked with one for a few years and was always on the lookout, I got a bad feeling from him, and if I hadnt showed tibor who's boss God knows what would happen.

If I've ever seen a reason to ban someone, this has to be it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. Attacking Iraq in retailiation for 9/11 is like kicking your cat for the mess your dog made.

Troll for one, I believe his post was tongue and cheek. For two I agree. Good thing we weren't attacking Iraq for retaliation for 9/11

You sir are the reason for 9/11. You and people like you.

What a dishonest hateful thing to say Troll. The reason for 9/11 was a bunch of savages that didn't even live here. I suggest YOU TOO read said article I posted. You obviously have a lot to learn if you believe that.

Pathetic.

Eliminating you from our society would go a heck of a lot way further to solving terrorism than attacking Iraq.

Actually eliminating people like you that blame the actions of terrorists on innocent people would. But hey, we can't do that. Nor would I ever want that.

All we can do is point and make fun at those like you that say these bizarre, hateful things. Hoping no one buys your brand of bullshit.

[Kevin]

Ah I see you edited your post after I posted mine.

Too late, your hateful comments were recorded.

But the fact you went back an edited them out is good news!

That was your conscience telling you it was wrong.

There may be hope for you yet!

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Clinton claimed he was privy to intel that indicated a WMD program. Much of this was the same info Bush touted for our actions in Iraq.

Powell proceeded to use faulty evidence, such as a tube of white powder, which he said is what anthrax looked like that we KNOW Iraq has. Of course he didn't mention that 1) the anthrax was in the form of a brown sludge, not a white powder, and 2) the anthrax that they had long ago had a shelf life of around 2 years, which means that it would be long since unusable.

He also showed a video clip of a plane taking off, spreading anthrax, and led to the UN (and American people) to believe that this was a recent clip that they had found, when in reality it was taken some 12 years ago and the plane is on record as being destroyed.

Oh, and my previous post was tongue-in-cheek

[Kevin]

Again busemann, where were the people being pissed when Clinton talked about the nuclear facilities we were going to take out in Iraq.

Why no accusations of fraud then?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'm not lying. You?

As of mid-July 2005, Norway still had approximately 10 staff officers deployed to Iraq. These Norwegian personnel form part of the British and Polish divisional headquarters staff.

Look it up brother. Apology for slander accepted in advance.

No you. Norway is not, was not and will not be a part of the coalition.

Norway has *no* staff officers deployed to Iraq. Not one. You are a liar.

cheers

W-Y

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Oh, and my previous post was tongue-in-cheek

In that case, apologies!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

No you. Norway is not, was not and will not be a part of the coalition.

Norway has *no* staff officers deployed to Iraq. Not one. You are a liar.

cheers

W-Y

You sir owe ebuddy an apology

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita..._coalition.htm

The size and capabilities of the Coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq has been a subject of much debate, confusion, and at times exageration. As of July 1, 2005, there were 26 non-U.S. military forces participating in the coalition and contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq.
These countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, and Ukraine.

BTW calling someone a liar, then saying "cheers" comes off creepy.

Originally Posted by Troll

In that case, apologies!

You should have apologized him being serious or not.

Lots of people sticking their foots in their mouths in this thread.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Kevin

blabla

The amount of manure that you write is amazing

cheers

W-Y

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again busemann, where were the people being pissed when Clinton talked about the nuclear facilities we were going to take out in Iraq.

Why no accusations of fraud then?

I recall lots of criticism of the air strikes back then. But Clinton didn't lure the American people, or the UN, as ebuddy said:

Originally Posted by ebudy

Clinton never came to the American people. Clinton never consulted the UN body for council.

Bush & Co willfully distorted the facts to get the world on board. They chose to manipulate the evidence to garner support for the war. Clinton sat on much of the same evidence, yet he refused to support an invasion until the inspectors were done. Their Iraq policies were strikingly different (ha!)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The amount of manure that you write is amazing

So no rebuttle, no facts. Just personal attacks. Norway was part of the coalition. You admit it or not.

You owe both of us an apology now.

Originally Posted by Busemann

I recall lots of criticism of the air strikes back then.

Criticisms that they did nothing. Nothing about Clinton lying about there being nuclear targets.

But Clinton didn't try to persuade the American people,

Um, he went and told us all about the Nuclear targets we were going to hit. He expected us to believe it no?

And Bush wasn't the only one that believed it. And Bush isn't the only one that said these things. MOST OF CONGRESS FELT THE SAME WAY. Well before Bush got into office. Or would you like me to start posting quotes again?

You act like it was strictly the Bush administration. It was not. It wasn't till election time did the Dems start the attack and divide.

or the UN, as ebuddy said:

Yup, Clinton didn't even ASK the UN for permission. He gave the SAME reasons Bush gave for attacking Iraq as Clinton did.

AND NO ONE RAN HIM OVER THE HOT COALS FOR IT.

Imagine if Bush hadn't even went to the UN!

Bush & Co willfully distorted the facts to get the world on board.

Just like Clinton did with the nuclear claims. And no one said jack. (BTW it wasn't just Bush and Co that believed these "Distorted facts" nor was it just them that were pushing them)

They chose to manipulate the evidence to garner support for the war.

Just like Clinton did, and no one said JACK

Clinton sat on much of the same evidence, yet he refused to support an invasion until the inspectors were done.

I wonder why he decided to "Sit on evidence" but announce Iraq had nuclear plants we were going take out?

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So no rebuttle, no facts. Just personal attacks. Norway was part of the coalition. You admit it or not.

Norway was NOT part of the coalition. In fact prime minister Kjell Magne Bondevik was one of the most outspoken critics at the time. The role Norway had was as peacekeepers (after advice from the UN). They weren't even allowed to use force except in self defence.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Norway was NOT part of the coalition. In fact prime minister Kjell Magne Bondevik was one of the most outspoken critics at the time. The role Norway had was as peacekeepers (after advice from the UN). They weren't even allowed to use force except in self defence.

Buseman I am not talking about them helping us Go in and do the dirty work. Of course they didn't help us there.

I am speaking about what Weyland stated

Norway has *no* staff officers deployed to Iraq. Not one. You are a liar

Then I posted a link showing him, and he called the info in the link "manure"



And yes, like it or not, they ARE called coalition forces.

[Busemann]

Since Norway's symbolic Iraqi contribution ended in 2005, what he said is true. Norway has no staff officers deployed to Iraq.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Kevin, that Norway thing and that list you posted were debunked earlier in the thread. I can't be bothered to read all your posts, they're not very good and full of factual errors.

Either way, your list there has been debunked.

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Since Norway's symbolic Iraqi contribution ended in 2005, what he said is true. Norway has no staff officers deployed to Iraq.

Then he needs to pay attention to what Ebuddy said, and still owes him an apology

"As of mid-July 2005, Norway still had approximately 10 staff officers deployed to Iraq. "

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Kevin, that Norway thing and that list you posted were debunked earlier in the thread. I can't be bothered to read all your posts, they're not very good and full of factual errors.

Either way, your list there has been debunked.

Don't just tell me Wey, SHOW ME. Prove to me it has been.

[Kevin]

Petersen Responding to the recent escalation of events in Iraq, with several U.S. military fatalities in the siege of Falluja, the Foreign Minister told the World Affairs Council audience that, "The events over the last days clearly have displayed the difficulties facing the coalition forces in Iraq. There is, however, no alternative to continue working for a secure and democratic Iraq. Norway is currently participating in the stabilization force."

Norway is playing the cake and eat it game. They want the same thing we want for Iraq, they want to also be part of it. But at the same time, they don't want to look like they are supporting the US or Bush in fear of attack.

The problem with Norway is, they put too much trust in the UN to do the right thing.

And so far, their tract record sucks.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll

Duh! I meant countries that are not already participating!

Oh, so that's a "duh" moment? First you claimed; "Do you really think that Europe is going to send its citizens to their deaths and spend their money bailing the world's biggest superpower out of Iraq?"

I answered yes, they would and have. You said absolutely nothing about your qualifications above. That's a bit of a back-peddle Troll. i.e. DUH indeed!

That's because your list is wrong. Not only is it NOT a list of countries that supported the invasion but some of the countries on the list are no longer involved in Iraq.

The list is not wrong. See, the problem here is that you don't consider it "help" unless they succinctly make the claim that they love Bush. In your eyes, in order for their to be participation they have to make some bold claim that they support the US in all it's endeavors. You'd likely include them in your death-watch lists, why not include their contributions as well?

The list came forth as part of your claim that over half have already bailed out. That's simply incorrect. Then you made the clam that Europe would not contribute it's help. I indicated where this is wrong and you back-peddled.

Bulgaria - no longer participating. The last four Bulgarian soldiers were withdrawn from Iraq on January 16, 2006

That's pretty recent. A great many nations have a limit to the resources they can provide and their contribution is noted. The list I read was supposedly as of December 2005. I'll take your word on it.

Netherlands - Troops left in June 2005 per a decision taken in March 2005 by the government.

A great many nations have a limit to the resources they can provide and their contribution is noted. The list I read was supposedly as of December 2005. I'll take your word on it.

Nicaragua - Troops left in February 2004 and not replaced.

The list I read was supposedly as of December 2005. I'll take your word on it. Their contribution is noted.

Norway

For WY, this would be the country that never went to Iraq. If it is wrong to lie in order to support action in Iraq, it's also wrong to lie in opposition to action in Iraq. Just thought I'd point out some ethical conundrums for you.

Troops withdrawn on June 30, 2004 citing growing domestic opposition 10 liaison troops remain but the administration insists the troops were never part of the invasion force, citing a UN humanitarian mandate.

Fine, but their contribution to our efforts there are noted.

Ukraine - All remaining Ukrainian troops withdrawn as of 30 December 2005.
The UN threatened serious consequences IF UNMOVIC found Iraq to be in breach of its obligations.

The above constitute Europe's contribution to our efforts in Iraq. Interstingly, we've not gotten to 16 yet. I wonder where the other 12 went??? Now, in regards to UNMOVIC;

November 8, 2002: The UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1441. The resolution declares that Iraq "remains in material breach" of past resolutions and gives Iraq a "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" set out by Security Council resolutions stretching back to the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. It also strengthens UNMOVIC's and the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) powers to conduct inspections throughout Iraq, specifying that Iraq must allow "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to "facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect." UN inspectors are given the authority to prohibit the movement of vehicles and aircraft around sites to be inspected and have the right to interview anyone they choose, without Iraqi officials present, in any location they wish. Additionally, the resolution overrides a 1998 memorandum of understanding between Baghdad and UN Secretary-General Annan that had placed special conditions on inspections of presidential sites to which Iraq had previously denied the inspectors access.

The resolution also warns that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it fails to comply with its disarmament obligations.

November 13, 2002: Iraq accepts Resolution 1441 in a letter to Annan from Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabr.

November 27, 2002: UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin.

December 7, 2002: Iraq submits its declaration "of all aspects of its [weapons of mass destruction] programmes" as required by Resolution 1441. The declaration is supposed to provide information about any prohibited weapons activity since UN inspectors left the country in 1998 and resolve outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that had not been answered by 1998.

The resolution requires the declaration to be "currently accurate, full, and complete," but UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors tell the UN Security Council on December 19 that the declaration contains little new information.

Uh, for those that might have a short attention span, that means "breach" as clearly as you could use the word. Resolution 1441 called for serious consequences for non-compliance and Iraq contined non-compliance. This was the reason for war.

December 19, 2002: Following IAEA and UNMOVIC briefings to the UN Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell states that the Iraqi declaration contains a "pattern of systematic gaps" that constitute "another material breach" of Iraq's disarmament obligations.

Colin Powell may have reservations about some of the intel he cited in his speech, he still believes the action in Iraq was necessary, in fact this is where he and Rumsfeld had some differences. Rumsfeld called for smaller, more agile forces and Powell wanted to apply what is known as the "Powell Doctrine" of monstrous force. If Powell (whom many of you respected not long ago) had his way, there would've been a much greater and faster force applied to Iraq. We can debate whether or not that was a correct method, but we should probably move away from the notion that Powell disagreed with action there.

It never found Iraq to be in breach

It wasn't the outfit designed to determine whether or not Iraq was in breach of 1441. That's not what UNMOVIC was tasked to do. They were tasked with finding WMDs and didn't. The breach however, was the evasive and ambiguous answers to specific questions in clear and obvious violation of 1441. The International body was in total agreement that Saddam posed a threat and was being vague about his programs. They disagreed on how to act. We now know that several nations were protecting an illegal meal ticket arrangement they had with Saddam. Honestly, I don't know why this is so difficult to see.

nor did it ever actually authorise the use of force. Something the US fully understood was needed which is why they sought a second UN resolution. The war was illegal. That is patent.

No, it's not. What's patently obvious is that when the UN threatens "serious consequences" for non-compliance, what they really mean is; "you better knock it off or we'll... we'll authorize more sanctions against you!!!" The UN has lost all credibility in threat deterrence period.

That is absolutely fine with me. Go on reaping the benefits to your heart's content. What I REALLY enjoy is the fact that your army is tied up in Iraq and consequently not able to follow the neocon dream of an American Century.

It's well under way brother.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The amount of manure that you write is amazing

cheers

W-Y

Give the pooper scooper button a try? It's labelled "Ignore".

[Weyland-Yutani]

"For WY, this would be the country that never went to Iraq. If it is wrong to lie in order to support action in Iraq, it's also wrong to lie in opposition to action in Iraq. Just thought I'd point out some ethical conundrums for you. "

@ebuddy

Don't be a twit, I stand by every word I wrote because I know them to be true. Norway was not, is not and will never be a part of the coalition. Norway has no troops in Iraq, Norway has no intentions of sending troops to Iraq. What is more, Norway never had any troops in Iraq with regard to this invasion led by the US.

Claims to the contrary are wrong. Perhaps by mistake, perhaps because of willful lies.

Simple as that.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Troll

Give the pooper scooper button a try? It's labelled "Ignore".

It's a good name for the button, however I have a "built-in" ignore feature so to speak. Ignoring Kevin when he goes on a rant isn't taxing. It comes naturally.

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

Give the pooper scooper button a try? It's labelled "Ignore".

Yes when all else fails, set ignore and delude further. We aren't being abusive. So that tells me you ignore people because you don't want to hear the truth.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Don't be a twit, I stand by every word I wrote because I know them to be true. Norway was not, is not and will never be a part of the coalition. Norway has no troops in Iraq, Norway has no intentions of sending troops to Iraq. What is more, Norway never had any troops in Iraq with regard to this invasion led by the US.

WITH FURTHER MORE, no one is saying that. Norway DID indeed have troops to help Iraq. That is what they said they were doing. Helping IRAQ

They want the SAME THING we want for Iraq. But at the same time, wants to distance themselves from the US so they don't get what Spain got.

Claims to the contrary are wrong. Perhaps by mistake, perhaps because of willful lies.

Or perhapse you aren't that great at following along.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Oh, so that's a "duh" moment? First you claimed; "Do you really think that Europe is going to send its citizens to their deaths and spend their money bailing the world's biggest superpower out of Iraq?"

"Going to" is future tense.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The list is not wrong.
...

I'll take your word on it.

Uh, you admitted that your list is wrong. It contains at least 5 errors! Why you had to take up so much space just to say, "Sorry, my list was old," I don't know.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The above constitute Europe's contribution to our efforts in Iraq. Interstingly, we've not gotten to 16 yet. I wonder where the other 12 went??? Now, in regards to UNMOVIC;

Jees, don't be such a moron. 12 of the countries that were on the list of the first "more than 30" countries that you cited disappeared. I only pointed out the errors in your list. The list itself already took into account the other 12 that pulled out!

The full list of nations no longer participating is: Bulgaria, Ukraine, Nicaragua, Spain, Honduras, Norway, Dominican Rep., Phillippines, Thailand, Hungary, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Netherlands, Moldova, Tonga - which, count them up, equals 16!

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The resolution also warns that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it fails to comply with its disarmament obligations.
...

Uh, for those that might have a short attention span, that means "breach" as clearly as you could use the word. Resolution 1441 called for serious consequences for non-compliance and Iraq contined non-compliance. This was the reason for war.

If you're going to argue law, you need to understand something about law. There are two questions that you need to answer iro Resolution 1441:

1) When is the Resolution breached?
Paragraphs 4 and 11 of the Resolution are relevant. Both of those say that UNMOVIC and the IAEA must report breaches to the Security Council. Without a report from the IAEA and UNMOVIC, there is no breach.

2) What are the consequences of a breach?
Failures by Iraq to comply are to be reported to the security council, which must then "convene immediately ... to consider the situation and the need for full compliance". The resolution also recalls that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq of "serious consequences" as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. A recollection is not a decision. Decisions are labelled "Decides"

The term "serious consequences" is not UN code for enforcement action. The words in a UN Resolution that authorise the use of force are "Member States are ‘authorised’ to ‘use all necessary means’ or ‘take all necessary measures’". That's what Resolution 678, which authorised the use of force in the Gulf War in 1990 said and that's what all other resolutions authorising force have said. Resolution 1441 doesn't say that. And the point is moot anyway because in their explanations of their votes adopting resolution 1441, council members were careful to say that the resolution did not provide such an authorisation!!

So not only was the resolution never properly breached but it doesn't authorise the use of force.

People more eminent than me have looked into this. The UK Attorney General thought a second resolution was required, which is why the US and UK sought a second resolution. Rabinder Singh (Queen's Counsel) and Charlotte Kilroy in their opinion for the CND said:

1441 does not authorise the use of force for three main reasons.

First, resolutions adopted by the security council in the past, including resolution 678 passed in 1990 after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, show that the language used to authorise force is bold and consistent. Member states are "authorised" to "use all necessary means" or "take all necessary measures" in pursuit of a specified goal. These words are manifestly absent from resolution 1441.

Second, as a matter of principle international law precludes UN member states from relying on any implied authorisation to use force.

Third, the use of force without "clear collective authorisation" would be in conflict with the fundamental principles of the UN charter and in violation of international law.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

We now know that several nations were protecting an illegal meal ticket arrangement they had with Saddam. Honestly, I don't know why this is so difficult to see.

Nonsense. What we know is that INDIVIDUALS in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, France and elsewhere benefitted from corruption in the OFFP.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, it's not. What's patently obvious is that when the UN threatens "serious consequences" for non-compliance, what they really mean is; "you better knock it off or we'll... we'll authorize more sanctions against you!!!" The UN has lost all credibility in threat deterrence period.

Funny you should say that because you're using the UN to justify the legality of the invasion!!

[Kevin]

Um Troll Saddam made deals with France Germany etc for their vote in the UN.

What are you talking about?

Your denial is just amazing.

[Tarambana]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, Spain did it because it was afraid of terrorists attacks. They had no spine. So they pulled out. Not all collations forces that have pulled out have done so because of a disagreement as ot what is happening.

This is false.

Many factors affected the march 14th elections outcome. None had anything to do with our backbone, thanks. I'll summarize some of them:

1st.- Aznar's government had won the 2000 election with their first absolute majority. Though moderated in the beginning, by term's end they disdainfully rejected even the most basic rule of law. The "Ley Orgánica 20/2003", published and sanctioned december the 23rd., misused criminal law for electoral gains. For many of us, specially in the legal field, that was the final nail in the "Partido Popular" electoral coffin.

2nd.- Aznar chose to make Spain and our troops participate in the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in spite of wide popular disagreement with it (e. gr., more than 1.000.000 protesters in Madrid and between the 70 and 80 per cent of the population were opposed to our participation in the war). Many of those were middle ground electorate swayed to the P.S.O.E. by this behaviour. Furthermore, we were supposed to be there only in a humanitarian mission, yet our soldiers took part in a few combat operations.

3rd.- The former government had also made several bad decissions. The way they handled the Prestige disaster, with one of the ministers out for hunt for the weekend, was also quite negative.

4th.- The electoral tide was already rising before march 11th. In february, the P.P. was 8 points above the P.S.O.E. in polls (1), then by the beginning of march, the distance was only of 4 points (2). And, finally, a week after, the distance was only of 3 points (3). They were virtually tied by the time the bombs exploded.

5th.- The P.P. took care of the crisis in the worst possible way. Remember Rudy Giuliani after september 11th.? This was right the opposite.

Finally, getting out of Irak was also in the P.S.O.E. political agenda long before the bombings, and ever since they noticed the massive opposition against Aznar's decision to take part in the war.

So ... Spain didn't vote out of fear nor did we get out of Irak because of fear of further bombings (we've faced ETA for more than 30 years, and more than 800 people have been killed, yet we haven't compromised at all). It was merely what most people wanted from the beginning.

Saying a whole nation is spineless is a shameful comment.


---

(1) El Mundo

(2) Cadena SER

(3) Cadena SER

[Weyland-Yutani]

Good post Tarambana, I have often explained this to the talking heads here.. however if they don't understand it after such a good explaination as your's above then I can safely come to the conclusion they are retarded mentally.

cheers

W-Y

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Blah blah blah more liberal propoganda from the farrrr left. Look we had to retaliate against 9/11, if Saddam didn't want to lose his country he shouldn't have messed with the best.

All I know is that Moslems are tricky people, I worked with one for a few years and was always on the lookout, I got a bad feeling from him, and if I hadnt showed tibor who's boss God knows what would happen.

pro sadam people like you guys are not helping because you are helping the terrorists. if we didn't show them who to respect they would just hit us again.

I guess you're right.

[Kevin]

Your right a whole nation wasn't spinless. Just the people who decided to leave.

And my opinion still stands. It was out of fear.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Actually when Clinton attacked Iraq the right didn't give him the same reaction. So no.

The right isn't losing any debate here. And he is rightfully brought up to show inconsistency. To show what this was really about.

I thought you'd like to see this.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...onal.react.02/

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Rumor

I thought you'd like to see this.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...onal.react.02/

Good find!

Here is an excerpt.

Prominent among the skeptics: Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) and House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).

"I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

"The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

Armey renewed his call for the president to resign.

How hard is it to admit that Republicans as well as Democrats in Congress have used military actions by the President as a basis for criticizing that President. Republicans did it with Clinton and now Democrats are doing it with Bush. What's the big deal with admitting that even war is politicized by political parties? It's not like the politicians really care, except for a few like Murtha and McCain, none of them are going to serve or have kids serving. Bah!

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Just read what I posted. I never apologised for what Hussein did. The man deserves the death penalty for all I care.

But you cannot use the "he used WMDs against his people" argument for the reasons I stated.

If you use "Saddam Hussein use WMDs in an act of genocide towards the Kurds", that is a much stronger statement, much closer to the truth, and very much more to the point you are trying to make in incriminating the mass-murderer.

Personally, I don't think the death penalty is in order. I'm thinking more along the lines of torture until death.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rumor

I thought you'd like to see this.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...onal.react.02/

Go read back in the thread. We already covered that once.

But we can do it again. We weren't really questioning that something needed to be done in Iraq. But the fact that in his 8 years, he did nothing. Only did he want to do something when it looked as if he was going to get impeached.

They razzed him for caring more about his image, than Iraq.

And this is a gem

After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

Supports what I am saying.

[Rumor]

Just making sure it was seen.

Funny thing is:

Democratic talks of attacking Iraq, right wingers get upset

Republican attacks Iraq, left wingers get upset

Basically, no matter what, somebody was bound to get upset. Am I correct in this statement?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rumor

Democratic talks of attacking Iraq after 8 years of not doing a damn thing, only to do so when in hot water, right wingers get upset

Republican attacks Iraq during election time, left wingers get upset make an about face, and shill for their side.

Basically, no matter what, somebody was bound to get upset. Am I correct in this statement?

Fixed it a bit.

There was a different. The right wasn't getting upset Clinton was attempting to do something (IT was a hollow gesture, and they knew it) But they fact he didn't do jack the 8 years he was in office before that. Only when he was about to get impeached did he throw in the Iraq plan. Now I am not saying that this was his reasoning. It could very well have been a legitimate attempt. And not something to take his scandals off the front page. But it did look that way.

I have Bubba a benefit of the doubt at the time, and was GLAD he was finally doing something.

In Bush's case everyone was ALL for going into Iraq. And when they saw Bush was planning on doing it (They knew America didn't really change presidents during time of war) They started the FUD machine and did an about face. They decided them winning the next election was more important than Iraq. Some even expected us to forget their stances not months before.

And this was when people STILL expected Iraq to attack us with WMDs that they had.

So while what you say is true, it's two different reasons.

[Y3a]

He was only doing things to impress the right because he was in the muddle of the Monicagate scandal. Thats why the cruise missles were wasted on a few empty buildings, and the PR spun.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

He was only doing things to impress the right because he was in the muddle of the Monicagate scandal. Thats why the cruise missles were wasted on a few empty buildings, and the PR spun.

Posted again for emphasis.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

How hard is it to admit that Republicans as well as Democrats in Congress have used military actions by the President as a basis for criticizing that President. Republicans did it with Clinton and now Democrats are doing it with Bush. What's the big deal with admitting that even war is politicized by political parties? It's not like the politicians really care, except for a few like Murtha and McCain, none of them are going to serve or have kids serving. Bah!

[Kevin]

dc by posting that, you are totally ignoring what HE posted, and what I posted.
No one would have said crap to Clinton had he been consistent. Or had he not made a half-assed attempt.

No one blasted him for actually attempting to help Iraq.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

dc by posting that, you are totally ignoring what HE posted, and what I posted.
No one would have said crap to Clinton had he been consistent. Or had he not made a half-assed attempt.

No one blasted him for actually attempting to help Iraq.

Well, the point was made that Republicans aren't like Democrats in their support for a President engaged in military action. The point was made that Republicans would support a President during military conflict. Rumor posted evidence that this claim was false during the Clinton Administration where Republicans criticized Clinton for his military actions in Iraq. I followed up on that post indicating I think this type of behavior, criticizing a President in time of conflict, was common to both political parties. Yet you are here still saying Republicans don't do this, it is only Democrats.

By the way, what is a half-assed attempt? Do you wish Clinton had initiated a full-scale invasion of Iraq like Bush did? Is that what you consider an acceptable level of military action for a President to take?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Powell proceeded to use faulty evidence, such as a tube of white powder, which he said is what anthrax looked like that we KNOW Iraq has. Of course he didn't mention that 1) the anthrax was in the form of a brown sludge, not a white powder, and 2) the anthrax that they had long ago had a shelf life of around 2 years, which means that it would be long since unusable.

Where are you getting this information?

He also showed a video clip of a plane taking off, spreading anthrax, and led to the UN (and American people) to believe that this was a recent clip that they had found, when in reality it was taken some 12 years ago and the plane is on record as being destroyed.

I'd definitely like to see a source for this.

Oh, and my previous post was tongue-in-cheek

Yeah, I noticed. Funny thing is you really got a couple people pretty worked up about it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll

"Going to" is future tense.
Uh, you admitted that your list is wrong. It contains at least 5 errors! Why you had to take up so much space just to say, "Sorry, my list was old," I don't know.

First of all, the list was not that old. Second of all, we're still missing a few right? By all means keep reading. I'm about to show you perhaps the best example yet of a "wrong" list.

Jees, don't be such a moron.

Quit back-peddling and getting pissy.

12 of the countries that were on the list of the first "more than 30" countries that you cited disappeared.

First of all, I cited a list of 27 nations. You'll soon see that not one from your list of those having "disappeared" matches the list I gave. By all means though, keep reading. What's with the verbiage in this thread anyway? They were "spirited away" and they "disappeared". Nobody disappeared, they fulfilled their obligations and pulled out. Spain caved to political pressure, which is acceptable. Their contributions as well as the many other contributions made by Europe are noteworthy. Whether or not you've decided by some arbitrary gauge that their contributions don't count or whether or not they "considered" themselves part of the coalition is irrelevent.

I only pointed out the errors in your list. The list itself already took into account the other 12 that pulled out!

If you're going to point out errors, you should try to remain error-free. You've not shown me you're capable of separating enough emotionally to make that call. A list of contributors since July 2005 is not that old. They hung in there for almost 3 years and their contributions contrary to your claims, have been noted.

The full list of nations no longer participating is:
Bulgaria

pulled troops from formal military activity on January 16th of this year (just to clarify, that's very recent in case you were getting excitable again) and began using 120 soldiers to police-keeping at a prison in Ashraf on January 1st of this year where they are projected to remain until May 1st, 2006. That's 15.

Ukraine

"In view of a proposal from the Iraqi government and coalition leaders, a presidential draft resolution is being prepared. If it is passed, in 2006 there will be a limited number of military personnel in Iraq," Anatoliy Hrytsenko said following his visit to Iraq.. At least 50 troops still remain in Iraq. That's 14.

Nicaragua

Nicaragua was not on my list. Yes, though they have bigger fish to fry at home. Their contributions were noted. That's 13.

Spain, Honduras, Norway, Dominican Rep., Phillippines, Thailand, Hungary, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Netherlands, Moldova, Tonga - which, count them up, equals 16!

I can see where you got your numbers and your little mathematics exercise, but uh... I'm not sure who you're arguing with now. Spain's not on my list of 27. Honduras? Nope, not them either. Norway still has a contingency of 10 to 16 officers in Iraq so I still count that as contribution. Dominican Republic was not on my list. Phillipines were not on my list. Thailand was not on my list. Crazy!!! Neither is Hungary or New Zealand. Portugal? Nope. How about Singapore, nope not them either. I'm sure one from your list matches one from mine. Could it be Moldova? Nope, they're not on my list either. How about Tonga? Nope, no Tonga.

So, I was able to find one related match and that was the Netherlands. The Netherlands still have 4 troops in Iraq, as part of SFIR (Stabilization Force IRaq). In addition, it also has 14 troops in the country as part of the NATO Training Mission (NTM-I)

Now, take my list and remove the ones that you claim withdrew in your list above and we have, count 'em; 27! Does this mean I get to call you a moron now?

If you're going to argue law, you need to understand something about law. There are two questions that you need to answer iro Resolution 1441:

1) When is the Resolution breached?
Paragraphs 4 and 11 of the Resolution are relevant. Both of those say that UNMOVIC and the IAEA must report breaches to the Security Council. Without a report from the IAEA and UNMOVIC, there is no breach.

The allowance exists and has always existed that a member nation is able to act contrary to UN Security Council should it feel it's safety is at risk. I hope in your vast wealth of legal knowledge you've not forgotten this critical point.

2) What are the consequences of a breach?
Failures by Iraq to comply are to be reported to the security council, which must then "convene immediately ... to consider the situation and the need for full compliance". The resolution also recalls that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq of "serious consequences" as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. A recollection is not a decision. Decisions are labelled "Decides"

The term "serious consequences" is not UN code for enforcement action.
The words in a UN Resolution that authorise the use of force are "Member States are ‘authorised’ to ‘use all necessary means’ or ‘take all necessary measures’". That's what Resolution 678, which authorised the use of force in the Gulf War in 1990 said and that's what all other resolutions authorising force have said. Resolution 1441 doesn't say that. And the point is moot anyway because in their explanations of their votes adopting resolution 1441, council members were careful to say that the resolution did not provide such an authorisation!!

Correct, but not withstanding the ability of a member nation to act in the interest of it's own safety contrary to UN Security Council findings. You may not like this, but it does not make our actions illegal.

So not only was the resolution never properly breached but it doesn't authorise the use of force.

What you fail to understand is that it was never intended to be "properly breached." There was simply no criteria that could've met a material breach to this body. If what Iraq had done in the previous 11 years somehow constituted a unique breach yet to be determined, the final resolution, 1441 was most definitely breached in the exact same manner. It was determined by the UN member states that Iraq had been in severe violation of previous resolutions and the IAEA as well as UNMOVIC stated clearly that the declaration required of Iraq detailing its programs contained little new information. It was basically another thumbed nose at this paralyzed body to buy more time. We didn't buy it. Saddam is gone.

Funny you should say that because you're using the UN to justify the legality of the invasion!!

This is interesting only in knowing how twisted your reasoning becomes to try to make a point. Evidenced by your having allegedly picked away at a list of nations I never gave you. BTW, I never cited some UN credibility for our actions in Iraq. I'm simply stating that when an International body threatens serious consequences for non-compliance, it should act on that non-compliance and not continue to enable dictators. It will not. It rarely does and it's corruption has been noted as patently obvious. If it were up to me, we'd abandon that failed experiment. Nation building? Maybe. Military action and threat deterrence, absolutely never.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Spain caved to political pressure

*More* lies/errors from you ebuddy. Since this has been explained very well earlier in this thread it is safe to conclude you are lying and misleading on purpose.

You should retract your comments both on Spain and Norway and apologize. Unless your heretic religion condones and encourages lying. Wouldn't surprise me.

W-Y

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

*More* lies/errors from you ebuddy. Since this has been explained very well earlier in this thread it is safe to conclude you are lying and misleading on purpose.

You should retract your comments both on Spain and Norway and apologize. Unless your heretic religion condones and encourages lying. Wouldn't surprise me.

W-Y

First of all WY, I've debated you on several occasions and have noticed something interesting about your posts. You have absolutely no shame at all. I never mentioned Spain my zealous friend. Go back and have a read. You've still not addressed the fact that Norway has a contingency of officers in Iraq. I'm still waiting on your apology for accusing me of lying. I've not lied.

It does not surprise me that the first one in the room to claim something smells bad is usually the one with gas. I've noticed this with several posters here and am often particulary surprised by your lack of humility in this. Stick to your guns man no matter how fallacious they may be. This is the best way to live with yourself right? Why are you not calling any of the other tactics in this thread out? Are you not able to critically examine a contrarian view? Nevermind WY, I already know the answer, you prove it time and again. Got anything substantive to add to the thread like maybe addressing the complete misfire by your ilk?

By the way, why would you bring religion into this? Catholics are the only ones allowed a little imperialism? You can have your symbolic tripe as you slip into the back pew after the homily and pretend you're serving God, I'm not buying.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I never mentioned Spain my zealous friend.

Yes, you did. I quoted it for your convenience.

cheers

W-Y

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Yes, you did. I quoted it for your convenience.

cheers

W-Y

You quoted my statement; "I never mentioned Spain my zealous friend." as having mentioned Spain??? I've never seen you this desperate WY.

Your standard, shameless dishonesty rears it's ugly head again. I appreciate you putting this on display for all to see.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You quoted my statement; "I never mentioned Spain my zealous friend." as having mentioned Spain??? I've never seen you this desperate WY.

Your standard, shameless dishonesty rears it's ugly head again. I appreciate you putting this on display for all to see.

My stars! Even you can't be this retarded! I quoted it in the post *above*. Do you even know what it is you write or did you copy/paste your tripe from some place?

A link for your convenience then.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...87#post2922987

cheers

W-Y

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

First of all, the list was not that old. Second of all, we're still missing a few right? By all means keep reading. I'm about to show you perhaps the best example yet of a "wrong" list.

Jees, you're verbose. Here it is in simple language for you. You first referred to a list of 'over 30' countries that supported the invasion. I assume you meant the original list of 48 nations. Then you put up a list of 27 countries. Some of the original supporters (like Spain) had already been taken off your second list. Your list was old and included some countries that have already pulled out of Iraq.

The simple fact is that 16 of the countries that were initially involved in Iraq have pulled out. What I showed you was that you to get an accurate idea of where things stand today, you need to either take 16 away from your list of 'more than 30' or you take 5 away from your list of 27. Either way, the Coalition of the Willing has shrunk dramatically since the invasion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The allowance exists and has always existed that a member nation is able to act contrary to UN Security Council should it feel it's safety is at risk. I hope in your vast wealth of legal knowledge you've not forgotten this critical point.

Correct, but not withstanding the ability of a member nation to act in the interest of it's own safety contrary to UN Security Council findings. You may not like this, but it does not make our actions illegal.

You're really confusing the law here. In international law, there is a general prohibition on the use of force. You can only use force in two circumstances. First, where the UNSC authorises the use of force and second where you are acting in self defence. You started off arguing the first justification and you are now arguing the second justification. The problem is that pre-emptive strikes are extremely restricted and are only allowed where there is an imminent threat to your security. Not only did the US never argue or suspect that its security was imminently threatened (Simey has been at pains to point this out) but Iraq had no WMD or the capability to deliver them to the US. No one in their right mind has ever tried to justify the war on the second ground.

The thing is that international law is mostly unenforceable. So there is no consequence for an illegal act. That doesn't mean that the invasion wasn't illegal. The vast bulk of legal scholars consider the use of force to have been illegal and from a moral perspective, most people see it as such. THAT is the force of international law. If you don't play by the rules of the game, you get a bad rep. And a bad rep translates into a loss of soft power and in extreme cases, terrorism.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

What you fail to understand is that it was never intended to be "properly breached." There was simply no criteria that could've met a material breach to this body.

Yes there is. If the IAEA or UNMOVIC had been prevented from accessing certain sites, if Iraq had refused to destroy the missiles that were identified as infringing, if WMD had been found - all of those would have triggered a report by the IAEA or UNMOVIC to the UNSC and you can bet your bottom dollar that with the US chomping at the bit and a moral justification for the war, the rest would have gone along. France was involved militarily in Iraq in Gulf War I and enforcing the no fly zone, I remind you. What leaders couldn't justify to their populations was breaking off the inspections and killing thousands of innocent people when the inspectors were not saying that Iraq was dangerous.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It rarely does and it's corruption has been noted as patently obvious.

Of course, the corruption in the UN when it was in Iraq pales in comparison with the corruption of the US Government whilst in Iraq. The OFFP delivered $100Bn in aid with $1.8Bn being siphoned off by corruption. The US Government delivered $4Bn in aid with $13Bn being siphoned off by corruption.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me...30/iraq.audit/

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Well, the point was made that Republicans aren't like Democrats in their support for a President engaged in military action. The point was made that Republicans would support a President during military conflict.

Yes the right will support the military conflict when needed. They may not support the reasons, as was this case, but they supported the actions.

Rumor posted evidence that this claim was false during the Clinton Administration where Republicans criticized Clinton for his military actions in Iraq.

Again, you aren't paying attention. They didn't criticize the actions as the reason.

By the way, what is a half-assed attempt? Do you wish Clinton had initiated a full-scale invasion of Iraq like Bush did?

Hell yes. I wish he would have done it back in 92 when he said he was going to be just as tough or tougher on Iraq than Bush Sr was. He was not.

Is that what you consider an acceptable level of military action for a President to take?

Only when warranted.

Tell me DC, what did Clinton accomplish with Iraq in the 8 years he was in office?

What did his little military stunt accomplish?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

*More* lies/errors from you ebuddy. Since this has been explained very well earlier in this thread it is safe to conclude you are lying and misleading on purpose.

You should retract your comments both on Spain and Norway and apologize. Unless your heretic religion condones and encourages lying. Wouldn't surprise me.

W-Y

Yet another no-substance hateful post from Wey that adds nothing to the discussion.

This is becoming a habit from you.