The Iraq War: Somehow Even Worse than you Thought?
-
Oakman wrote:
You read the first sentence I wrote. Then, to refute it, you cited detail after detail that proved my second sentence -> Governments tend towards fascism. And then, having proved me correct, you presume to suggest that I don't know what the discussion is about?
Because the rest of your statement was an inane comparison to Rome of questionable historic validity which I did'nt wish to address. Rome fell primarily because economic evolution had made the governmental model of the city state invalid. There are similar economic pressures on the US as a growing global economy makes the governmental model of the nation state simarly less valid, but that is about as close a comparison as deserves mention.
Oakman wrote:
Got anybody in mind, killer?
I thought I explained that quite well. Not that I think that actually armed civil war or revolution in a modern industrial society to be a credible possiblility, of course.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because the rest of your statement was an inane comparison to Rome
Actually, Stanley, my second sentence was about governments tending to become fascist. You really shouldn't lie about things already down in black and white.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not that I think that actually armed civil war or revolution in a modern industrial society to be a credible possiblility, of course.
I'm disappointed. I thought maybe you had grown a pair. By the way, since you've wussed out here, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation either. But you can still reply and call me a traitor 'cause I don't love GB. I just won't ever read it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
If oil had been the primary goal I'm sure somebody would have considered that. The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have. Buying neighborhood property there wouldn't have solved any of that.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have. Buying neighborhood property there wouldn't have solved any of that.
I'm guessing you really believe this. Have you read about how Saddam was selling oil in Euros and this could have bought the US economy to the ground. Actually Saddam's regime did not support terrorists, if by terrorist you mean Al Qaeda, he was very much opposed to Al Qaeda. Can you list the terrorist groups Saddam supported please. Can you tell me who he shared WMD and related technologies with please. (Hang on a minute wasn't it the US who shared those technologies with Iraq) Of course the situation today in Iraq is so much more complicated than a fight against terrorism. Those fighting the insurgency range from Iraqis disillusioned with the occupation to foreign 'freedom fighters'/terrorists. Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
You always pass failure on the way to success.
-
If oil had been the primary goal I'm sure somebody would have considered that. The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have. Buying neighborhood property there wouldn't have solved any of that.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
dictatorial regime
I agree.
BoneSoft wrote:
that supported terrorists
Which ones? Al Qaeda? Definitely not.
BoneSoft wrote:
proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs
Acquired from the good old US in the 80s, yeah.
BoneSoft wrote:
refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have
Before checking yourself into an asylum, please google for Hans Blix.
Cheers, Vikram.
If the radiance of a thousand suns Were to burst at once into the sky That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one— I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have. Buying neighborhood property there wouldn't have solved any of that.
I'm guessing you really believe this. Have you read about how Saddam was selling oil in Euros and this could have bought the US economy to the ground. Actually Saddam's regime did not support terrorists, if by terrorist you mean Al Qaeda, he was very much opposed to Al Qaeda. Can you list the terrorist groups Saddam supported please. Can you tell me who he shared WMD and related technologies with please. (Hang on a minute wasn't it the US who shared those technologies with Iraq) Of course the situation today in Iraq is so much more complicated than a fight against terrorism. Those fighting the insurgency range from Iraqis disillusioned with the occupation to foreign 'freedom fighters'/terrorists. Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
You always pass failure on the way to success.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
... not to mention America's buddies, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia... of which the first two are MNNAs....
Cheers, Vikram.
If the radiance of a thousand suns Were to burst at once into the sky That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one— I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds.
-
Oakman wrote:
When eating steak would you say you hold your knife in your right hand and your fork in your fascist left?
As a matter of fact I do. But then, I'm left handed, through no fault of my own of course.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm left handed
Oh, the irony.... :laugh:
Cheers, Vikram.
If the radiance of a thousand suns Were to burst at once into the sky That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one— I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because the rest of your statement was an inane comparison to Rome
Actually, Stanley, my second sentence was about governments tending to become fascist. You really shouldn't lie about things already down in black and white.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not that I think that actually armed civil war or revolution in a modern industrial society to be a credible possiblility, of course.
I'm disappointed. I thought maybe you had grown a pair. By the way, since you've wussed out here, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation either. But you can still reply and call me a traitor 'cause I don't love GB. I just won't ever read it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Actually, Stanley, my second sentence was about governments tending to become fascist. You really shouldn't lie about things already down in black and white.
Its still an inane comparison. Modern fascism is not some kind of mindless historic inevitability, it is a purposeful, planned movement.
Oakman wrote:
I'm disappointed. I thought maybe you had grown a pair.
Just an observation of a sad reality, and has nothing to do with me.
Oakman wrote:
But you can still reply and call me a traitor 'cause I don't love GB.
You are a traitor because you use your freedom of speech to say things which support the cause of those our troops have been committed to defeat. If Bush is what you claim, people around the world should be fighting against him, and so should you.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
BoneSoft wrote:
The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have. Buying neighborhood property there wouldn't have solved any of that.
I'm guessing you really believe this. Have you read about how Saddam was selling oil in Euros and this could have bought the US economy to the ground. Actually Saddam's regime did not support terrorists, if by terrorist you mean Al Qaeda, he was very much opposed to Al Qaeda. Can you list the terrorist groups Saddam supported please. Can you tell me who he shared WMD and related technologies with please. (Hang on a minute wasn't it the US who shared those technologies with Iraq) Of course the situation today in Iraq is so much more complicated than a fight against terrorism. Those fighting the insurgency range from Iraqis disillusioned with the occupation to foreign 'freedom fighters'/terrorists. Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
You always pass failure on the way to success.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Have you read about how Saddam was selling oil in Euros and this could have bought the US economy to the ground.
What I've read is that France, Germany and Russia were violating the UN Embargo six ways from Sunday in order to line their pockets - is that what you mean?
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Actually Saddam's regime did not support terrorists, if by terrorist you mean Al Qaeda, he was very much opposed to Al Qaeda.
And he didn't support terrorists if by terrorists you mean the Boy Scouts. However if you mean providing money to Palestinians who were suicide bombers then (oops!) I guess he did support terrorists.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
Great idea - why don't you suggest it to your PM. I have made it abundantly clear that I think the US made a number of tactical and strategic mistakes in Iraq and I wish we'd pulled out 30 days after we entered Baghdad. But I do know that we had enough reasons to suspect Saddam was stockpiling WMD - and enough intel to know that a number of "allies" were too busy paying off Saddam to get as much oil as they could to ever worry about the consequences of their actions - that the decision was not as black and white as the oh so virtuous critics now claim.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
... not to mention America's buddies, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia... of which the first two are MNNAs....
Cheers, Vikram.
If the radiance of a thousand suns Were to burst at once into the sky That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one— I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
dictatorial regime
I agree.
BoneSoft wrote:
that supported terrorists
Which ones? Al Qaeda? Definitely not.
BoneSoft wrote:
proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs
Acquired from the good old US in the 80s, yeah.
BoneSoft wrote:
refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have
Before checking yourself into an asylum, please google for Hans Blix.
Cheers, Vikram.
If the radiance of a thousand suns Were to burst at once into the sky That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one— I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Which ones? Al Qaeda? Definitely not.
This is getting old. Anyone whose head is not up his ass knows that Saddam was providing support to Palestinians who were terrorising Israel.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Acquired from the good old US in the 80s, yeah.
And France, Germany and Russia in the 1990s-2000's.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Before checking yourself into an asylum, please google for Hans Blix.
If I can provide citations that prove that Saddam was refusing to allow inspectors into Iraq, will you stfu and stay shut?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have. Buying neighborhood property there wouldn't have solved any of that.
I'm guessing you really believe this. Have you read about how Saddam was selling oil in Euros and this could have bought the US economy to the ground. Actually Saddam's regime did not support terrorists, if by terrorist you mean Al Qaeda, he was very much opposed to Al Qaeda. Can you list the terrorist groups Saddam supported please. Can you tell me who he shared WMD and related technologies with please. (Hang on a minute wasn't it the US who shared those technologies with Iraq) Of course the situation today in Iraq is so much more complicated than a fight against terrorism. Those fighting the insurgency range from Iraqis disillusioned with the occupation to foreign 'freedom fighters'/terrorists. Saddam was a despot, however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma...
You always pass failure on the way to success.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Actually Saddam's regime did not support terrorists, if by terrorist you mean Al Qaeda, he was very much opposed to Al Qaeda. Can you list the terrorist groups Saddam supported please.
Money to families of martyrs of the Palestinian uprising. Here[^] here[^] & here[^]. Testimony from the 911 commission hearings[^] From the New Your Sun of all places[^] Support for Philippine terrorist group[^] Training camps[^]
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Can you tell me who he shared WMD and related technologies with please.
I may be wrong. I remember reading an article or two on the subject, but I don't remember the details and I can't find a source at the moment.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Hang on a minute wasn't it the US who shared those technologies with Iraq
Do you have a source? What technologies did the US share with Sadam?
GuyThiebaut wrote:
however if that is a reason to invade a country then how about Zimbabwe, China, Burma
I agree, let's get em'
Try code mode
-
BoneSoft wrote:
dictatorial regime
I agree.
BoneSoft wrote:
that supported terrorists
Which ones? Al Qaeda? Definitely not.
BoneSoft wrote:
proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs
Acquired from the good old US in the 80s, yeah.
BoneSoft wrote:
refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have
Before checking yourself into an asylum, please google for Hans Blix.
Cheers, Vikram.
If the radiance of a thousand suns Were to burst at once into the sky That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one— I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Which ones? Al Qaeda? Definitely not.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Acquired from the good old US in the 80s, yeah.
Read a couple of posts up from here...[^]
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Before checking yourself into an asylum, please google for Hans Blix.
It was well documented in virtually every news paper in the world, the count down to the deadline for Sadam to let inspectors in to do their jobs unrestricted and he refused. "Before checking yourself into an asylum"? Get bent.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Sure... 1) I don't see how US & EU money to Palestine is relevant. 2) Didn't find doesn't mean they weren't there or even wasn't there. And it really doesn't matter, there was ample reason to believe they were there. If they weren't, then what was the harm in letting the inspectors in for a look-see? 3) What he could and could not hit at the time says nothing about what he could in the future. And like I said, he was actively seeking more WMDs and technologies. Plus with said secrecy, how could anybody be sure what he really had the capabilities of striking? Did you have nothing to say about the Imperial Japanese analogy?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
- You said Sadam sent money to Palestine. So did the US and EU. Despite who that money was sent ti, it still supported the general economy. 2) The fact you cant find them means they arent adn WMD there. Also, the fact none were used on you when you invaded means he didnt have any. 3) And wsince gulf war 1, when all he could do was knock bits of concrete of buildings in telaviv, he was under sanctions and no fly zones. And he was suppposed to have become stronger? Dont make me laugh. 4) Japan did invade for rubber, oil, steel, etc.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
- You said Sadam sent money to Palestine. So did the US and EU. Despite who that money was sent ti, it still supported the general economy. 2) The fact you cant find them means they arent adn WMD there. Also, the fact none were used on you when you invaded means he didnt have any. 3) And wsince gulf war 1, when all he could do was knock bits of concrete of buildings in telaviv, he was under sanctions and no fly zones. And he was suppposed to have become stronger? Dont make me laugh. 4) Japan did invade for rubber, oil, steel, etc.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
- The general economy needs support. That's not comparable to martyr incentives. 2) That may be, it's also possible that just because I can't find it doesn't mean it ain't so. But I'll concede on this. 3) With the help of France, Germany and whoever else was involved, they raped the hell out of the Oil for Food program. They might as well have not been under sanctions at all. The fact is he was still looking to expand weapons. 4) Yeah, they were also looking for Korean chicks. But first and foremost they were looking for land. Not an occupation, a take over. They conquered for the purpose of taking more land as the Empires own. Which they had had their eye on for quite some time condsidering the population on their tiny island. Unlike a good portion of Europe, the US has never been empirial and likely never will be. WWII Japan & the current US are apples and oranges.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.