billvon 3,058 #101 September 21, 2004 >Are you sure it would have been done in a few months? Easy way to make sure. Set a date two months in advance and tell him we were going to invade if he didn't comply. Both France and Russia said they would agree to such a resolution. Had we been willing to wait, today we would be 50% of an international coalition instead of an all-american occupation. (Or we may have not had to invade at all - but that would have been a blow for the Bush administration.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 558 #102 September 21, 2004 Iraq co-operated BECAUSE there were armed troops waiting to enter and hence we made progress. The problem was that politicians who put the troops there in the first place had "target fixation" and believed that it would be easy to get rid of SH and cheaper than keeping 100K+ troops on combat standby. They thought that it would be a case of wham bham thanks Uncle Sam.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #103 September 21, 2004 QuoteBut then you've climbed inside Bush's head to conclude that he was going to war no matter what. I offer facts of actions, you offer biased guesses. Several significant British politicians resigned over this issue and have stated that this is the case. The idea of climbing inside Bush's head is cool though - I wonder who else I'd find in there.QuoteIt's you sir who are going to keep your unsupported views no matter what. Hey, why let a few facts get in the way? You could direct that statement at Bush and it would be more accurate. He afterall is the one that didn't let facts get in the way of his invasion. Quote When in actuality, if they had lived up to their agreements, that would have been good enough to avoid war. He's still be in power and his murderous spawn would still be alive. You accuse me of spouting opinion as if it were fact and then you come out with this gem. How the hell do you know that? QuoteBut it's you who's saying that it took less than two years for US inspectors to conclude there were no wmd. But now you're saying that Bush should have given SH more than 12 years to prove this? And yes, it was up to SH to prove he didn't have them, not up to the world to prove he still did. You are telling me that the progress made by the restricted UN inspectors should have equalled that of the US inspectors there after the invasion? How would that be? QuoteSince SH did not allow the verification of wmd destruction, then there was a pretext of danger from wmd. Saving the Iraqi people was important yet secondary to this. It is the responsibility of the US to get its facts right before invading other nations and slaughtering innocent people isn't it? How the fuck would the Iraqis prove a negative like that to Bush's satisfaction anyway? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #104 September 21, 2004 QuoteIraq co-operated BECAUSE there were armed troops waiting to enter and hence we made progress. The problem was that politicians who put the troops there in the first place had "target fixation" and believed that it would be easy to get rid of SH and cheaper than keeping 100K+ troops on combat standby. They thought that it would be a case of wham bham thanks Uncle Sam. This is a great one paragraph summary of Spring, 2003. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #105 September 21, 2004 QuoteThe UN was observing and documenting the destruction of his proscribed weapons, and would have concluded their inspections within a few months. We simply did not want to wait. Gee he HAD 12 years to do it"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #106 September 21, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The UN was observing and documenting the destruction of his proscribed weapons, and would have concluded their inspections within a few months. We simply did not want to wait. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gee he HAD 12 years to do it Yeah, so on top of all those 12 years what would a couple of extra months have mattered? Afterall, its people's lives we were talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,099 #107 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe UN was observing and documenting the destruction of his proscribed weapons, and would have concluded their inspections within a few months. We simply did not want to wait. Gee he HAD 12 years to do it Iraq had been contained very effectively for 12 years at a minimal cost in $$ and lives. Iraq is currently more dangerous than before, we have promoted terrorist recruitment, the price of oil is up, and it has cost us 1000+ UK and US lives and $200+ BILLION, 90% of which has come from US taxpayers because GWB was too dumb to get a coalition together like his father did. GWB's foreign policy has been a disaster. Just like his economic policy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #108 September 21, 2004 QuoteYeah, so on top of all those 12 years what would a couple of extra months have mattered? Afterall, its people's lives we were talking about. If he didn't do it in 12 years...he would not have done it at all. You are fooling yourself if you think he would."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #109 September 21, 2004 QuoteIf he didn't do it in 12 years...he would not have done it at all. You are fooling yourself if you think he would. So in your view, even though the pressure in 2002 was significantly higher than during the previous 12 years, he would not have done it just because he had not done it in the previous 12 years. And you honestly believe it wasn't worth giving it the extra two months to see if that was the case? Even with hindsight? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #110 September 21, 2004 QuoteSo in your view, even though the pressure in 2002 was significantly higher than during the previous 12 years, he would not have done it just because he had not done it in the previous 12 years. And you honestly believe it wasn't worth giving it the extra two months to see if that was the case? Even with hindsight? He had 12 years, and he didn't disarm. Yes the added pressure was helping, but he had 12 years. He had 12 years....It was clear he would not comply without force. Remove the force, remove him doing the right thing,"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,099 #111 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo in your view, even though the pressure in 2002 was significantly higher than during the previous 12 years, he would not have done it just because he had not done it in the previous 12 years. And you honestly believe it wasn't worth giving it the extra two months to see if that was the case? Even with hindsight? He had 12 years, and he didn't disarm. Yes the added pressure was helping, but he had 12 years. He had 12 years....It was clear he would not comply without force. Remove the force, remove him doing the right thing, Iraq had been contained very effectively for 12 years at a minimal cost in $$ and lives. Iraq is currently more dangerous than before, we have promoted terrorist recruitment, we have lost focus on Al Qaeda because of the Iraq distraction, the price of oil is up, and it has cost us 1000+ UK and US lives and $200+ BILLION, 90% of which has come from US taxpayers because GWB was too dumb to get a coalition together like his father did. Are you aware that only 5% of Bush(41)'s war was paid by US taxpayers, but 90% of Bush(43)'s more expensive war is being paid by the US? That's because Bush(41) was smart and Bush(43) is not. GWB's foreign policy has been a disaster. Just like his economic policy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,058 #112 September 21, 2004 >If he didn't do it in 12 years...he would not have done it at all. Hans Blix said he could verify whether he did do it or not within a few months. And while I think you have often have good insight on some things, I believe Blix knows more about the progress of Saddam's disarming than you do. We didn't want to wait those few months, and as a result, 10,000 Iraqis and over 1000 US soldiers are dead. A high price to pay for impatience. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #113 September 21, 2004 QuoteIraq had been contained very effectively for 12 years at a minimal cost in $$ and lives Contained is not in compliance....And in those years he has given money and aid to terrorists....Suicide bombers families were paid 25,000. So he was not controled. QuoteThat's because Bush(41) was smart and Bush(43) is not. Big statement....no backing..again."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #114 September 21, 2004 QuoteHans Blix said he could verify whether he did do it or not within a few months. That has been said before. Do you forget that he WAS SHOWN to have weapons system he was not allowed to have? From your own post: QuoteFrom Blix's final report before we invaded: ------------- To date, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including four training missiles, two combat warheads, one launcher and five engines have been destroyed under Unmovic supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 programme. Two "reconstituted" casting chambers used in the production of solid propellant missiles have been destroyed and the remnants melted or encased in concrete. He was not supposed to have them for the last 12 years...Not mths, YEARS. The fault of this situation is: 1. Bush 41, and the UN for not finnishing it back in 91. The reason he didn't was the world community asked him not to. Listening to them was a mistake. 2. Clinton, and the UN for the most part ignoring the whole area for 12 years. 3. Bush 43 for being handed a big ball of shit due to the top 2. You may not like what he did....But he at least DID something about SH...Things that should have been done over the last 12 years. Plus, according to intel SH had WMD programs and weapons....ALL that should have been handled by the UN or past Presidents. QuoteI believe Blix knows more about the progress of Saddam's disarming than you do. And for 12 years we thought he was being a good guy.....But he was not. Gassing his own people, having weapon systems he was not allowed to have, supporting terrorism. It should have been handled by the UN years ago. Clinton should have made the UN deal with it. So you want to find Blame? The UN is at the top of the list. Followed by Bush 41 for not finishing the job. Clinton for ignoring the situation. QuoteA high price to pay for impatience. We waited 12 years."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,058 #115 September 21, 2004 >Do you forget that he WAS SHOWN to have weapons system he was not >allowed to have? Yes. The range limit was X miles and he said his missiles could not fly that far (he was allowed to have missiles that had a range of under X miles.) The inspection team decided they could be modified to have an extended range, and thus had to be destroyed. He agreed and began destroying them. So much for "Saddam never cooperated" eh? >We waited 12 years. And would have had to wait another 2 months to be sure. How many months would you be willing to wait if it could save the lives of 1000 US military? Given that you could still invade at the end of that time? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #116 September 21, 2004 Quote>We waited 12 years. And would have had to wait another 2 months to be sure. How many months would you be willing to wait if it could save the lives of 1000 US military? Given that you could still invade at the end of that time? He had 12 YEARS to comply, and he did not. I would give him a year if we actually thought he would comply. But given the fact that he had not complied in 12 YEARS...I doubt he would. Without the threat of invasion he would have done nothing. EVEN with the threat he was playing games. He had 12 years...The UN should not have taken do long to move."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,099 #117 September 21, 2004 QuoteQuote>We waited 12 years. And would have had to wait another 2 months to be sure. How many months would you be willing to wait if it could save the lives of 1000 US military? Given that you could still invade at the end of that time? He had 12 YEARS to comply, and he did not. I would give him a year if we actually thought he would comply. But given the fact that he had not complied in 12 YEARS...I doubt he would. Without the threat of invasion he would have done nothing. EVEN with the threat he was playing games. He had 12 years...The UN should not have taken do long to move. You are grasping at straws, Ron. The premise for the war has flip flopped. It has cost 1000+ US lives and $200 BILLION and has not improved our security one iota, nor has it improved the lives of the Iraqi people. It was a mistake, it is a mistake, and it is being handled incompetently. Even McCain and Lugar have said as much.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #118 September 21, 2004 QuoteYou are grasping at straws, Ron No, the intel said that he had WMD's...now that may have been wrong. But you can't claim he didn't have them, and you can't claim he didn't support terrorism. You also can't claim he abbided by the resolution since we had to chase him around to get the truth....And even then he was not giving it freely. Is it that hard for you to understand this? 1. He had WMD's and never showed what he did with them. Thus he was in violation of the resolutions FOR 12 YEARS. It was not our job to seach for them, it was his job to show us. AND there was intel that he still had them...Lets see, if I had something and was told to give it up, but never showed you I did it, and then a guy told you I still had it....Simple leap of logic there. 2. He supported Terroism. Or do you claim he did not? There are other reasons to remove him...But I don't need more than he never complied with the resolution, was suspected of WMD's, and supported terrorism. QuoteThe premise for the war has flip flopped. It has cost 1000+ US lives Still less than 9/11 Quotehas not improved our security one iota Maybe, maybe not. You don't know. Thats the great thing...We have not had an attack on US soil...So would we have if Bush had not done anything? I only KNOW we have not. I also know we will have another. But you can't say that we are LESS secure. Quotenor has it improved the lives of the Iraqi people I know people that would disagree. Most are glad SH is gone. Now you just have the folks that are trying to grab power. Quote"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #119 September 21, 2004 QuoteYou are grasping at straws, Ron. The premise for the war has flip flopped. It has cost 1000+ US lives and $200 BILLION and has not improved our security one iota, nor has it improved the lives of the Iraqi people. It was a mistake, it is a mistake, and it is being handled incompetently. Even McCain and Lugar have said as much. And even today, while GW was sitting there, the UN let him know his ousting of SH was illegal since the security counil did not vote on it._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #120 September 21, 2004 QuoteThe premise for the war has flip flopped. It has cost 1000+ US lives Still less than 9/11 Not when you count in all the innocent lives lost in Iraq from our weapons._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #121 September 21, 2004 Quote Not me, buddy. I cautioned against it from the very beginning - link available on request. Ditto_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,514 #122 September 21, 2004 Saddam Hussein was a slimy cockroach, but we seem to be using a bazooka to control him. If a 7-year-old doesn't put his shoes away when you tell him to, you choose an appropriate punishment. Cutting off his feet so that you don't have to tell him to put his shoes away again is probably disproportionate, even if you said when you were really really angry that you wish he didn't have any shoes. We have used a huge amount of resources and lives (ours and Iraqis') to "control" this situation. Maybe a cost-benefit analysis ahead of time would have indicated that this wasn't the best path, even if it was the most satisfying for some. If our national policy is supposed to be "fuck with anything we say and we'll take you down" fine. But I don't want that to be our national policy -- it invites other countries, and terrorists, to challenge that policy. If they're not mature, they're going to act like teenagers (or skydivers ) and say something like "fuck you I'll do what I want to" Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,058 #123 September 21, 2004 >If our national policy is supposed to be "fuck with anything we say >and we'll take you down" fine. A glimpse of our strategy over the next ten years from Rumsfeld today - he said if we just kept killing people, eventually "the Iraqis will get tired of getting killed" and we can start taking troops out of Iraq. Which is brilliant - I know that every time I get killed, I get less likely to support insurgents. And killing someone's mother is a sure-fire way to get them to accept your laws. http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040914-secdef1302.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #124 September 21, 2004 QuoteAnd even today, while GW was sitting there, the UN let him know his ousting of SH was illegal since the security counil did not vote on it. That does not make it illegal. The UN thinks to highly of itself. And thats funny when you consider that the UN has proven to be all hot air and nothing else."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #125 September 21, 2004 QuoteNot when you count in all the innocent lives lost in Iraq from our weapons. Call me silly, I tend to put my fellow citizens over others."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
ChasingBlueSky 0 #119 September 21, 2004 QuoteYou are grasping at straws, Ron. The premise for the war has flip flopped. It has cost 1000+ US lives and $200 BILLION and has not improved our security one iota, nor has it improved the lives of the Iraqi people. It was a mistake, it is a mistake, and it is being handled incompetently. Even McCain and Lugar have said as much. And even today, while GW was sitting there, the UN let him know his ousting of SH was illegal since the security counil did not vote on it._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #120 September 21, 2004 QuoteThe premise for the war has flip flopped. It has cost 1000+ US lives Still less than 9/11 Not when you count in all the innocent lives lost in Iraq from our weapons._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #121 September 21, 2004 Quote Not me, buddy. I cautioned against it from the very beginning - link available on request. Ditto_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,514 #122 September 21, 2004 Saddam Hussein was a slimy cockroach, but we seem to be using a bazooka to control him. If a 7-year-old doesn't put his shoes away when you tell him to, you choose an appropriate punishment. Cutting off his feet so that you don't have to tell him to put his shoes away again is probably disproportionate, even if you said when you were really really angry that you wish he didn't have any shoes. We have used a huge amount of resources and lives (ours and Iraqis') to "control" this situation. Maybe a cost-benefit analysis ahead of time would have indicated that this wasn't the best path, even if it was the most satisfying for some. If our national policy is supposed to be "fuck with anything we say and we'll take you down" fine. But I don't want that to be our national policy -- it invites other countries, and terrorists, to challenge that policy. If they're not mature, they're going to act like teenagers (or skydivers ) and say something like "fuck you I'll do what I want to" Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,058 #123 September 21, 2004 >If our national policy is supposed to be "fuck with anything we say >and we'll take you down" fine. A glimpse of our strategy over the next ten years from Rumsfeld today - he said if we just kept killing people, eventually "the Iraqis will get tired of getting killed" and we can start taking troops out of Iraq. Which is brilliant - I know that every time I get killed, I get less likely to support insurgents. And killing someone's mother is a sure-fire way to get them to accept your laws. http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040914-secdef1302.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #124 September 21, 2004 QuoteAnd even today, while GW was sitting there, the UN let him know his ousting of SH was illegal since the security counil did not vote on it. That does not make it illegal. The UN thinks to highly of itself. And thats funny when you consider that the UN has proven to be all hot air and nothing else."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #125 September 21, 2004 QuoteNot when you count in all the innocent lives lost in Iraq from our weapons. Call me silly, I tend to put my fellow citizens over others."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
