Ah yes, the all knowing "world intelligence community". Forgot about them. I guess the UN was just blowing smoke with all those resolutions against Saddam for his refusal to cooperate.
Yes, go ahead and mock the rest of the world, seeing as how they were right and you were wrong. No biggie.Stingray24 wrote:
Ah yes, the all knowing "world intelligence community".
Maybe they didn't bother to enforce them because they knew they were working, or maybe it was because everyone views them as a joke thanks to the US and others being exempt from ill effect.Stingray24 wrote:
I guess the UN was just blowing smoke with all those resolutions against Saddam for his refusal to cooperate.
So all the member nations of the UN that supported the resolutions were wrong? Riiiiight. Pffff. The UN is a joke, that's why the US had to take care of business. You can thank us later for getting rid of Saddam since no one else had the stones to take action. Or was receiving oil for food kickbacks *cough* German, France *cough* so they wouldn't take action.
Yea. Which pisses me off. As an american, i am disgusted with how little bush has done to improve and create relations with the middle east. If he would just make an effort.Bubbalo wrote:
And it's only taken you, like, 3 years to think about a diplomatic solution..........................
Nope, they were assisting the diplomatic effort and we now know it worked.Stingray24 wrote:
So all the member nations of the UN that supported the resolutions were wrong?
The UN is a joke because the US, the most powerful military on Earth, only backs it when it feels like it.Stingray24 wrote:
The UN is a joke, that's why the US had to take care of business.
Or maybe it was because they recognised that he kept the region stable and terrorist free.Stingray24 wrote:
You can thank us later for getting rid of Saddam since no one else had the stones to take action.
And Australia, but let's not kid ourselves about the US's morality.Stingray24 wrote:
Or was receiving oil for food kickbacks *cough* German, France *cough* so they wouldn't take action.
No point in making peace, I think America should have gone straight away with 24.7 air strikes, not avoiding civilian casualities, and after about 3 years, sent in an invasion occupying force and taken the country for themselves, but thats just me.
Are you talking about Iran and Syria or the Bush administration?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Just to prove to all of you bush haters thaty these fuckers cannot be reasoned with. BET ME.Pubic wrote:
Sweet, they're taking the sensible route.
Exactly....CameronPoe wrote:
No you slightly misread what I said. IF I WAS THE US AND WAS HELL-BENT ON PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION (<-- a hypothetical) then I would have knocked out the leader, checked for WMD and gotten out of there. No matter how many thousands of years you stay in that country the people are not going to bend to your will. The Brits tried it for 800 years here in Ireland. I'm just trying to impress upon you the futility of what you propose as 'the right course of action'.Stingray24 wrote:
Several posts back you agreed that the US should've taken out Saddam and then left. That's why I said it makes no sense to do that and leave and allow countries to exert control who do not have the best interests of the West in mind. It is only prudent to attempt to push things away from further influence by Iran.
Someone has to attempt to maintain control until the Iraqis figure out what the hell their going to do with their country. The US is damned if we do, damned if we don't. We capture terrorists and throw em in Gitmo and we're bad and too harsh. We don't repress Iraq and we're bad because we're not harsh enough. I, for one, am tired of all the Monday morning quarterbacking by the rest of the world who sits on their ever expanding rear end doing NOTHING while the US does the heavy lifting.
1. Gitmo - harsh, unfair and ineffective at reducing terror.
2. Installing another Saddam - harsh, unfair and possibly capable of marginally reducing the terror threat (slightly) .
3. Minding your own business, building up deterrency, securing your borders - not harsh, not unfair.
It's as simple as that. The responsibility to sort out Iraq is that of Iraqis alone, not some foreign hand.Reality can sometimes be a bitter pill to swallow for some who are adamant they can try and control the will of a people.
Again, basically restating a difference of opinion.Bubbalo wrote:
No, you didn't. What few supposedly diplomatic requests the US did take were a farce to try and cast a shadow of legitimacy on the invasion. Bush was going to invade come hell or high water, and hePug wrote:
Well, we did, but others thought we didn't wait long enough. So that's a difference of opinion.
made that very clear.
very enlightened positionazza2 wrote:
No point in making peace, I think America should have gone straight away with 24.7 air strikes, not avoiding civilian casualities, and after about 3 years, sent in an invasion occupying force and taken the country for themselves, but thats just me.
to ATG I don't really understand your post are you saying it is ok that Israel is planning air strikes against iran just because they invited Iran to "neighborly" talks or because they are asking for iraq's permission? what are we america/israel haters supposed to take note of exactly.
Its sort of like planning to fund the Hezbollah...erm...did I say planning?JimmyBotswana wrote:
very enlightened positionazza2 wrote:
No point in making peace, I think America should have gone straight away with 24.7 air strikes, not avoiding civilian casualities, and after about 3 years, sent in an invasion occupying force and taken the country for themselves, but thats just me.
to ATG I don't really understand your post are you saying it is ok that Israel is planning air strikes against iran just because they invited Iran to "neighborly" talks or because they are asking for iraq's permission? what are we america/israel haters supposed to take note of exactly.
Simple question: Why do you think the Israelis leaked the airstrike plans?
No, it isn't. The US supplied and ultimatum, then invaded. There is no possible way to twist that to "they tried diplomatic action and it failed".Pug wrote:
Again, basically restating a difference of opinion.Bubbalo wrote:
No, you didn't. What few supposedly diplomatic requests the US did take were a farce to try and cast a shadow of legitimacy on the invasion. Bush was going to invade come hell or high water, and hePug wrote:
Well, we did, but others thought we didn't wait long enough. So that's a difference of opinion.
made that very clear.
That we are trying to use diplomacy.JimmyBotswana wrote:
very enlightened positionazza2 wrote:
No point in making peace, I think America should have gone straight away with 24.7 air strikes, not avoiding civilian casualities, and after about 3 years, sent in an invasion occupying force and taken the country for themselves, but thats just me.
to ATG I don't really understand your post are you saying it is ok that Israel is planning air strikes against iran just because they invited Iran to "neighborly" talks or because they are asking for iraq's permission? what are we america/israel haters supposed to take note of exactly.
12 years of UN diplomacy and countless resolutions sure as hell didn't matter as well. This is not to say Iraq was an an immediate threat but to say there was no diplomacy is inaccurate also.Bubbalo wrote:
No, it isn't. The US supplied and ultimatum, then invaded. There is no possible way to twist that to "they tried diplomatic action and it failed".Pug wrote:
Again, basically restating a difference of opinion.Bubbalo wrote:
No, you didn't. What few supposedly diplomatic requests the US did take were a farce to try and cast a shadow of legitimacy on the invasion. Bush was going to invade come hell or high water, and he
made that very clear.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-28 22:44:39)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
OUR countries foreign policy is your primary concern?? Dont you have a hobby or something??Bubbalo wrote:
What did you want, an ode to bees lost?
I post where I feel that there's something to say. And I find that, by and large, you support Bush's foreign policy, and US foreign policy is my primary concern.
You arent even an American citizen. . . . why waste your time worrying about a country you dont live in or associated with. . .
In other news. . . .the US should allow Israel the airspace, as they are our ally. . .and our two militaries work hand and hand together (in training, espionage, logistics, policy, doctrine, counter-terrorism etc.) I am sure Israel would allow us the airspace if "the shoe were on the other foot". . . actually I have no doubt they would!!
Hey if Israel is the only one to stand up to the crazy Iranians then I say have at it! Maybe some other countries will get the message that Iran's activities in the region ARE detrimental to overall world and regional stability. . . .a nuke in their (Iran's) hands is NOT something I think is good for anyone!!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-02-28 22:54:50)
"With the numbers of our enemies mounting, it is fortunate that our military power remains without match. The United States' armed forces are the most competent and lethal in history. And so they are likely to remain for decades to come. Our humbling on the battlegrounds of the Middle East does not reflect military inadequacy; it is rather the result of the absence of strategy and its political handmaiden – diplomacy. We are learning the hard way that old allies will not aid us and new allies will not stick with us if we ignore their interests, deride their advice, impugn their motives, and denigrate their capabilities. Friends will not walk with us into either danger or opportunity if we injure their interests and brush aside their objections to our doing so. Those with whom we have professed friendship in the past cannot sustain their receptivity to our counsel if we demand that they adopt secular norms of the European Enlightenment that we no longer exemplify, while loudly disparaging their religious beliefs and traditions. Diplomacy-free foreign policy does not work any better than strategy-free warfare."Kmarion wrote:
12 years of UN diplomacy and countless resolutions sure as hell didn't matter as well. This is not to say Iraq was an an immediate threat but to say there was no diplomacy is inaccurate also.Bubbalo wrote:
No, it isn't. The US supplied and ultimatum, then invaded. There is no possible way to twist that to "they tried diplomatic action and it failed".Pug wrote:
Again, basically restating a difference of opinion.
Source
Remarks to DACOR (Diplomats and Consular Officers, Retired)
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.)
Last edited by Fen321 (2007-02-28 23:01:55)
Because COUNTRIES don't live in bubbles....you do know that globalization is a bit of a key factor here...global markets....global transportation....wars near GLOBAL resources of oil .fadedsteve wrote:
OUR countries foreign policy is your primary concern?? Dont you have a hobby or something??Bubbalo wrote:
What did you want, an ode to bees lost?
I post where I feel that there's something to say. And I find that, by and large, you support Bush's foreign policy, and US foreign policy is my primary concern.
You arent even an American citizen. . . . why waste your time worrying about a country you dont live in or associated with. . .
And soon for water.
But the US didn't attempt to use diplomacy to achieve it's aims. The UN quite successfully used diplomatic means, as proven by the lack of WMDs.Kmarion wrote:
12 years of UN diplomacy and countless resolutions sure as hell didn't matter as well. This is not to say Iraq was an an immediate threat but to say there was no diplomacy is inaccurate also.
When it comes the the US, it's foreign policy is primary concern, not US foreign policy is my primary concern.fadedsteve wrote:
OUR countries foreign policy is your primary concern?? Dont you have a hobby or something??
Are you trying to be stupid?fadedsteve wrote:
You arent even an American citizen. . . . why waste your time worrying about a country you dont live in or associated with. . .
Nice sig.
No I am just curious as to why you feel the need to constantly find ways to bash my country on a near constant basis. . . .Bubbalo wrote:
But the US didn't attempt to use diplomacy to achieve it's aims. The UN quite successfully used diplomatic means, as proven by the lack of WMDs.Kmarion wrote:
12 years of UN diplomacy and countless resolutions sure as hell didn't matter as well. This is not to say Iraq was an an immediate threat but to say there was no diplomacy is inaccurate also.When it comes the the US, it's foreign policy is primary concern, not US foreign policy is my primary concern.fadedsteve wrote:
OUR countries foreign policy is your primary concern?? Dont you have a hobby or something??Are you trying to be stupid?fadedsteve wrote:
You arent even an American citizen. . . . why waste your time worrying about a country you dont live in or associated with. . .
If you have nothing nice to say, dont say anything at all!! You plump little aussie (thats what you are arent you??)!!!
OH btw we DID try and use diplomacy. . .we did for a year before we bombed the fuck out of Iraq, and Afghanistan before attacking the Taliban/al-Qaeda. . . .they both failed to live up to the UN/Our demands and got ruined. . .
Sometimes diplomacy isnt the answer, and all you need is to do is give war a chance!!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-02-28 22:59:02)
Constructive criticism should not be taken to heart as an attack of your very core. Simply admitting there is a problem is not conceding to the demise of the U.S. it is merely taking a step in the right direction in terms of rectifying the problem.
Was the US not a member of the UN for all those years? You do realize that most of the world believed he was developing WMD's?Bubbalo wrote:
But the US didn't attempt to use diplomacy to achieve it's aims. The UN quite successfully used diplomatic means, as proven by the lack of WMDs.Kmarion wrote:
12 years of UN diplomacy and countless resolutions sure as hell didn't matter as well. This is not to say Iraq was an an immediate threat but to say there was no diplomacy is inaccurate also.
From the UK.
Chapter 3: The current position: 1998-2002
1. This chapter sets out what we know of Saddam's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, drawing on all the available evidence. While it takes account of the results from UN inspections and other publicly available information, it also draws heavily on the latest intelligence about Iraqi efforts to develop their programmes and capabilities since 1998. The main conclusions are that:
[ *
Iraq has a useable chemical and biological weapons capability, in breach of UNSCR 687, which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents;
*
Saddam continues to attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, which he regards as being the basis for Iraq's regional power. He is determined to retain these capabilities;
*
Iraq can deliver chemical and biological agents using an extensive range of artillery shells, free-fall bombs, sprayers and ballistic missiles;
*
Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in breach of UNSCR 687. Uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq;
*
Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the SCUD ballistic missile in breach of UNSCR 687, which are capable of reaching Cyprus, Eastern Turkey, Tehran and Israel. It is also developing longer range ballistic missiles;
*
Iraq's current military planning specifically envisages the use of chemical and biological weapons;
*
Iraq's military forces are able to use chemical and biological weapons, with command, control and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons within forty five minutes of a decision to do so;
*
Iraq has learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and is already taking steps to conceal and disperse sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return of inspectors;
*
Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes are well-funded.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).
The US was part of the 12 years prior with regards to DIPLOMATIC attempts since it was part of the UN Security Council. We were not advocating invading Iraq for the 12 years Saddam was laughing at the resolutions. Your statement that diplomacy was never tried is simply not accurate.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-28 23:05:20)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The silence is deafening.Kmarion wrote:
Was the US not a member of the UN for all those years? You do realize that most of the world believed he was developing WMD's?Bubbalo wrote:
But the US didn't attempt to use diplomacy to achieve it's aims. The UN quite successfully used diplomatic means, as proven by the lack of WMDs.Kmarion wrote:
12 years of UN diplomacy and countless resolutions sure as hell didn't matter as well. This is not to say Iraq was an an immediate threat but to say there was no diplomacy is inaccurate also.
From the UK.
Chapter 3: The current position: 1998-2002
1. This chapter sets out what we know of Saddam's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, drawing on all the available evidence. While it takes account of the results from UN inspections and other publicly available information, it also draws heavily on the latest intelligence about Iraqi efforts to develop their programmes and capabilities since 1998. The main conclusions are that:
[ *
Iraq has a useable chemical and biological weapons capability, in breach of UNSCR 687, which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents;
*
Saddam continues to attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, which he regards as being the basis for Iraq's regional power. He is determined to retain these capabilities;
*
Iraq can deliver chemical and biological agents using an extensive range of artillery shells, free-fall bombs, sprayers and ballistic missiles;
*
Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in breach of UNSCR 687. Uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq;
*
Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the SCUD ballistic missile in breach of UNSCR 687, which are capable of reaching Cyprus, Eastern Turkey, Tehran and Israel. It is also developing longer range ballistic missiles;
*
Iraq's current military planning specifically envisages the use of chemical and biological weapons;
*
Iraq's military forces are able to use chemical and biological weapons, with command, control and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons within forty five minutes of a decision to do so;
*
Iraq has learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and is already taking steps to conceal and disperse sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return of inspectors;
*
Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes are well-funded.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).
The US was part of the 12 years prior with regards to DIPLOMATIC attempts since it was part of the UN Security Council. We were not advocating invading Iraq for the 12 years Saddam was laughing at the resolutions. Your statement that diplomacy was never tried is simply not accurate.
Excellent post.
We most definitely did use diplomacy...
just not very well.
just not very well.
Last edited by djphetal (2007-03-01 00:17:13)