It's not a very good argument, that's the problem.lowing wrote:
The argument is Cam, it is the same war, just a re-commencement of hostilities after broken cease fire promises.CameronPoe wrote:
Ultimately I am correct in saying that western intervention and interference in Iraq swiftly expedited the decimation of the Iraqi educated classes, who are still not ready to return some 6 years after this latest invasion. It is a symptom of a) the war itself and b) the ensuing instability that the west had no means of preventing or had barely even considered in war-planning. GG. The second Iraq invasion was wrong and unjustified from start to finish.lowing wrote:
Only because he begged the UN for them to stop and agreed to disarm and open up for inspections, which he later refused. If not for the the secession of hostilities, rest assured his whole country, including his middle class, would have been decimated. His fault not the wests.
If you had been following our chat we were comparing the Afghan and Iraq missions. I guess you weren't. The reason for Iraq wasn't Al Qaeda, although the administration tried desparately to subtly tie them together in an effort to get public support for the mission.lowing wrote:
Would be vaid if that were the reason war started up again in Iraq. It wasn'tCameronPoe wrote:
Saddam didn't fly airliners into the Pentagon and World Trade Centre towers... And I think the current death toll probably outstrips that of Saddam's.JohnG@lt wrote:
Fine then substitute Iraq for Afghanistan and Saddam for the Taliban and it's still valid.
No what is the problem is you refuse to acknowledge the time line of the events. It is most definitely linear, straight from 91 to 03CameronPoe wrote:
It's not a very good argument, that's the problem.lowing wrote:
The argument is Cam, it is the same war, just a re-commencement of hostilities after broken cease fire promises.CameronPoe wrote:
Ultimately I am correct in saying that western intervention and interference in Iraq swiftly expedited the decimation of the Iraqi educated classes, who are still not ready to return some 6 years after this latest invasion. It is a symptom of a) the war itself and b) the ensuing instability that the west had no means of preventing or had barely even considered in war-planning. GG. The second Iraq invasion was wrong and unjustified from start to finish.
wait, so you type all that crap in and you still don't know why you are a fucking idiot? Frankly i don't think we should tell you just so we can have a good laugh.-Sh1fty- wrote:
How about telling me why for once you fucks.seymorebutts443 wrote:
please leave the fucking forum you retard. All your posts are insanely idiotic.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Basically Iraq is messed up and they're not worth the sons and daughters of the rest of the world.
So either rape the bad guys or leave em be. Don't do both.
So many countries were involved with freeing these people and they get screwed over because then they have civil groups at war with each other. These people have NEVER been at peace EVER and they won't suddenly be at peace because of the rest of the world.
So go in, shoot the bad guys, try and establish a good government, but don't risk your countries ass for them.
Correct, the reason for Iraq was non-compliance of the UN mandated resolutions that ended hostilities in 91CameronPoe wrote:
If you had been following our chat we were comparing the Afghan and Iraq missions. I guess you weren't. The reason for Iraq wasn't Al Qaeda, although the administration tried desparately to subtly tie them together in an effort to get public support for the mission.lowing wrote:
Would be vaid if that were the reason war started up again in Iraq. It wasn'tCameronPoe wrote:
Saddam didn't fly airliners into the Pentagon and World Trade Centre towers... And I think the current death toll probably outstrips that of Saddam's.
They allowed the invasion back in '91, that doesn't grand permanent invasion access to Iraq to anyone who might want to wander in.lowing wrote:
They already did, back in 91ghettoperson wrote:
Which until the Security Council says it is, is not a good enough reason to invade.lowing wrote:
good you shouldn't, because the resaon we went back was the breaking of the resolutions that stopped hostilities in 91.
Nothing of the sort. I am well aware of 'the timeline'. I disagree with the logic, morality, underlying reasoning, pointfulness and cost-benefit of invading a distant weak nation that posed zero existential threat to the invaders. I couldn't give a flying fuck about your trying to piece together some flimsy justification based on the semantics of UN documentation that ended the original invasion. Those same invaders don't give a toss about UN resolution 242. They pick and choose what resolutions or documents they want to use or adhere to as a pretext for their generally self-serving actions. There was no defensive military need to invade Iraq the second time. PERIOD. Robin Cook had it right before the invasion and he called his own government out on it.lowing wrote:
No what is the problem is you refuse to acknowledge the time line of the events. It is most definitely linear, straight from 91 to 03CameronPoe wrote:
It's not a very good argument, that's the problem.lowing wrote:
The argument is Cam, it is the same war, just a re-commencement of hostilities after broken cease fire promises.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-12-12 20:02:48)
Sorry lowing, Blair has just blown that argument out of the water.Lowing wrote:
The argument is Cam, it is the same war, just a re-commencement of hostilities after broken cease fire promises.
Even if Saddam had kept all the cease-fire promises (which he did actually) Bush and Blair would have found some other pretext to invade.
WMD were a pretext, not the reason, for the Iraq invasion.
Fuck Israel
I'm wondering why he's decided to release this information? Is he giving up on ever running for office again?
That wasn't the case. The job that was started in 91 is the same job that was finished in 03, with a 10 year period in which Saddam agreed to certain conditions nad then ignored.ghettoperson wrote:
They allowed the invasion back in '91, that doesn't grand permanent invasion access to Iraq to anyone who might want to wander in.lowing wrote:
They already did, back in 91ghettoperson wrote:
Which until the Security Council says it is, is not a good enough reason to invade.
Your agreeing or disagreeing is of little consequence. The fact remains if not for 91, 03 would not have happened.CameronPoe wrote:
Nothing of the sort. I am well aware of 'the timeline'. I disagree with the logic, morality, underlying reasoning, pointfulness and cost-benefit of invading a distant weak nation that posed zero existential threat to the invaders. I couldn't give a flying fuck about your trying to piece together some flimsy justification based on the semantics of UN documentation that ended the original invasion. Those same invaders don't give a toss about UN resolution 242. They pick and choose what resolutions or documents they want to use or adhere to as a pretext for their generally self-serving actions. There was no defensive military need to invade Iraq the second time. PERIOD. Robin Cook had it right before the invasion and he called his own government out on it.lowing wrote:
No what is the problem is you refuse to acknowledge the time line of the events. It is most definitely linear, straight from 91 to 03CameronPoe wrote:
It's not a very good argument, that's the problem.
Again, you do not have history on your side, Saddam was anything except cooperative and open.Dilbert_X wrote:
Sorry lowing, Blair has just blown that argument out of the water.Lowing wrote:
The argument is Cam, it is the same war, just a re-commencement of hostilities after broken cease fire promises.
Even if Saddam had kept all the cease-fire promises (which he did actually) Bush and Blair would have found some other pretext to invade.
WMD were a pretext, not the reason, for the Iraq invasion.
He's not just releasing this information on a whim. They're in the middle of a huge public inquiry about the legality of the Iraq war. Loads of people have been giving evidence at this.ghettoperson wrote:
I'm wondering why he's decided to release this information? Is he giving up on ever running for office again?
It is of consequence to the argument of whether it was right to invade. Simple as.lowing wrote:
Your agreeing or disagreeing is of little consequence. The fact remains if not for 91, 03 would not have happened.
We are not speaking of your opinion on the matter. THe fact remains 03 was a direct result of 91. period. Saddams compliance was the issue.CameronPoe wrote:
It is of consequence to the argument of whether it was right to invade. Simple as.lowing wrote:
Your agreeing or disagreeing is of little consequence. The fact remains if not for 91, 03 would not have happened.
I am talking about the correctness of it, not what was written on some piece of paper and used as a pretext. That's what I'm speaking about, you're simply stating the pretext used, which we are all well aware of.lowing wrote:
We are not speaking of your opinion on the matter. THe fact remains 03 was a direct result of 91. period. Saddams compliance was the issue.CameronPoe wrote:
It is of consequence to the argument of whether it was right to invade. Simple as.lowing wrote:
Your agreeing or disagreeing is of little consequence. The fact remains if not for 91, 03 would not have happened.
Again yout opinion, not the fact of the matter, or the hidtory of it.CameronPoe wrote:
I am talking about the correctness of it, not what was written on some piece of paper and used as a pretext. That's what I'm speaking about, you're simply stating the pretext used, which we are all well aware of.lowing wrote:
We are not speaking of your opinion on the matter. THe fact remains 03 was a direct result of 91. period. Saddams compliance was the issue.CameronPoe wrote:
It is of consequence to the argument of whether it was right to invade. Simple as.
The overwhelming weight of logic, reason and rationality versus using UN documents to do something that was neither necessary nor urgent whilst pretending that to be the case. Facts. Blair said himself he would have went in irrespective of the WMD issue. If anyone in the US or UK thought for one second that Iraq posed a meaningful threat to their nations then they should have been sectioned under the mental health act. A giant waste of taxpayers money and western good moral standing in the world. The military industrial complex and the no-bid contract companies I'm sure had some fantastic champagne receptions with their big government friends behind closed doors. The whole thing stank from start to finish (oh wait, it still isn't finished).lowing wrote:
Again yout opinion, not the fact of the matter, or the hidtory of it.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-12-13 15:43:50)
Are you hearing yourself, you are using Blair to bolster your argument that "he would have went in irrespective of the WMD issue". You are supporting my argument because that is what I am claiming. It was not a "WMD issue" that re-commenced hostilities, it was a break in the cease fire agreement by Iraq. Terrorism had nothing to do with it, and the threat of WMD's was only a by product of the reason we went back.CameronPoe wrote:
The overwhelming weight of logic, reason and rationality versus using UN documents to do something that was neither necessary nor urgent whilst pretending that to be the case. Facts. Blair said himself he would have went in irrespective of the WMD issue. If anyone in the US or UK thought for one second that Iraq posed a meaningful threat to their nations then they should have been sectioned under the mental health act. A giant waste of taxpayers money and western good moral standing in the world. The military industrial complex and the no-bid contract companies I'm sure had some fantastic champagne receptions with their big government friends behind closed doors. The whole thing stank from start to finish (oh wait, it still isn't finished).lowing wrote:
Again yout opinion, not the fact of the matter, or the hidtory of it.
The rest of your paragraph has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Last edited by lowing (2009-12-13 15:59:11)
The breach of the UN agreement was that inspections designed to prevent Saddam from producing WMD had been suspended by the Saddam regime. It was quite blatantly a WMD issue. The breach of agreement was directly related to weapons inspections. An unchallengeable fact. Or did I imagine all that Hans Blix-Donald Rumsfeld media WMD bombardment...........lowing wrote:
Are you hearing yourself, you are using Blair to bolster your argument that "he would have went in irrespective of the WMD issue". You are supporting my argument because that is what I am claiming. It was not a "WMD issue" that re-commenced hostilities, it was a break in the cease fire agreement by Iraq. Terrorism had nothing to do with it, and the threat of WMD's was only a by product of the reason we went back.
The rest of your paragraph has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
My main point is that Saddam had been contained, was totally impotent, had a military half the size that it was at the first gulf war and posed no threat to anyone, let alone the most powerful nations on earth. No amount of paperwork changes the fact that the issue did not warrant the spilling of western and Iraqi blood for a few contracts.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-12-13 16:05:56)
Except the FACT that for 10 years Iraq failed to comply with the cease fire agreement. It was this point and not specifically the "WMD issue", that sent the coalition back in to finish the job.CameronPoe wrote:
The breach of the UN agreement was that inspections designed to prevent Saddam from producing WMD had been suspended by the Saddam regime. It was quite blatantly a WMD issue. The breach of agreement was directly related to weapons inspections. An unchallengeable fact. Or did I imagine all that Hans Blix-Donald Rumsfeld media WMD bombardment...........lowing wrote:
Are you hearing yourself, you are using Blair to bolster your argument that "he would have went in irrespective of the WMD issue". You are supporting my argument because that is what I am claiming. It was not a "WMD issue" that re-commenced hostilities, it was a break in the cease fire agreement by Iraq. Terrorism had nothing to do with it, and the threat of WMD's was only a by product of the reason we went back.
The rest of your paragraph has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
My main point is that Saddam had been contained, was totally impotent, had a military half the size that it was at the first gulf war and posed no threat to anyone, let alone the most powerful nations on earth. No amount of paperwork changes the fact that the issue did not warrant the spilling of western and Iraqi blood for a few contracts.
Get back with me when Blair admits that we went to Iraq for no reason at all, except fo rthe fun of it, and so the evil rich had a project to invest in.
It was the WMD issue. That was the central issue. Period. Peter Goldsmith, the UK Attorney General, in deliberating on the legality of this farce stated that he believed a resumption of hostilities to be legal given that resolution 687 imposed upon Iraq the necessity to eliminate its WMD. Them's the facts. Like them or lump them. There was no ceasefire breach anywhere - Iraq didn't fire any shots. All they did was stop inspections aimed at preventing WMD. If you can't grasp that reality then I suggest we part ways on this one. Paul Wolfowitz himself stated the WMD issue to be the primary reason for action.lowing wrote:
Except the FACT that for 10 years Iraq failed to comply with the cease fire agreement. It was this point and not specifically the "WMD issue", that sent the coalition back in to finish the job.
Get back with me when Blair admits that we went to Iraq for no reason at all, except fo rthe fun of it, and so the evil rich had a project to invest in.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-12-13 16:42:35)
Which is irrelevant, even if he had been cooperative and open Bush and Blair would have found a different excuse - this is what Blair is saying.lowing wrote:
Again, you do not have history on your side, Saddam was anything except cooperative and open.
Fuck Israel
He actually admitted to nothing of the sort.Dilbert_X wrote:
Pretty incredible really, Blair is admitting the invasion was a war crime and that he and Bush lied to their countries to take them into war.
I bet the Iranians and Kuwaitis (and Saudis) would probably disagree.Dilbert_X wrote:
Without WMD Saddam simply wasn't a significant threat to anything.
It's good that you have strong feelings that aren't based on fact and you still have them in spite of plenty of facts to the contrary.Dilbert_X wrote:
I still don't believe the WMD intel was anything other than concocted - and I mean WMD intel, not suggestions the Iraqis were concealing 'something'.
Yet you say people who believe in religion are nuts...ironic.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
This made my day. Dilbert getting smashedFEOS wrote:
He actually admitted to nothing of the sort.Dilbert_X wrote:
Pretty incredible really, Blair is admitting the invasion was a war crime and that he and Bush lied to their countries to take them into war.I bet the Iranians and Kuwaitis (and Saudis) would probably disagree.Dilbert_X wrote:
Without WMD Saddam simply wasn't a significant threat to anything.It's good that you have strong feelings that aren't based on fact and you still have them in spite of plenty of facts to the contrary.Dilbert_X wrote:
I still don't believe the WMD intel was anything other than concocted - and I mean WMD intel, not suggestions the Iraqis were concealing 'something'.
Yet you say people who believe in religion are nuts...ironic.
Anyway off to my PC school cya boys
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.