BF2S Forums Without WMD we would have found another excuse to invade Iraq

lowing wrote:

1441 showed the concern about Iraq that was felt within the UN.

Thats right, concern, no need to actually go to war though, its the UN's decision in the end.
People don't have to follow through with threats, to pick up someone elses seems dumb really.

Still don't understand how Iraq was a threat to the US, her allies didn't give much of a crap - except Israel so I guess there's the answer.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-17 00:48:11)

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

1441 showed the concern about Iraq that was felt within the UN.

Thats right, concern, no need to actually go to war though, its the UN's decision in the end.
People don't have to follow through with threats, to pick up someone elses seems dumb really.

Still don't understand how Iraq was a threat to the US, her allies didn't give much of a crap - except Israel so I guess there's the answer.

Fix your quotation, please. Whether I agree with the poster or not, those aren't my words.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Regime change can be the primary objective and still not be the causus belli (the legal argument for going to war).

Then Bush and Blair should have made that clear at the time, rather than lying to us.
What they said was removal of WMD was the objective and regime change would be a consequence.

No they didn't. They said they were both objectives, the former for immediate effect and the latter to prevent us from having to do the former again later.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't think our elected leaders should be misleading us about their objectives and using what they know is phoney evidence to justify it. (Curveball and the 45 min claim for two).

I don't think they should either. Good thing they didn't. Also a good thing they had those other 12-odd years of SIGINT, IMINT, and HUMINT that corroborated each other regarding Iraq's WMD program...makes those two items you point out seem kind of meaningless when taken in the overall context of the entirety of the intel that had been collected and analyzed for more than a decade.

But that kind of detail is unimportant when one is trying to justify one's own conspiracy theory. At that point, all the facts that contradict your conspiracy theory just serve to "prove" the conspiracy. And the death spiral starts again.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

1441 showed the concern about Iraq that was felt within the UN.

Thats right, concern, no need to actually go to war though, its the UN's decision in the end.
People don't have to follow through with threats, to pick up someone elses seems dumb really.

Still don't understand how Iraq was a threat to the US, her allies didn't give much of a crap - except Israel so I guess there's the answer.

FINAL WARNING DILBERT, FINAL WARNING.

Concern was kinda an understatement on my part. The UN was threatening Iraq over its violations. Threats and promised action, that it never followed through with. The US waited for the UN to do something, it didn't. So the US, in the interst of its own national security and the security of its allies, did.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

FINAL WARNING DILBERT, FINAL WARNING.

Whaddaya gonna do? Invade Australia?

Its up to the UN to do whatever it likes.

Now why don't you run along and enforce some UN resolutions on Israel?

So the US, in the interst of its own national security and the security of its allies, did.

You mean in the interest of freeing up some oil and helping the Bushes feel better about having tiny thingies?

The US does not need nor will it ever need the UN to decide for it, what it conciders a national threat. Never mind the fact that the UN already stated that Iraq was.



Nope, I want the Israel to be unleashed, and take care of its enemies once and for all. Israel has tried to lower its gaurd several times, only to be sucker punched for it.

Israel, if you recall, was a victim of Iraq during the war with its scud attacks. They held back from retaliating in the name of peace.  Peace does not work in the zoo known as the ME.


Another gas guzzling liberal, who bitches about the war being over oil, yet sees no reason NOT to fill up their car.

Kinda like green peace bitchingh about oil as they use it to engage in their protests

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-17 04:13:59)

Dilbert_X wrote:

So how was Iraq a national threat to the US?

I dunno Dilbert, nor do I know how Germany was a threat to national security either.

The UN deemed it a threat to world security and like it or not, the US is part of that world. So go ask the UN, they are the once threatening Iraq at the time.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Then its up to the UN to deal with, not the US if Iraq isn't a direct threat to them.

The UN never said Iraq was a threat to 'world security', you're just making stuff up now. At worst Iraq was a threat to its immediate neighbours, since its WMD programs ended 10 years previously hardly.

" Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,"

taken straight from the resplution itself, Dilbert.


and no, the US will not turn over its own security to the UN.

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-17 04:40:31)

Dilbert_X wrote:

International doesn't mean the whole world lowing, it just means other countries.

Please explain again how Iraq threatened the US.

Pretty sure Saudis have attacked the US mainland more times than Iraq.

Dilbert that is fine hair you are trying to split, and in fact so fine, I am not even going to entertain it.

I will not be drug into a Clintonesque, "define is", circle jerk with you.

The tone of 1441 was clear, as was the UN's attitude toward Iraq. Get over it.

Any threat to our interests, and the interests of our allies is national security.  This includes the worlds oil supply, as well as bases in the region, as well as disruption of commerce between the US and its allies.

and the Us does not need UN permission to protect it. the US waited long enough for the UN to act on its threats, and it did not act.

Contrary to your and Cams' "arguments"

1441 is a direct result of the cease fire agreement that ceased hostilities in 91, the war is the same war it is linked in 1441

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as
a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international
peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional,
and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special
Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons"

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-17 05:25:31)

lowing wrote:

Dilbert that is fine hair you are trying to split, and in fact so fine, I am not even going to entertain it.

Still waiting to hear how Iraq was a threat to the US.

So you're saying we didn't have a good reason to go into Afghanistan?

Had more reason to go into Saudi Arabia TBH.
Oh wait they're chums with the Bushes, forgot.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert that is fine hair you are trying to split, and in fact so fine, I am not even going to entertain it.

Still waiting to hear how Iraq was a threat to the US.

Threat to US and indeed other countries interests and allies. Major destabalising factor in the ME.

Dilbert_X wrote:

[

So you're saying we didn't have a good reason to go into Afghanistan?

Had more reason to go into Saudi Arabia TBH.
Oh wait they're chums with the Bushes, forgot

Why? The ones we were looking for weren't in Saudi Arabia and neither were a large bulk of their training facilities.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Whether it was for WMDs or something else, the fact that a massive industry is built on warfare is influence enough to make the reasons irrelevant.  All that's really relevant for starting a war is having an argument that convinces the general public.

Also, we have a rather large military, so we have to periodically test our equipment and our soldiers.  Iraq seemed as good a target as any, just like Afghanistan.

So you're saying we didn't have a good reason to go into Afghanistan?

Really?

Is that really something you want to say?

The "test our stuff" argument is verging on, if not fully residing in, tinfoil hat land, Turq.

I think you misinterpreted my post.  I said the reasons were irrelevant, whether good or bad.  All that matters is whether or not a strong argument can be sold to the public.  This is just as true for Afghanistan as it was for Iraq.

I'll agree that we had a more substantial argument for entering Afghanistan than for invading Iraq, but getting some practice is always a side benefit involved.  Basically, it comes down to the idea that Elbridge Gerry once mentioned.

"A standing army is like a standing member. It's an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure."

Essentially, the fact that we have such a large military makes us predisposed to favor intervention.  It takes less provocation and less of a rationale to make the decision to enter war when you already have so much power to work with.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-12-17 15:25:57)

FEOS wrote:

And just how did the Saudi government have anything whatsoever to do with 9/11?

How did the Taliban govt have anything to do with 9/11?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And just how did the Saudi government have anything whatsoever to do with 9/11?

How did the Taliban govt have anything to do with 9/11?

Who the hell said they did? They are a radical Islamic group sympathetic with those that were involved with 911 and aided Bin laden after the fact.

By the way, were we done with 1441, or are you still wanting to argue the definition of "is" ?

No he is not thick, he knows exactly what he is doing, and it is on purpose. When you do not have a real argument, you are forced to play games. He is not the only one that does this. They all do. Liberal arguments can not stand on their own, so diversion, dismissal, and dissection tactics MUST be used to stay in the fight.

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-18 03:55:40)