Iraqi Mass Graves

[Ron 10]

Quote

actually the UN was handling it, You just wanted to invade......

UH, yeah...12 years and they got nothing done, but at least some of them became rich.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

by that logic there can't really be much criticism of the UN's handling of Rwanda etc as WE obviously didn't want to handle the situation either.

Well considering how some want Bush to face charges in a World court for Iraq...Why should the US stick its neck out for a situation that is no threat to it?

I mean the UN IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE BODY THAT HANDLES THESE KINDS OF THINGS....But they don't.

Quote

And apparently the UN had handled Iraq's WMD's quite well as when we went in it turned out there weren’t any

He never complied...For him to have complied he had to co-operate. He never complied, and the UN did nothing but write letters and make empty threats.

Quote

At the end of the day though - I'm not quite sure what this thread is trying to prove. We're all quite clear that taking out Sadam was exceptionally meritorious... even if it was done on premise that turned out to be wrong... and also turned out to have significant down sides as well.

Some refuse to admit that it was the right thing to do.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

He never complied...For him to have complied he had to co-operate. He never complied, and the UN did nothing but write letters and make empty threats.

true. but he didn't have WMD... the WMD problem was solved by the UN prior to our two countries invading. (although it could well be argued that for the problem to be "solved" you need to be sure it was solved and since no one was sure due to non compliance it couldn't be "solved"... but that all depends on what definition of "solved" people want to use).

Quote

Some refuse to admit that it was the right thing to do.

Yup, although I think some may have good reason to. I agree overall taking him out was the "right" thing to do. Hell I think the "right" thing to do was take him out way back in 91 instead of stopping as we did but hey, it wasn't my call.

I think the problem a lot of people have is not that Sadam was a real bad person that needed to be taken down... but that either

a) they were told it was all about WMD and now politicians are trying to convince them it was always all about Sadam being bad... or

b) they think that when you weigh up all the good and bad things that have come of this situation they feel that it would have been better to not invade - then we would have had 100,000 live innocent Iraqi's, 1000+ live US troops, less of a budget deficit, less of a fucked up economy, more money to spend on hospitals, more allies, more of a moral high ground, more stability in the region, fewer terrorists, fewer reasons for terrorists to want to kill us, found OBL, more resources to tie down Iran/NK/whoever if nes... or

c) they wouldn't have supported war based solely on Sadam being bad but feel duped into supporting a war because they were told he definitely had WMD.

Now a) I'm pretty pissed about myself. b) I disagree with overall but accept that is how some people weigh up the situation, and c) I accept that sometimes intel is just bad and that is the nature of the game but can see why those people might be pissed, (although I'd have still sent troops personally just to take out sadam... but that comes under b)). I'd also be pissed at c) if some time in the future when documents are de-classified it all turns out that no one actually thought he had WMD but just wanted to use it as an excuse... at present I can't see anyone proving this though.

[Ron 10]

Quote

true. but he didn't have WMD... the WMD problem was solved by the UN prior to our two countries invading. (although it could well be argued that for the problem to be "solved" you need to be sure it was solved and since no one was sure due to non compliance it couldn't be "solved"... but that all depends on what definition of "solved" people want to use).

I agree that he had no WMD when we invaded. However, he never did comply, and that means he was in violation. Also he *seemed* to have had WMD until we had invaded and found none. If he had complied, we would have not invaded.

Quote

Yup, although I think some may have good reason to. I agree overall taking him out was the "right" thing to do. Hell I think the "right" thing to do was take him out way back in 91 instead of stopping as we did but hey, it wasn't my call.

I agree we should have removed him in 91. However, World Opinion was to leave him alone so we did.....That was a mistake.

Quote

I think the problem a lot of people have is not that Sadam was a real bad person that needed to be taken down... but that either

a) they were told it was all about WMD and now politicians are trying to convince them it was always all about Sadam being bad... or

For me it was all about him having WMD's. He HAD them at one point, and he never complied with the UN Resolution. We had evidence that he had WMD's and he was the kind of guy to use them.

Quote

b) they think that when you weigh up all the good and bad things that have come of this situation they feel that it would have been better to not invade - then we would have had 100,000 live innocent Iraqi's, 1000+ live US troops, less of a budget deficit, less of a fucked up economy, more money to spend on hospitals, more allies, more of a moral high ground, more stability in the region, fewer terrorists, fewer reasons for terrorists to want to kill us, found OBL, more resources to tie down Iran/NK/whoever if nes... or

A bunch of these are guesses at best. The economy was fucked anyway. 9/11 did quite a number on it, and we were in a recession anyway. More allies and moral high ground....Un, the countries that don't like us didn't change, the countries that did like us didn't either. Popular opinion I bet did not change on bit. All this did was polarize it more. More stability will be known in a few years. Terrosists didn't need more reasons. WTC #1 & 2, USS Cole, Marine Barracks....All these happend before Iraq. How many have happend since? You cannot state that with out Iraq we would have found OBL. Lets not forget how Lybia gave up its WMD programs due to Iraq.

Quote

c) they wouldn't have supported war based solely on Sadam being bad but feel duped into supporting a war because they were told he definitely had WMD.

He HAD WMD's. We sold/Gave them to him, he had used them. These are FACTS. Also he never complied with the Resolution that made him SHOW what he did with them, and didn't co-operate with inspectors. The only way we now know he had no WMD's was that we can't find them now. The only way to prove he didn't have them since he was not doing his part was to invade.

Now I agree with you that if the intel said he didn't have WMD's and we made up some that did and went to war over it I will be one of the first in line to want the responsible folks heads on sticks.

But, no one has shown any proof to that claim yet....(well other than just plain BS)

And the #1 reason we invaded Iraq....He was not in compliance..If he had been, we would have never been involved.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,150]

Come on, Ron. No WMDs were found, when the excuse for the invasion was that he had WMDs. Remember Colin Powell's address to the Security Council - all lies! OUR FAULT.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Come on, Ron. No WMDs were found, when the excuse for the invasion was that he had WMDs. Remember Colin Powell's address to the Security Council - all lies! OUR FAULT.

John...come on, he HAD WMD's and you know it.

He used them remember? So he had to have HAD them. The issue is what did he do with them, and we still don't know that to this day. If he had told us what he did with them then there would have been no issue at all.

Quote

all lies! OUR FAULT

Do you have any proof they were LIES? and not bad intel?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

We pretty much agree on everything.

Remember all the points I put in my a-c list were not mine but simply my reiteration of the points put by those who strongly oppose the war.

I have to admit there are a number of them I simply cannot overcome - such as the death toll or $$$'s spent for example. If some consider those to be too high a price to pay for the benefits we have had from taking out Sadam when taken into account with the less favorable outcomes, who am I to argue with them.

At the end of the day this is why we both live in democracies - their delegates were out voted by ours in our respective political institutions and thus our countries went to war. If there were more people who held the lives of our troops and those of the innocent's we've killed in the regard they do we wouldn't have gone to war, and that's democracy.

Remember in your rebuttals of things like the economic damage and the capture of OBL that whilst no one can prove the economy would have recovered without the war or that OBL would have been captured without the war – we can't prove the contrary either.

At the end of the day I think the anti war camp have a strong argument when they say there would have been more resources allocated to OBL if we didn't go into Iraq and the deficit is as big as it is because of all the billions the war has eaten up. Sure they can't prove those things wouldn't have happened without Iraq... but the odds certainly start to scew in different directions without the war.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Come on, Ron. No WMDs were found, when the excuse for the invasion was that he had WMDs. Remember Colin Powell's address to the Security Council - all lies! OUR FAULT.

John...come on, he HAD WMD's and you know it.

He used them remember? So he had to have HAD them. The issue is what did he do with them, and we still don't know that to this day. If he had told us what he did with them then there would have been no issue at all.

Quote

all lies! OUR FAULT

Do you have any proof they were LIES? and not bad intel?

Do you have any PROOF that you are not a spy for extraterrestrials planning an invasion of Earth in 2067?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Do you have any PROOF that you are not a spy for extraterrestrials planning an invasion of Earth in 2067?

pssst. He already thinks you're pedaling conspiracy theories... that aint gonna help.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Do you have any PROOF that you are not a spy for extraterrestrials planning an invasion of Earth in 2067?

So you can't provide proof, you throw a red herring?

But as for Proof I am not an ET set on world domination in 2067....I have had several CT scans, at least one Ultrasound, Xrays, dozens of checkups, blood samples, stool samples and DNA samples taken....I tend to think since some of these were taken by the US Government that they would have brought some questions to me by now.

Plus I have documented evidence that I was born on this planet, plus 32 years of evidence that I have been here. My Parents have evidence going back 65 years including all of the stuff on them that I mentioned before.

No body has any proof I was ever on another planet, much less born there. See if I was in NASA and I had been to say Pluto on a mission. You could claim I was replaced by a Plutosion on a recon mission.

But, I just checked my business cards and nowhere on them is any mention of "NASA".

I tend to think that your theory of me being a forward party of a large scale invasion 62 years from now (BTW I'd be 94 and not much good as a line soldier then) is about as realistic as your claims that the Bush administration lied.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Do you have any PROOF that you are not a spy for extraterrestrials planning an invasion of Earth in 2067?

So you can't provide proof, you throw a red herring?

But as for Proof I am not an ET set on world domination in 2067....I have had several CT scans, at least one Ultrasound, Xrays, dozens of checkups, blood samples, stool samples and DNA samples taken....I tend to think since some of these were taken by the US Government that they would have brought some questions to me by now.

Plus I have documented evidence that I was born on this planet, plus 32 years of evidence that I have been here. My Parents have evidence going back 65 years including all of the stuff on them that I mentioned before.

No body has any proof I was ever on another planet, much less born there. See if I was in NASA and I had been to say Pluto on a mission. You could claim I was replaced by a Plutosion on a recon mission.

But, I just checked my business cards and nowhere on them is any mention of "NASA".

I tend to think that your theory of me being a forward party of a large scale invasion 62 years from now (BTW I'd be 94 and not much good as a line soldier then) is about as realistic as your claims that the Bush administration lied.

You call that PROOF? You just told us stuff about what you are, not what you are not.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

You call that PROOF? You just told us stuff about what you are, not what you are not.

By defining what I am...And having proof of what I said, I eliminate your claims of what I am.

If you wish, I can provide the medical reports that any Medical DR can use to show me to be human.

If thats not good enough I am more than willing to allow a Medical Dr. to run another CT scan, or Blood work at your expense.

See thats something that Saddam would not allow.

Keep fishing Doc.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

Depending on the analogy you want to use - sadam would let us do CT scans but wouldn't let us poke around in his pooper as that would cause so much embarrassment he would have lost control of his country.

Although when we're dealing with WMD though poking around in someone’s pooper is probably a reasonable step to take.

(pssst. John... claim he has WMD )

[DrunkMonkey 0]

I like Pie.

Mmmmm....Pie.

When post again, bring Pie.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I've got pie. I ate the last of my mothers birthday American cheese cake... but still have some of my mothers birthday coffee cake left. Can't eat it. Feel sick. Was gonna bin it but you can have it - I'll e-mail it to you if you like.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

UH, yeah...12 years and they got nothing done, but at least some of them became rich.

Like you said we all know he HAD WMD. 12 years later they are gone, looks like they did accomplish something.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Like you said we all know he HAD WMD. 12 years later they are gone, looks like they did accomplish something.

No he never complied. I know thats hard for you to admit...But he never did.

Since he never complied, the UN did not accomplish anything. We still don't know what he did with them which was the whole point.

So the UN still did nothing.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

On the other hand while the UN did not achieve what we asked for (proof) they did achieved what we really wanted (a Sadam that did not have WMD).

ie while we wanted proof and rightly ought to have got it, over and above our desire for proof what we really wanted was him to have no WMD. He had no WMD.

Of the things we asked of him, we got the better of the two.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

you are right he never complied. But they accomplished their goal, which was the destruction of his wmd, or at least ensure he is unable to use them if he even has them.

Looks like they accomplished their goal.

To me a better result than killing thousands under false pretenses.

[Ron 10]

Quote

you are right he never complied

Holy shit...Someone mark this day down.

See since he never complied, then the invasion was justified.

Quote

To me a better result than killing thousands under false pretenses

If he had complied, or the UN had made him comply then NO ONE would have died.

Again I will list the faulty parties.

1. Saddam for having WMD's, and ignoring the Resolutions.

2. The UN for not making Saddam Comply.

3. The people who gave the intel that said he still had WMD's

4. The people who Interpreted the intel and verified it.

5. The people who acted on the bad intel.

While I can place blame on acting on bad intel...Its only after the others are blamed.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[crozby 0]

Quote

Again I will list the faulty parties.

1. Saddam for having WMD's, and ignoring the Resolutions.

2. The UN for not making Saddam Comply.

3. The people who gave the intel that said he still had WMD's

4. The people who Interpreted the intel and verified it.

5. The people who acted on the bad intel.

While I can place blame on acting on bad intel...Its only after the others are blamed.

So you don't go along with the view that the Bush administration wanted regime change in Iraq, even prior to 9/11, and that all the WMD stuff was just bullshit to sell a war to the electorate?

[Ron 10]

Quote

So you don't go along with the view that the Bush administration wanted regime change in Iraq, even prior to 9/11, and that all the WMD stuff was just bullshit to sell a war to the electorate?

Nope.

I will admit that the US Government has wanted Saddam out for quite some time. Even to the point of having plans on how to do it. (Which is not strange at all if you know about Military operations...We have plans to invade just about every Country in the World. As does most large Countries).

But no one has been able to provide anything other than wild speculation about anything about the WMD's being made up...In fact evidence has pointed to the opposite.

Now if you have some PROOF, please provide it not only here, but to Congress.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[GTAVercetti 0]

The fault I see in the logic of your argument is the insistence of using "the UN did not make them comply so we had to go in" line.

By your logic, the UN does not seem to be effective at all(or at least it appears that way from the comments about not doing anything in Iraq or Rawanda). Therefore, ANY resolution they make would have no value. Hence, the resolution they made about Iraq and WMD's should be utterly worthless and discarded

And yet, you say that since Iraq did not follow the the resolution of a empty institution, we had a right to invade.

That does not make sense.

If we are going to use an organization's resolutions as reasons for action, then it is probably important that we believe in the organization behind them.

As an aside, if we are going to use the fact that a country does not comply with a UN resolution as reason to invade, then what about Israel and its lack of compliance? Or any other countries with resolutions against it? What about the resolution condemning our embargo of Cuba? Should we invade ourselves?

I am mostly just playing devil's advocate. I think that in the future, the Iraqi people will be better off. But I think our rationale and planning for the after effects was a bit....askew.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Ron 10]

Quote

The fault I see in the logic of your argument is the insistence of using "the UN did not make them comply so we had to go in" line.

By your logic, the UN does not seem to be effective at all(or at least it appears that way from the comments about not doing anything in Iraq or Rawanda). Therefore, ANY resolution they make would have no value. Hence, the resolution they made about Iraq and WMD's should be utterly worthless and discarded

And yet, you say that since Iraq did not follow the the resolution of a empty institution, we had a right to invade.

That does not make sense.

If Saddam had complied we could not have invaded.
If the UN had done its job Saddam would have complied.

Quote

If we are going to use an organization's resolutions as reasons for action, then it is probably important that we believe in the organization behind them.

No, Saddam only need to believe in the UN...He didn't.

Quote

As an aside, if we are going to use the fact that a country does not comply with a UN resolution as reason to invade, then what about Israel and its lack of compliance? Or any other countries with resolutions against it? What about the resolution condemning our embargo of Cuba? Should we invade ourselves?

If you think we should invade Israel...Do it. All you are doing is showing that the UN does nothing by not enforcing all the resolutions.

Go here http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=trailer&id=1808579381 and click on Hans Blix....

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

If you think we should invade Israel...Do it. All you are doing is showing that the UN does nothing by not enforcing all the resolutions.

That is what I said. The UN does not enforce all of its resoultions. So why do we get to pick and choice which ones we decide to endorse? Saddam did not comply, but every years for 14 years now, the UN had OVERWHELMINGLY voted against our embargo of Cuba, but we just yawn in their face.

By your argument, we don't believe in it either. And since we do not believe in it, why do we even accept the EXISTENCE of ANY UN resolution about ANYTHING?

By the way, that clip is great. I really need to see that whole movie.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.