Ron 10 #51 April 19, 2005 QuoteThat 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? We did not invade because Saddam did not comply. We invaded because we thought we needed to...But that does not change that if he had complied we would have not had a reason. If he had, we would have had no reason. We didn't enforce a UN resolution...We invaded because the intel had it in our best interest. All of which would not have been needed if the UN had done its job. Quote but every years for 14 years now, the UN had OVERWHELMINGLY voted against our embargo of Cuba, but we just yawn in their face. Then they should do something about 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
GTAVercetti 0 #52 April 19, 2005 I got ya now....you were just heavy on the non-compliance stuff that I did not understand.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #53 April 19, 2005 QuoteI guess thats the sound of silence. No comment on the blah-blah-blah... It's funny how you jump to some conclusion based upon my absence. For your info, on Saturday I spent the day skydiving. On Sunday, I participated in a shooting match. On Monday, I worked a double shift. Thus, my silence meant nothing about my feelings on the direction this thread has taken. I have a busy life outside this forum. But here's an explanation for you now: as soon as this subject got hijacked into yet another U.S.-bashing festival by the rabid America-haters, I quickly lost interest. I won't be back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #54 April 21, 2005 Well, due to the growing deficit the US has found new ways of financing the war. See attached.. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #55 April 21, 2005 typical, as soon as the opinion isn't a rabid Republican one we wheel out the 'American hater' lines.....Ciao!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #56 April 21, 2005 >We did not invade because Saddam did not comply. I thought the reason du jour was "to free the people of Iraq!" Really, if you must retroactively change the reasons we went to war, at least give us some warning when you change them! >We didn't enforce a UN resolution... So the question becomes - why did Bush lie and say we did? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #57 April 21, 2005 Quote>We did not invade because Saddam did not comply. I thought the reason du jour was "to free the people of Iraq!" Really, if you must retroactively change the reasons we went to war, at least give us some warning when you change them! Quote the whole thing Bill, or don't qoute at all. We did not invade because Saddam had not complied...Although if he had complied we would have had no reason to invade. We invaded because we had intel that he had WMD's and he was seen a sa threat...If he had complied we would not have had those fears...If the UN had not been spineless and made him comply...Same thing. If you are gona misquote to try and mislead...Please give a warning. Quote>We didn't enforce a UN resolution... So the question becomes - why did Bush lie and say we did? Well you should ask him. Not being Bush, I can say we never invaded to enforce a UN resolution. We invaded since the intel we had showed SH as a threat with WMD. And his failure to comply made it even more possible that he had them. If he had complied we would have had no reason to invade. If the UN had done its job we would have had no reason. But with the threat, and his failure to prove otherwise... We did what we thought was best basied on the intel. You of course will disagree...But whats new?"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
Botellines 0 #58 April 21, 2005 Do you see the irony of being scared of some WMD that you sold to them not too long ago? Selling something and then asking for it back will not get you far in the sales bussiness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #59 April 21, 2005 QuoteDo you see the irony of being scared of some WMD that you sold to them not too long ago? Yes, but that does not mean it is still not scary"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
Zenister 0 #60 April 22, 2005 QuoteQuoteDo you see the irony of being scared of some WMD that you sold to them not too long ago? Yes, but that does not mean it is still not scary it isn’t, when you know its self life, storage requirements and can accurately (as proven now) predict those storage conditions cannot be maintained under an extended embargo.. of course when you have an preplanned agenda, interpret every 'tanker' as 'possible chemical weapons transport' despite all available evidence to the contrary...you can pretty easily dream up any number of scenarios where Dr. Evil and his brilliant minions create, manufacture and maintain the weapons WE sold him… weapons who’s shelf life had already expired even under the best conditions....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #61 April 23, 2005 Don't worry about it. Those who criticize this campaign and its prosecution would also be at the immediate forefront of those who would condemn us (and the rest of the world, indirectly) for doing nothing. You can't please everyone. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #62 April 23, 2005 Quote weapons who’s shelf life had already expired even under the best conditions.... Ok..if that is the case, then why are *WE* still destroying WWII/Korean War era stockpiles? Wouldn't they have already been useless?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #63 April 23, 2005 Quoteit isn’t, when you know its self life, storage requirements and can accurately (as proven now) predict those storage conditions cannot be maintained under an extended embargo.. And there was intel that said he was. That intel may have been bad. But you know better than I maybe that intel drives choices....And if that intel is wrong...so can be your choices."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
Zenister 0 #64 April 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteit isn’t, when you know its self life, storage requirements and can accurately (as proven now) predict those storage conditions cannot be maintained under an extended embargo.. And there was intel that said he was. That intel may have been bad. But you know better than I maybe that intel drives choices....And if that intel is wrong...so can be your choices. the problem occurs when preconceptions drive the gathering process.. and those same preconceptions lead the decision makers to dismiss Intel that defys that preconception... have you read the 9/11 report? if not you really should.. there are several clear indications (even in the censored verison) that the ACCURATE Intel was summarily ignored in favor of the 'bad intel' that supported the direction they wanted to go.. piss poor decision making process..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #65 April 24, 2005 QuoteQuote weapons who’s shelf life had already expired even under the best conditions.... Ok..if that is the case, then why are *WE* still destroying WWII/Korean War era stockpiles? Wouldn't they have already been useless? depends on the type.. many are useless, but have to be delt with the same way because of regulation (much like expended ammo) we have/had fairly accurate numbers on what he was know to have (we sold it to him) i'll have to dig up the .ppt (and check its releasability even still) but everything we sold him and everything he was known to possess was WAAAY past active life...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #66 April 24, 2005 Quotehave you read the 9/11 report? if not you really should.. there are several clear indications (even in the censored verison) that the ACCURATE Intel was summarily ignored in favor of the 'bad intel' that supported the direction they wanted to go.. I have read the report. The problem is this...You have intel that says they have WMD and you have intel that they don't. In one case they are a danger, in the other they are not. One might end with the bad guys using a WMD. The cost of not doing anything is very high...PLUS you they had never complied. So you have intel that says a country that has used a WMD before and still has them, that has refused to comply with saying he got rid of them...And they might use them again. And you have intel that a country that had them and has used them...But does not have them anymore. But they will not let you find out, and they will not provide proof. The cost of not doing anything could be very high."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
