Study: False Statements Preceded War

Superfreak said:
2) Again, for 12 years the UN failed. Without the troop buildup Saddam would not have let the UN back in. The UNs job was to verify that he had destroyed the WMDs he had.... then lift sanctions. For 12 years they failed to do this. But I know, we were supposed to keep Saddam "contained" until he and his sons and the Baath leadership were all dead. No matter what the sanctions were doing to the Iraqi people.
Click to expand...

Of course. It has been so much better for the Iraqi people that 150,000 of them have died, and millions are now refugees. What a great call.

What is so surprising about the U.N. needing troops at the border in order to finally be able to do their jobs in a country like that? You need to read Hans Blix's March, 2003 report to Congress. Unfettered access to all suspected locations. And that would have continued.

And please - make the argument that it is more costly to keep troops massed on the border for 6 months or a year than it is to invade an occupy a country for what will probably be at least a decade. I would really love to see that argument.
 
LadyT said:
Well, Sadam had been thumbing his nose at the UN.

Side Note:

For the last 5 years I've never gotten over how War Apologists use the UN as a grounds for going in, but when it comes to the UN not supporting a US invasion, suddenly the UN is conveniently irrelevent.
Click to expand...

Thank you. We had been going on so long with people only calling me a Bush appologist I was getting apprehensive awaiting the war apologist label.

thank you for relieving that mounting tension.

I do not use the UN as a sole reason for going in. The ceasefire agreement was between all parties. Saddam did not live up to it. The fact that the UN failed to make him do so is part of my belief that millitary action was inevitable.... but it was not the sole reason.

In hind-sight we now know why the Iraqi people were starving (as was the chant from those who wanted us to lift sanctions despite Saddams failure to comply). The UN failed to monitor the program that was designed to hurt Saddam and help the people but in reality the reverse occured due to fraud. Coincidentally this fraud involved (among others) certain countries with UN Sec Council veto authority that just happened to block UN approval for going into Iraq. Funny how those coincidences occur.

and yes, for the parrots that are about to start spouting off... YES, I think we should have taken action in Rwanda too. YES, I think we should be taking action in Sudan. YES, I think we should be assisting in the Congo. As a superpower, I do believe we have a responsibility to protect those that cannot protect themselves from genocide. (when we have the power to do so that is)
 
Darla, Keep watching, it will be updated often. Models are becoming obsolete or get traded in at least weekly now.

Kinda looks like SF will soon be on the lot as a High skewage model.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
"He had a view, supported it and made the call. The fact that he turned out to be wrong does not mean he "cherry picked" data."

The view which he presented to the public was based on cherrypicked data. THAT is the point. You keep bringing in Kerry, and Clinton, & Democrats. Much of the testimony, if Congress ever puts this thing together for investigation, as they have promised to do, will come from people INSIDE the administration. The intel was FIXED around the policy.

In other words, there was all kinds of intel, some more definitive than others, and in the biggest decision of all - TAKING THE NATION TO WAR, which, again, was the President's, as you readily admit - was supported by evidence that was picked specifically because it supported that case for war. He lied about Curveball in his SOU speech; his office told Colin Powell to make a case for the U.N. out of a "chinese menu" of intel.

This is not an administration that took the intel, and tried to decide whether it warranted invading. This was an admin that made the decision to go to war, and then looked for whatever they could that would make the best case for that decision. That is indisputable.

Do you get that? You may not call it lying, but I do, and the people who did it are no better than common criminals, imo. Saying the war was "ill-timed" is not exactly damning criticism, Superfreak. The war was a friggin' disaster; I was right about it, you & Bush were wrong, but unfortunately, all 3 of us have to live with the consequences of his lies & your stupidity for the rest of our lives.
Click to expand...

Right...and we're the lucky ones because we get to live with it.
 
Superfreak said:
For the thousandth time...

1) Stating that it was ill-timed does not change the fact that it was managed to complete FUBAR. As long as the war was managed in the same fashion, timing would not have mattered. Do you believe that it would have turned out the exact same way no matter how it was managed? Equating the two is simply a hack job by you. I have never stated that simply starting the war at a later date would ensure success.

2) Again, for 12 years the UN failed. Without the troop buildup Saddam would not have let the UN back in. The UNs job was to verify that he had destroyed the WMDs he had.... then lift sanctions. For 12 years they failed to do this. But I know, we were supposed to keep Saddam "contained" until he and his sons and the Baath leadership were all dead. No matter what the sanctions were doing to the Iraqi people.
Click to expand...

How the hel* does this equate to "inevitable"? Not one point illustrated where he posed an immiment threat to the US. Not one. I don't care if the UN went through that same song and dance for another 50 fvcking years that is still no substantiated cause the US to invade and occupy Iraq. How many other countries aren't or haven't complied with UN rulings or declarations? You nor the Bush administration has made a clear case as to why WE were allegedly obligated to attack Iraq.

Maybe you and Bush didn't get the memo: THE US IS NOT THE UN. Much like Uzbechestan isn't the UN. We don't have the right nor moral obligation to arbitrarily enforce the UN decrees across the globe. This is where your argument breaks down. You seem to be under the highly misapprehension that this is our job. Newsflash: it isn't.
 
Right...................!

LadyT said:
How the hel* does this equate to "inevitable"? Not one point illustrated where he posed an immiment threat to the US. Not one. I don't care if the UN went through that same song and dance for another 50 fvcking years that is still no substantiated cause the US to invade and occupy Iraq. How many other countries aren't or haven't complied with UN rulings or declarations? You nor the Bush administration has made a clear case as to why WE were allegedly obligated to attack Iraq.

Maybe you and Bush didn't get the memo: THE US IS NOT THE UN. Much like Uzbechestan isn't the UN. We don't have the right nor moral obligation to arbitrarily enforce the UN decrees across the globe. This is where your argument breaks down. You seem to be under the highly misapprehension that this is our job. Newsflash: it isn't.
Click to expand...


It is the job of those bad ass 'Code Pink' girls to put terrorists in their place.......:rolleyes:
 
Onceler said:
Of course. It has been so much better for the Iraqi people that 150,000 of them have died, and millions are now refugees. What a great call.

What is so surprising about the U.N. needing troops at the border in order to finally be able to do their jobs in a country like that? You need to read Hans Blix's March, 2003 report to Congress. Unfettered access to all suspected locations. And that would have continued.

And please - make the argument that it is more costly to keep troops massed on the border for 6 months or a year than it is to invade an occupy a country for what will probably be at least a decade. I would really love to see that argument.
Click to expand...

There we go.... now we get the "give the UN more time" argument. They had 12 years. If they needed a larger troop presence to get the job done.... why didn't they get it done in those 12 years?

But lets not ignore the death count numbers you posted. Yes, it is a tragedy that so many were killed by Iraqi on Iraqi violence. Clearly the Shiite and Kurd populations had never experienced that before. Lets also ignore the calls that millions of Iraqis were starving under the sanctions when we talk about "another six months".... which coincidentally is a very familiar phrase.... where have I heard it before.

Yes, I do concede the monetary cost of how this war has been managed far exceeds what an additional six months on the border would have cost.
 
Kinda strange how those who support the war whine the most about taxes. How the heck are we supposed to pay for Bush's Folly ?
 
Superfreak said:
There we go.... now we get the "give the UN more time" argument. They had 12 years. If they needed a larger troop presence to get the job done.... why didn't they get it done in those 12 years?
But lets not ignore the death count numbers you posted. Yes, it is a tragedy that so many were killed by Iraqi on Iraqi violence. Clearly the Shiite and Kurd populations had never experienced that before. Lets also ignore the calls that millions of Iraqis were starving under the sanctions when we talk about "another six months".... which coincidentally is a very familiar phrase.... where have I heard it before.

Yes, I do concede the monetary cost of how this war has been managed far exceeds what an additional six months on the border would have cost.
Click to expand...

Again, why are WE supposed to be the enforcers? Iraq posed no immiment threat to us and Saddam was not committing acts of genocide. Why do you think we were obligated to invade and occupy?
 
yeah but you do not support a multi trillion dollar war. Kinda different there. Most people complain about taxes, but the republicans make it a party plank.
 
Does anyone remember that scene in "Aliens", where Paul Reiser's character is saying "it was a bad call, Ripley...a bad call," and Ripley grabs him by the collar, throws him up against the wall and screams "Bad call? These people are DEAD, Burke! They're dead!"

That's kind of how I feel with Superfreak at the moment. I can't comprehend the level of stupidity or simply sheer stubborness that refuses to abandon the "Iraq was inevitable" argument, even now, in light of all of the death & cost of what we now know resulted from the decision. I fail to see any scenario, where "good timing" or "better management" would have somehow made this the "right war, at the right time"....
 
Onceler said:
Does anyone remember that scene in "Aliens", where Paul Reiser's character is saying "it was a bad call, Ripley...a bad call," and Ripley grabs him by the collar, throws him up against the wall and screams "Bad call? These people are DEAD, Burke! They're dead!"

That's kind of how I feel with Superfreak at the moment. I can't comprehend the level of stupidity or simply sheer stubborness that refuses to abandon the "Iraq was inevitable" argument, even now, in light of all of the death & cost of what we now know resulted from the decision. I fail to see any scenario, where "good timing" or "better management" would have somehow made this the "right war, at the right time"....
Click to expand...


hahahah! Good one. I know right.
 
uscitizen said:
Kinda strange how those who support the war whine the most about taxes. How the heck are we supposed to pay for Bush's Folly ?
Click to expand...

The markets, if left alone, will pay for the war themselves. If you stop and listen really closely usc, and concentrate really hard, I mean you almost have to hypnotize yourself first and go into a trance…you will be able to hear, even now, the invisible hand working to do just that.

Shhhh. Do you hear it?








If the answer is yes, check yourself into a fucking mental institution and meet your new roomies RS and Cawacko.
 
LadyT said:
How the hel* does this equate to "inevitable"? Not one point illustrated where he posed an immiment threat to the US. Not one. I don't care if the UN went through that same song and dance for another 50 fvcking years that is still no substantiated cause the US to invade and occupy Iraq. How many other countries aren't or haven't complied with UN rulings or declarations? You nor the Bush administration has made a clear case as to why WE were allegedly obligated to attack Iraq.

Maybe you and Bush didn't get the memo: THE US IS NOT THE UN. Much like Uzbechestan isn't the UN. We don't have the right nor moral obligation to arbitrarily enforce the UN decrees across the globe. This is where your argument breaks down. You seem to be under the highly misapprehension that this is our job. Newsflash: it isn't.
Click to expand...

As I have stated before...... I do not believe Saddam was an immenant threat. So we can all put that strawman away now. If I thought he WAS an immenant threat, then I would not have a problem with the timing of the war...

Exactly... you do not care if it lasted another 50 years. You are right that in US lives the costs would not have been nearly as bad. The monetary costs to the US would likely not have been as bad (I say likely because the example you gave was 50 years)

Yes, you are correct, the US is not the UN. How very astute of you. Nor is France, Russia or China. Yet (like the US does) they used their veto power on the Sec council to block our action. (but it is ok if they protect their oil interests right?)

I do have a problem with it potentially going on for 50 years. I say it was inevitable because the sanctions were hurting the very people we wanted to protect and helping the very bastard we wanted to punish.

Lorax is of the opinion that the UN would have succeeded if we had built up troops and used the threat of force to finally force Saddam to comply. As stated, that is an opinion and he could well be correct. I do not share his opinion. Mine is that eventually we were going to be forced to go in and remove Saddam. As stated, it is my opinion. Like his, we will never know whether mine was correct or incorrect.
 
I think I will just eat some pills Darla. That roomie situation would be torture and against the Geneva convention.
 
uscitizen said:
Darla, Keep watching, it will be updated often. Models are becoming obsolete or get traded in at least weekly now.

Kinda looks like SF will soon be on the lot as a High skewage model.
Click to expand...

Trust me.... you do not want to see me modeling.... gruesome site. Unless of course you wanted a weeble model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top