rummy....

Status
Not open for further replies.
NOVA said:
Thats the best you can do ?....Its about par for the course with imbeciles.....can't carry on a debate when they get questioned about their own posts....

At least mm had the good sense to just go off line and run away.....


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by NOVA
Don't agree with the "Wolfowitz Doctrine"...huh?

So you have no problem with country's like Iran and North Korea developing a nuclear arsenal and missile program on a par the ours, huh ?

You'd have problem with our trying to prevent " hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."

You would have a problem with a US goal to " strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defense against aggression"

You would have a problem with a provision that "we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends"

Maybe it would be easier if you just point out EXACTLY what the fuck problems you have with the so called "Wolfowitz Doctrine"
I know its probably to 'macho' for you, but be specific
Click to expand...

There is nothing to debate, idiot. The doctrine is imperialism at it's best, preemptive (illegal) war at it's worst.

No fool like an old fool, Bravatard.
 
grumpyone said:
althea and all the rest of the bush derangement syndrome out there....blix admitted prior to the iraq war that he did not know whether iraq possessed wmd because he had been denied unfettered inspection and how could he say anything else....you admit that iraq was playing cat and mouse games, meaning that he could not inspect, he could not verify....he opposed the war but could not say with any certitude as to wmd....to my knowledge niger never backed off their claim that iraq was seeking enriched uranium and the whole wilson junket plame cia babe bs was just that liberal contrived bs....i like you lived thru this, followed it all and even watched the hearings....not one scintilla of evidence has ever been produced demonstrating bush and the boys of having fabricated anything, if anything they were wrong....of course there was some rather interesting discussion about what we might find in syria not too long ago....
Click to expand...

Hi Ice Bitch. How did you get in this time?
 
grumpyone said:
althea and all the rest of the bush derangement syndrome out there....blix admitted prior to the iraq war that he did not know whether iraq possessed wmd because he had been denied unfettered inspection and how could he say anything else....you admit that iraq was playing cat and mouse games, meaning that he could not inspect, he could not verify....he opposed the war but could not say with any certitude as to wmd....to my knowledge niger never backed off their claim that iraq was seeking enriched uranium and the whole wilson junket plame cia babe bs was just that liberal contrived bs....i like you lived thru this, followed it all and even watched the hearings....not one scintilla of evidence has ever been produced demonstrating bush and the boys of having fabricated anything, if anything they were wrong....of course there was some rather interesting discussion about what we might find in syria not too long ago....
Click to expand...
Making your case is always easiest, if you willingly choose to ignore the segments of the given chronology that don't bolster your claim. If you don't have the time to practice punctuation, sentence structure, or create paragraphs, we can only assume that you don't have the time to provide links to your fantasy claims.

How can you skip from one moment in time (refusal of entry to Blix, by Hussein) to another moment in time, without including the actual events from the period in between?

If, as you claim, you 'lived thru this', then surely you remember that Hussein realized that his chest thumping wasn't going to work, and he allowed inspectors in? Why do you think the U.N called for the U.S to wait until the inspections were completed, before invading?



Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."
Click to expand...
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml
 
Threedee said:
I obviously don't care what the Europeans think. Obviously, the invasion was a waste of our manpower and money, which we could have spent on Islamist targets rather than the secular Hussein. For that alone, Bush deserves to be ridiculed, and the fact that he mishandled the occupation 100% of the way is a reason why we call him a moron (also, he's from Texass).

But if you're going to cite the Europeans, then be prepared to say all of this stuff about Obama with regard to his adventurism and particularly the drone program. I am not prepared to do that, myself...
Click to expand...
I am. Obama's drone program is very dangerous and we will all pay a hefty price for it.
 
"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.
Click to expand...
Interesting that the U.S, and B.P had contracts to drill for oil after the war.
 
Rune said:
What about Wolfowitz? Let's not forget that traitorous scum.

Wolfowitz Doctrine is an unofficial name given to the initial version of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–99 fiscal years (dated February 18, 1992) authored by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy Scooter Libby.
Not intended for public release, it was leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992,[SUP][1][/SUP] and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status

Wolfie admits he and the boys royally screwed the pooch;


The former deputy Pentagon chief, Paul Wolfowitz, a driving force behind the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, has conceded that a series of blunders by George W. Bush’s administration plunged Iraq into a cycle of violence that “spiralled out of control”.


Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._us_bungled_in_iraq_117492.html#ixzz2xCckGXil
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
Click to expand...

Once again you read, but do not comprehend what you read and then select specific nuggets of his comments that fit into your tired and ignorant canards.
 
Althea said:
Making your case is always easiest, if you willingly choose to ignore the segments of the given chronology that don't bolster your claim. If you don't have the time to practice punctuation, sentence structure, or create paragraphs, we can only assume that you don't have the time to provide links to your fantasy claims.

How can you skip from one moment in time (refusal of entry to Blix, by Hussein) to another moment in time, without including the actual events from the period in between?

If, as you claim, you 'lived thru this', then surely you remember that Hussein realized that his chest thumping wasn't going to work, and he allowed inspectors in? Why do you think the U.N called for the U.S to wait until the inspections were completed, before invading?



http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml
Click to expand...


blix and you are speaking with what you suppose is 20-20 hindsight....prior to the invasion blix had no idea as to what saddam possessed in the manner of wmd and said so....miss it is you who seek to ignore "segments of the given chronology" to make a case that is unsupported by fact.....the absence of wmd does not mean it was never there....we sat and debated both within congress and the un for a year and a half....we watched much traffic cross into syria....a former iraqi general claims to have seen wmd transported into syria....and not too long ago our own intel community was wondering out loud what we might find if we went into syria with regard to iraqi wmd.....this is i know very inconvenient for you and your ilk and all of this discussion steps away from how this topic opened.....is rummy a racist or did he actually insult trained apes everywhere.....
 
christiefan915 said:
Go and read about the "advisors" Eisenhower sent over dimwit and stop moving the goalposts.

January 20, 1953 - Dwight D. Eisenhower, former five-star Army general and Allied commander in Europe during World War II, is inaugurated as the 34th U.S. President.

During his term, Eisenhower will greatly increase U.S. military aid to the French in Vietnam to prevent a Communist victory. U.S. military advisors will continue to accompany American supplies sent to Vietnam. To justify America's financial commitment, Eisenhower will cite a 'Domino Theory' in which a Communist victory in Vietnam would result in surrounding countries falling one after another like a "falling row of dominoes." The Domino Theory will be used by a succession of Presidents and their advisors to justify ever-deepening U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html

t in Vietnam.
Click to expand...

I suggest that you get a clue in that empty head of yours and learn how to read history. Look up the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. That would be the official beginning of the US led war in Vietnam you clueless dunce.

It was built on a lie by a Democrat President who was a liar and tried to manage the war from the White House. You can't get any dumber than Johnson. Unless of course you are Obama.

You really are retarded.
 
Rune said:
Thank you, and welcome.

You have been awarded the official village idiot award. Congratulations it is not given out lightly.
Click to expand...

Irony; village idiots giving away their own awards. The stupidity that erupts on this forum borders on retarded.

No wonder so few participate here.
 
maineman said:
As you well know, I think that truth deflector is perhaps the most worthless piece of shit on this board, but even a stopped watch is right twice a day...
Click to expand...

Have some cheese with that pathetic whine you lying leftist expat. You're like a broken record stuck on retard.

maineman said:
Then, of course, Nixon lied HIS ass off during the '68 campaign claiming he had a "secret plan" to quickly end the war... that "secret plan" basically consisted of bombing Cambodia and not doing squat to end the war for four more years.
Click to expand...

Making up you're own version of history again lying leftist dunce? You're a funny small minded twit.
 
Darla said:
That would be a good poll Mainman. Who is the most worthless piece of shit on this board? I'd be hard pressed to choose between TB and Taft. Then there's USF. This would be quite a race, that much is certain. They've all campaigned hard.
Click to expand...

So is that the goal of all the small brained leftist on the forum; make the forum even more useless and irrelevant until the only ones left are dunces having a private circle jerks in the never ending circle of stupidity you dunces love to wallow in?

Yay you!

:legion:
 
Rune said:
Invading a sovereign nation, for crimes of torture in accordance with Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter. "The US is subject to customary international law and to the principles of the Nuremberg Charter and exceptional circumstances such as war, instability and public emergency cannot excuse torture.

Additionally;

A hill outside Basra was napalmed during the initial invasion of Iraq. So were two bridges south of Baghdad.Reports are based on an article by Andrew Boncombe (“U.S. Admits It Used Napalm Bombs in Iraq”) in The Independent on August 10, 2003, and a second source, Martin Savidge (“Protecting Iraq’s Oil Supply) broadcast on CNN on March 22, 2003.The use of napalm is banned by Article 55(1) of Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions.

During November 2004, white phosphorous, a chemical that can cause serious burns, was used as an anti-personnel airborne weapon in Fallujah, according to several American military officers. On the last day of the month, General Peter Pace, who headed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, defended the use of white phosphorous to illuminate targets at night.Evidence was first reported by Peter Popham (“US Forces Used Chemical Weapons During Assault on City of Fallujah”) in The Independent on November 8, 2005, and affirmed as well by Ali A. Allawi in The Occupation of Iraq (Yale University Press, 2007, p. 339).According to the Article 2 of the Protocol on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons of 1980: “(1) It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons. (2) It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.”

Some 2,000 tons ofdepleted uranium bullets, which can combust into a ball of fire measuring 10,000 Centigrade degrees, were utilized in the invasion of Iraq. At least 200 tons were used after the invasion. Children exposed to the munitions have come down with leukemia.There are many sources: Dahr Jamail, “What Have We Done?” Iraq Dispatches, August 6, 2005; Neil Mackay, “US Forces’ Use of Depleted Uranium Is ‘Illegal’,” Sunday Morning Herald, March 20, 2003; Angus Stickler, “Depleted Uranium Weapons—A BBC Investigation,” BBC Radio, August 21, 2007; Geert Van Moorer, “One Year After the Fall of Baghdad: How Healthy Is Iraq?,” Health-Now.com, April 28, 2004; Nao Shimoyachi, “Depleted Uranium Shells Decried: Citizens Find Bush Guilty of Afghan War Crimes,”Japan Times, March 14, 2004; World Tribunal on Iraq Declaration of the Jury of Conscience, Istanbul, June 25, 2005.According to Article 11 of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management of 1997: “Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that at all stages of radioactive waste management individuals, society and the environment are adequately protected against radiological and other hazards.”

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush declared a “War on Terror” and secured support in that “war” from Congress later that year in a resolution entitled “Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Based on that resolution, Bush commanded American troops to enter Afghanistan, and the Taliban was driven from power in the country. For a war to be in accord with the UN Charter, the UN Security Council must give approval. No such approval, however, was sought or granted. The Afghan War, in other words, was illegal under international law.
http://www.uswarcrimes.com/In case some politicians found it difficult to understand all this, Article 2(4) spelled it out in unequivocal terms: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".
Everyone recognised there might have to be exceptions to this rule, but the Charter specifically does not authorize preemptive nor preventative action(i.e. getting in first) on the basis of a perceived future threat.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-bush-blair/


A top adviser to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned the Bush administration that its use of “cruel, inhuman or degrading” interrogation techniques like waterboarding were “a felony war crime.”
What’s more, newly obtained documents reveal that State Department counselor Philip Zelikow told the Bush team in 2006 that using the controversial interrogation techniques were “prohibited” under U.S. law — “even if there is a compelling state interest asserted to justify them.”
Zelikow argued that the Geneva conventions applied to al-Qaida — a position neither the Justice Department nor the White House shared at the time. That made waterboarding and the like a violation of the War Crimes statute and a “felony,” Zelikow tells Danger Room. Asked explicitly if he believed the use of those interrogation techniques were a war crime, Zelikow replied, “Yes.”
Zelikow first revealed the existence of his secret memo, dated Feb. 15, 2006, in an April 2009 blog post, shortly after the Obama administration disclosed many of its predecessor’s legal opinions blessing torture. He briefly described it (.pdf) in a contentious Senate hearing shortly thereafter, revealing then that “I later heard the memo was not considered appropriate for further discussion and that copies of my memo should be collected and destroyed.”
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/secret-torture-memo/


Zelikow’s memo was an internal bureaucratic push against an attempt by the Justice Department to flout long-standing legal restrictions against torture. In 2005, he wrote, both the Justice and State Departments had decided that international prohibitions against “acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture” do not “apply to CIA interrogations in foreign countries.” Those techniques included contorting a detainee’s body in painful positions, slamming a detainee’s head against a wall, restricting a detainee’s caloric intake, and waterboarding.
Zelikow wrote that a law passed that year by Congress, restricting interrogation techniques, meant the “situation has now changed.” Both legally and as a matter of policy, he advised, administration officials were endangering both CIA interrogators and the reputation of the United States by engaging in extreme interrogations — even those that stop short of torture.
“We are unaware of any precedent in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or any subsequent conflict for authorized, systematic interrogation practices similar to those in question here,” Zelikow wrote, “even where the prisoners were presumed to be unlawful combatants.


Retired General Antonio Taguba who led the US army’s investigation into the Abu Ghraib abuses has accused the Bush administration of “a systematic regime of torture” and war crimes. Taguba’s accusations appear in the preface to a new report released by Physicians for Human Rights. The report uses medical evidence to confirm first-hand accounts of eleven former prisoners who endured torture by US personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay.​
​
​
Taguba writes “there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20130.htm

Need I go on, 3-D? Bush alone stands accused of 269 separate and verifiable felonies. Add His father, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz, Yoo, Baker, Quayle, Webster and Schwharzkopf and the charges run into the thousands.​
​
​
Click to expand...

You really are too stupid for prime time.
 
Althea said:
Blix reported that if not for Hussein's 'cat and mouse games', the disarmament would have been over years earlier, and 10 years of sanctions could've been avoided.
Click to expand...

Key words; "IF NOT FOR". What part of "IF NOT FOR" do leftist twits not get?
 
Althea said:
Kinda hard to discern exactly what you're attempting to offer here? If you want to know why Obama didn't just rush headlong into Pakistan, as soon as the intel was 'almost sure', about Bin Laden, I'm assuming the question was rhetorical.

As far as the 'yellow cake' joke, that's long since been dismissed as idiotic. Why do you ignore the fact that when Saddam was launching U.S made chemical weapons at Iran, we were happy to look the other way. We knew that no matter what he might attempt to concoct, it was never going to be a threat to the U.S. Yellow cake, aluminum tubes...blah, blah, blah.

Are you talking about this NY Times article?

Now keep on referring to [sic] niger, as if it has some inkling of pertinence to anything.
Click to expand...

Why are Liberals such rabid liars? Why do they fabricate their own version of history and distort the facts.

Sadam didn't us US chemicals you moron. You leftists make me sick with your ignorant lies and moronic attempts to make Bush and America out to be a criminal State while stupidly absolving depots like Saddam.

This debate is too stupid for words.
 
Althea said:
Making your case is always easiest, if you willingly choose to ignore the segments of the given chronology that don't bolster your claim. If you don't have the time to practice punctuation, sentence structure, or create paragraphs, we can only assume that you don't have the time to provide links to your fantasy claims.

How can you skip from one moment in time (refusal of entry to Blix, by Hussein) to another moment in time, without including the actual events from the period in between?

If, as you claim, you 'lived thru this', then surely you remember that Hussein realized that his chest thumping wasn't going to work, and he allowed inspectors in? Why do you think the U.N called for the U.S to wait until the inspections were completed, before invading?



http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml
Click to expand...


blix and you are speaking with what you suppose is 20-20 hindsight....prior to the invasion blix had no idea as to what saddam possessed in the manner of wmd and said so....miss it is you who seek to ignore "segments of the given chronology" to make a case that is unsupported by fact.....the absence of wmd does not mean it was never there....we sat and debated both within congress and the un for a year and a half....we watched much traffic cross into syria....a former iraqi general claims to have seen wmd transported into syria....and not too long ago our own intel community was wondering out loud what we might find if we went into syria with regard to iraqi wmd.....this is i know very inconvenient for you and your ilk and all of this discussion steps away from how this topic opened.....is rummy a racist or did he actually insult trained apes everywhere.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top