Saddam Arrested
- Thread starter V3
- Start date
Well known by whom? Europeans?
Not to that extent, no.
Of course they did. Have you ever read "Night"? There are rather telling stories of fleeing jewish populations who are confronted and ignore by non-German jews who didn't believe their stories in the slightest.
No one ever disputed the Jewish populations fleeing from Germany at the time were unaware of Nazi rascit practices. However we can read stories from Night concering entire populations who heard the stories outside of Germany and were completely in a state of disbelief.
Clashman said:
Oh I'm not talking about weapons. I thought this was along the lines of commerce.
As far as weapons go I don't think we should sell weapons to the Israelis either, nor should we send them $5 Billion a year in defense funding until they make a concerted effort to bring this conflict to an end. Nothing speaks faster than money.
CorwinB said:
Hmmmm.. your prespective is skewed at best. England did NOT have to get involved in WWII when they did. They had (high government) discussions of trying to maybe get a treaty with germany. But they didn't and did honor their treaty with france.
As far as "killing them all" being the same rethoric... We didn't start it. But we will finish it.
And yes the french did help the USA way back. It is their one redeeming quality.
And the patrot act, yes this is of concern. It is unforntunate that this was necessary. And there is an argument that it might be a bit overboard. The great thing is... if it is, it will be corrected in the next few years.
And finally I'd rather be ignorant than immoral.
No they aren't any better. One dictator at a time. If Clinton or the UN had decided to remove Kim long ago he wouldn't have been a problem today. Clinton allowed Ben Ladin to slip through his fingures why not Kim also. Where has the UN been to stop this man? For what purpose does the UN exist if not to stop people like him and their governments?
Ask Clinton and the UN what they felt and they would more than likely provide for diplomatic sanctions which did nothing to remove him.
I couldn't say Natoma.
I can fairly say you have no idea Saddam didn't posses WMD. There was certainly enough evidence to assert Saddam's continuing development of WMD.
That implies they know how to use and have a launch pad to launch it....which they don't have.
One at a time Natoma. This matter was for the UN to have done something about years ago. I am sorry to say but Cliton's "Wag the Dog on Terrorism" didn't amount to much. Perhaps 9/11 would never have happened if Clinton had bothered to apprehend him.
NK shouldn't scare you shitless. Unfortunately you weren't around a few months ago when i among others were debating the possibility of a nuclear attack from NK. They simply don't have the missle capacity....YET! China is providing them with what they need which they more than likely stole from us by means of the Clintonian blunder that was China Gate.
A nuclear attack agaisnt the US seems a bit extreme and i wonder if the reason to over look NK for now was do to the very line of reasoning including intel which suggests they haven't sold terrorist groups anything. There are also the possibilities that China may become involved.
Why does your myopic views surprise me? NK and China are alligned. Does that not mean anything to do? NK could be conducted research for China wrt information provided by Clinton to China during China Gate. The possibility of China getting involved should be a concern and easily could be the driving factor for avoiding NK.
I'd really rather people save their ideolistic crapola of concerning the UN.
How do you figure this?
Another reason to blame Clinton for his terribly short sighted involvment in NK. Where again has the UN been all this time?
Maybe maybe not. I still ask where Clinton and the UN were years ago to stop both Ben Ladin and AQ.
Natoma have you concidered Saddam may have sold his research to other nations? I would consider that every bit as terrifying as selling the finished product if not more so he has provided for other nations' capacity to recreate the product.
I would say the sad thing is they asked a democrat what his opinion about the issue was.
Its inpart of democrats mess. They should have to help clean it up. Here is to hoping their foreign policy comes back to haunt them as it is today.
Legion said:
You said : "No it has been in violation of General Assembly resolutions. The bulk of all resolutions being purely political in nature."
I must have missed the "I believe" and the "I wasn't sure" part... First law of holes : when you are in one, stop digging.
Your argument was that no Security Council resolution was ever passed against Israel. I debunked it with actual proof, so please shut up and spare us the Bush-like rethoric, it doesn't work outside of US anyway, and is starting to work not so well in US either, actuall...
Err... How is that related to your initial argument that the SC had never passed a resolution against Israel ?
And where is the proof ? I don't get it : if you are so prompt to ask for proofs, then how come you are not taking arms to challenge the US government ?
Well, you asked for it... Your basic posting trick seems to be making an unproven assumption, then when debunked either say : "it was meaningless of you to debunk me" or "it wasn't what I meant".
Excuse me ? You can't you back up your own assertions, blatantly lie when your original post is only 2 hours old (the SC resolution part), and yet you somehow claim the moral high ground ?
Well, the Office of Special Plan was created because the CIA couldn't find enough evidence (because there wasn't any) of Saddam's WMDs and Al Quaida links to justify a war...
Do you really expect people not to request validations of the absurd WMD claims ?
Regarding oil :
- Why Iraq and not North Korea ? North Korea has nukes, has a dictator every bit as crual as Saddam... Oh, right, there's no oil or gas in North Korea
- The US, when illegally invading Iraq, said that Iraqi found burning oil fields would be considered as war criminals. Shows something about the true priorities
- When Bagdad was looted, the Iraqi National Museum was left unprotected while US soldiers were heavily guarding the Ministry of Oil
Whereas you have tried to respond, but your best point so far is me linking to 404 pages on the UN site...
Now, could you please bring actual, factual proofs of Iraq involvement in 9/11 and with Al Quaida and Iraq WMDs ? Those reasons were sold to the American public as a justification for war !
Stop dodging the point, it's becoming tiring : you said specifically "As far as AL quaida is concerned you'll have to show me where it was suggested they were linked." I showed you, and then you tried to move away. Al Quaida was pictured by the government as in bed with Saddam because of the obvious emotional 911 connection, in contradiction to every single bit of evidence. This was actually laughable to people outside of US, because those a bit educated in what's actually going on apart from the next NBA season and Michael Jackson's Wang of Mass Distraction know that Bin Laden hates the seculist Saddam Hussein nearly as much as he hates the USA... For Bin Laden, Saddam is an infidel who deserves death and worse. When invading Iraq, the USA did Bin Laden's bidding twice : Saddam was severely repressing Muslim extremism and was removed, and the invasion infuriated most of the Iraqi population and of the Muslim world, thus probably boosting Al Quaida's recruting through the roof. The world is not a single bit safer from Al Quaida after Iraq was invaded, it's the complete opposite.[/b]
And this is from someone talking about spreading democracy... Gunpoint democracy, I suppose ?
your opinion is noted.
I assume you've missed the fact we have been talking abou this very issue. Yes Britain before 1939 was playing the appeasement game with Hitler. Before and after '39 England/France allowed Germany to attack and take Polland, Norway, Denmark etc...historical revisionism? I think not. Could this all have been avoided by immediate actions by the Brits/French? Indeed it could have.
If you consider 2 days "some time after", then we've got another disagreement.
Oh please, where was England for Polland, Norway, Denmark among others. Of course they were playing the appeasement game with Polland. They had just played it far to long and allowed Hitler to become far to powerful. All the while rejecting Jewish refugees and allowing for their extermination as well as the oppression of the rest of the captive populi.
No kidding and where are the UN resolutions against Arafat...?
Akira is the not first to say Israel is not our ally. Thusly his justification.
I on the other hand see nothing wrong with it as long as the materials are being filtered for their possible uses.
Seeing that you know of such a law i'm now sure you realizing your point dodging is an act of avoidance.
LOL You don't bother to response to anything i have posted!! You haven't shown how they are inviolation of either 242 or 425 to this day! Or for that matter if they were inviolation of either of these two security council resolution why we should invade them. Negotiations are underway and Israel has shown willingness to concur with the demands. The only problems they have had are with their arab neighbors they fear would use these lands to acquire military foot hold. In the westbank, the only land not returned, anyone could assertain the obvious without being there. A massive flux of arab propaganda has generated a terrorist state. In defense Israel wishes to make sure these groups are eradicated before a Palestinian State is formed. The entire concept that no such state exist to this doubt is ridiculous but i digress.
So what you "debunked" were my speculations and what you have proven is...well...nothing. You are simply taking on the obvious rhetoric you have read from anti Israeli blogs and Indymedia posts.
Very much so as it is an indictment of clear anti-Isreal bias.
Because i believe that if the WMD did exist it was destroyed. There are means of transacting the data besides the physical product. I am waiting to hear what we learn from Saddam as far as digital records are concerned.
Lol the only trick here is the one you played on yourself via your incapacity to make associations. You links listed a reason for removing Saddam as he was involved in terrorism. Also mentioned were his ties to one specific group, AQ. What you presented wasn't a refutation at all, infact it undermined your position that AQ rather than terrorism in general was a reason to invade Iraq.
I have backed my own assertions you are just trying to refute them with your half assed logic and indymedia crapola.
How on earth have i blatanly lied? I did suggest, perhaps not to you but to another (london boy) that most if not all resolutions against Israel were GA and not SC which israel was inviolation of. You provided that infact Israel was inviolation of 2 of these acts when you originally stated 40. You have yet to show to me how its inviolation of either.
How is this at all a response to the question?
Do you often dodge questions to provide yourself a "hole"?
When will you reply to what i have stated to you Corwin? Why would we have waited until now to take the Oil when we could have taken it in 1991? Why would we be bother taking it by military force when we could simply remove all sanctions with Saddam and propose deals with him for the oil? Before now we had hardly a use for his oil and the war has cost us more than the oil is worth to us.
Why didn't the UN do anything about Kim in NK years ago? Where does this apathy stem?
A concern for invading NK is that Kim now is that he has finally constructed Nukes and developed a few nukes. Is it possible he could use them in a lose/lose situation? It wouldn't cross my mind he'd avoid going down in flames. The man is a lunatic. We should have removed him years ago but we had a limp-dick president (Clinton) and a gutless UN.
The US legally invaded Iraq as validated by Iraq's violations of UN SC agreements calling for his removal. The burning of the oil fields has nothing to do with being a war criminal.
Which would you say is more important Corwin? THe museum, or Iraq's life line to a stable economy?
Actually i have refuted your assertions quite nicely.
It has already been proven Saddam was involved with training terrorist troops and the best links you have provided haven't demonstrated anything an association of AQ to other terrorist groups who serve as one of many valid reasoning to invade Iraq.
As far as the WMDs are concerned Iraq's refusal to agree with various SC resolutions certainly lent creedence to the possibility of their continuing R&D. We had a great deal of intel which stated such. One of many reasons it may not have been found is do to the possibility it may have been destroyed.
Even you provided Bush associating all terrorist support as a validation for war not just AQ. Also with the amount of intel we had more than just the US were convinced to attack. Noting Saddam's past history i don't see why any of the information along with his refusal to abide by UN resolutions should have been taken lightly.
LOL no one is dodging the point. You asserted the AQ link itself, and not terrorism in general was a valid reason to attack them. You even quoted bush associating AQ with all other terrorist groups.
Granted though all your quotes were out of context and the speaches from which they were taken weren't provided.
No you showed members of the government making associations between AQ and terrorism as well as AQ, terrorism and Saddam. You didn't provide any links validating the notion Saddam's involvment with AQ was a motivation more so then Saddam's involvment with terrorism.
Which evidence would that be?
Ben Ladin is not the AQ. The AQ consists of more members and leaders then just Osama. and i have yet to see any evidence validating this argument. Oh i have seen it argued over and over again but never has it been proven. To the contrary take a look at Saddam's finacial support of the families of those whom were involved in terror bombing.
And this come froms a first hand sournce? Where?
Now this is just absolutely ridiculous. I will remember this the next time you imply we should invade NK...
a democrat represents democracy?-Btw would you like to visit www.strategypage.com? There are plenty people there who are very well informed on the issue. I am sure the vast majority of the people there can give a recap of the events leading up to the attack on Iraq as well as provide arguments for both sides.
ByteMe, I'm saying that there are resolutions of the SC condaming Israel's actions. Legion said "General Assembly only", which they are not. Resolution 242 and 425 (among others) are SC resolutions. General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel include A/RES/58/99, A/RES/58/98, A/RES/58/96 (that's for this year).
Legion said:
The Clinton Administration was days away from bombing North Korea before the signing of the 1994 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They made it clear in no uncertain terms that if North Korea attempted to get a bomb, they were toast. What happened recently? The North Koreans pulled out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and resumed their nuclear work when the Bush Administration labeled them as part of the Axis of Evil and made it clear that they were a target.
As for Bin Laden, I read the article that Vince linked to in that other thread, and have done my own research on the subject. The question I had for Vince at the time, and I'll pose it to you as well is, was Bin Laden the monster criminal in 1996 that he has become known to the world today? Or was he merely a petty criminal that was maybe not on the radar? If he was a wanted terrorist, then yes it was a HUGE failure on the part of the Clinton Administration and that should be noted. However, if he wasn't, then that cannot be pegged as a failure on the part of the Clinton Administration.
I mean really, if we want to go back real far, let's blame the Reagan Administration for supporting Hussein in the 80s against the Iranians. Let's blame the Reagan Administration for creating, funding, and teaching what has now become Al-Qaeda, how to fight. Let's blame the first Bush Administration for not taking out Saddam when we were 50 miles from Baghdad and could have ended it all 12 years ago. There are no historical questions regarding those actions.
As for one dictator at a time. I thought this was about removing our worst threats? North Korea last year, and this year, present a FAR greater threat to our security and stability than Iraq ever did. Shouldn't it have been one dictator at a time, with Saddam as #2? I mean come now.
Legion said:
That's what the weapons inspectors were for Legion. As I said earlier in this thread, I believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, or was trying to acquire them. It was the circumvention of the UN process which is what I had a problem with. If we KNEW where the weapons were, as this administration stated, then we should have given that intel to the weapons inspectors. All of it.
But on top of that, we knew for a fact that the Nuke story the administration was pushing was completely false. We knew that in March of 2002. Yet it was still stated in January 2003 to the american public. Why is that? That little ditty put a big question mark on the rest that the administration was saying. That is the reason why people were saying lets go through the UN and see if our intelligence is correct. Because if the administration is saying Iraq tried to get Yellowcake from Niger, when in fact they didn't, and it came out that the documents were forged and we KNEW about that forgery months before the claims were made, what does that say about the rest of our claims?
Legion said:
Why does a nuke have to be attached to a missile? Who said anything about an ICBM? Never heard of a suitcase nuke?
Legion said:
Discussed above regarding whether or not Bin Laden should have been apprehended when we had the chance 8 years ago.
Legion said:
Again, who said anything about a missile attack? They could easily sell their nuke to someone who could pass it through our VERY porous ports and load it into a truck.
As for missile technology, if you really want to talk about that, NK will have missile technology that can hit the western seaboard of the continental US by 2005. How's that for a timetable?
And they can already nuke our allies South Korea and Japan. Shouldn't we have been thinking of them as well when we were ignoring NK's threats to restart their Nuke program last summer?
Legion said:
If we put as much diplomatic and military pressure on the North Koreans as we did Iraq, when NK had no nuke, you don't think China would have stepped in immediately to mediate? China has a far more vested interest in keeping us happy than keeping NK happy. Who is their largest export market? Who pumps the most funds into their business economy?
Money talks faster than anything else in this world, save for nukes. And at the time we should have been applying all our might into the situation, NK had no nukes whatsoever.
Legion said:
Stop splitting up my posts and read the whole thing before responding and you'd understand.
Legion said:
See my response regarding Clinton and NK above.
Legion said:
God if you want to go back all the way we need to blame Reagan for funding Bin Laden and AQ in the 80s. We thought we were stopping one problem and ended up creating a FAR worse one. If you want to blame all the way back that is.....
Legion said:
And you don't think North Korea would not do the same? Why is North Korea all of a sudden exempt from this same behavior? Hell as far as money goes, North Korea is in FAR more dire straits than Saddam. Saddam had BILLIONS in his personal coffers. You think he needed money?
Kim Jong Il would kill (literally) for that kind of money.
Legion said:
Oh please.
Legion said:
It's no more a democratic mess than it is a Republican mess. The 12 year domination of the white house ended with Saddam in power even after gassing his own people, slaughtering his people the good old fashioned way, and gassing his enemies. It ended with a fully funded, trained, and ready to go Al-Qaeda organization. If you really want to blame this whole thing actually, we can go back to the 50s and 60s when we set up puppet regimes in the middle east and in Latin America. I mean really now, enough.
Legion said:
Did you or did you not :
- Request quotes from officials of US government tying Iraq and Hussein to Al Quaida (quotes I provided)
- Affirmed resolutions condamning Israel were not from Security Council (which I debunked)
Until you answer to those two points, I don't think your accusations of "point dodging" will impress anyone.
Err... Why would I bother answering the points you invent on the spot each time your initial argument is debunked ? You didn't ask for a list of UN resolutions with which Israel did not comply, you affirmed that no SC resolution condamned Israel, which is totally false as exemplified by resolutions 242, 425. Two examples are IMHO good enough when you pretend none exist.
Where is the anti-Israeli rethoric in my posts ? I was just asking how is it that since refusing to comply to UN resolutions seems to be ground for US-invasion, how is it that with SC resolutions violated by Israel over the years (something that is not anti-Israeli, but rather the simple truth), the US did not invade Israel ?
My anti-Israel bias is in your mind only. Your double-thought and hypocrisy are for all to see. You made the point that the SC had never passed a resolution condamning Israel, I pointed you to two such resolutions.
Here is a good link to some more just so you can't dance around facts with your comments about "compliance" :
http://www.squall.co.uk/squall.cfm/ses/sq=2002091702/ct=6
Err... If the WMDs were destroyed, then how do you explain the Bush administration's rethoric about hundreds of liters of Sarin, Nerve Gas... BTW, if the WMDs were destroyed before the invasion, then what was the invasion for in the first place ? Oh, I get it, Saddam was that bad that he destroyed his WMDs just to spite the US after their invasion...
When I provided those links, I was responding to your request that specific quotes regarding Iraq/Al Quaida connections be provided. Does or does not my collection of links fits the bill and if not why ?
Where did you pull the "40 resolutions" figure from ? Certainly not from one of my posts. Another lie.
I provided links to various security resolutions condamning Israel, and links to quotes from Bush government officials stating links between Iraq and Al Quaida, two things you asked for. Your turn.
Perhaps because the President and his administration back then were not as mad with greed as the current one ? Perhaps because the US-driven coalition of 1991 had a clear UN mandate that did not mention anything about occupying Iraq and actually respected it ? Perhaps because the US did not have such clever think-tanks as the PNAC back then ?
The battle for oil is not only about price for the next year and filling SUVs, it's also about domination and strategic interests. Invading Iraq now and occupying it by force, removing its anti-US dictator (and former US friend) to replace him with a more US-friendly regime guarantees nearly exclusive access to Iraqi oil for the US, which is one of the pet dreams of the PNAC.
Violation or not of SC resolutions has to be voted by the Council, not decided by GW Bush. No resolution allowing the use of force against Iraq was voted by the SC with regard to the current WMD inspections. Hence the USA are waging an illegal war unapproved by the SC. Funny how on the one hand you and your fellow warmongers disregard the UN on the one hand, then say your illegitimate attacks are done to punish UN resolutions violations...
Do you really believe that crap ? Like they didn't have enough troops to protect both.
Actually you have tried to make points, then tried to make more points loosely related when the first ones were debunked. Your definition of refutation does not rely on logic or proof, but rather on repeating "No you are wrong" ad nauseam, which while amusing at first does not really qualify as actual refutation.
Link, please.
Like the English report or the Niger "yellow cake" stories ? BTW, if the US is so concerned about WMDs, why do White House officials break the covert identity of CIA specialists in WMDs (Ms Plame) ?
In which case Iraq was obeying SC resolutions, hence removing the need (if there ever was one) of US invasion. Thanks for demonstrating that to us.
Yep, other nations such as Micronesia were convinced too... BTW, Blair himself is toning down his WMD claims (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5387.htm). Of course, the British Parliament actually does the work it was elected for.
Decision of compliance or not with regard to UN SC resolution should have been voted by SC. The inspectors were making progresses, and said Iraq was cooperating better.
I can't believe it. Who said page 13 of this very thread : "As far as AL quaida is concerned you'll have to show me where it was suggested they were linked." ? Did or did not the links I provided show that Administration figures, including GW Bush, made a link between Hussein and Al Quaida specifically ?
Granted, most of the quotes had links to the transcript of the original sentence if you want some context. So far, you have only provided nauseating rethoric (accusations of anti-israelism), and childish "rebuttals" to the conversation. Stop saying we don't provide enough materials, contexts and proofs when you don't even bother providing a single link or quote.
"This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda" (George W. Bush, President, Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome 10/28/2002)
Please read the materials providing before trying to refute them, it would save you some embarassement.
See precedent quote by DA MAN himself. I hope this foot in your mouth won't prevent us from being torrented by your faulty, hateful rethoric ?
And I've yet to see any evidence validating the WMD theory... AQ is a Muslim extremist organisation, and as such is opposed as a whole to the Baath party of Saddam Hussein, which was a secular regime. This does not have much to do with personal inimities between Bin Laden and Hussein, it's an ideologic thing.
And where are the ties to Al Quaida in that ? If you want a real country with real ties to Al Quaida, why not start with invading the country from which nearly all the terrorists from 9/11 came ?
Now, that's a great and intelligent rebuttal.
As you may or may not know, the Baath party was ruthlessly limiting the power of the Muslim clerics, Hussein invaded Muslim-led Iran (ever heard of Ayatholla Khomeni ?)... Iraq under SH was your average US-sponsored dictatorship, and not a Muslim-based theocraty like Taliban Afghanistan or Khomeni's Iran...
Err, don't put your disgusting warmongering rethoric in my mouth, please. I never suggested invading NK, I said that considering the reasons put forward by the current US Government to invade Iraq, NK would have been a much more fitting target, as they are proven to have WMDs, including nukes. Of course, there's no oil in NK, and the country is not militarly crippled like Iraq was.
Free speech and asking people's opinions represent democracy. I thought you would know that, considering all the noise made about that word. Of course, we know better how exactly democracy and the right to assemble work, both in the USA and in the USA's 52d state, Iraq
Legion I realize you want to blame clinton for everything you can since you are a conservative, but natoma is right. What he did stopped NK from pursuing the bomb. Now they are again due to bush.
I agree though one at a time. Lets do what Clinton did to Iraq. Threaten them and bomb them, we could easily keep NK from pursuing it again, but we have to offer some reward, no bigger than before though else it will repeat over and over, and we have to have a credible threat to kick their arse.
I gotta say I feel sorry for South koreans (who want us to leave btw, lol they think they will be safer if we aren't their to protect em), and Japanese I mean they are really in danger from NK that man is a lunatic for sure.
I agree though one at a time. Lets do what Clinton did to Iraq. Threaten them and bomb them, we could easily keep NK from pursuing it again, but we have to offer some reward, no bigger than before though else it will repeat over and over, and we have to have a credible threat to kick their arse.
I gotta say I feel sorry for South koreans (who want us to leave btw, lol they think they will be safer if we aren't their to protect em), and Japanese I mean they are really in danger from NK that man is a lunatic for sure.
I'll have to disagree with you there.Sxotty said:
Clinton stopped nothing. THe NK have been silently pursuing their nuclear arsenal all these years. They've simply come up for air and decided they can blackmail for more.
Kyoto was never ratified.CorwinB said:
ABM was disolved, as allowed by the treaty.
US never signed the landmine treaty.
So, again, which treaty has the good Ol' US of A not honored?
CorwinB said:
Saddam/iraq was found in violation of 14 chapter 7 resolutions. Chapter 7 resolutions by UN bylaw allows the use of military force to enforce. We can not help it if some countries will not "follow-up" on the UN resolutions that they had voted for. The USA is not such a chicken.
I requested quotes asserting AQ was a reason to attack Iraq. I never stated "terrorism" in general wasn't a reason. You links associated aq with terrorism
YOu didn't debunk it. You can't show how Israel is in violation of either the present SC resolution.
I have answer them both.
Because you neither invented them nor are htey invented. You are attempting to escape having to back your accussations. Thats all.
No i said the bulk of were more than likely GA resolutions. Apart of that debate was the nature of Israel being in violation of these resolutions. Providing information that some of the resolutions are SC proves nothing other than they exist. If they aren't inviolation of a resolution calling for their being invading what are you arguing?
You mentioning of the more than 20 resolutions that israel is "in violation" of is one good example.
ANd i was just refuting your ridiculous assertion the resolution on Iraq and Israel call for similiar responses. You also haven't provided how israel is in violation of these resolutions.
Will you please provide how Israel is inviolation of these SC resolutions and what you think all these resolutions are. What you have presented so far doesn't call for them to be invaded. They have shown to be complying with resolutions.
Interesting that you derive that i was refering to you out of this statement and not those who voted on the resolutions.
You actually haven't pointed out how israel is in violation of these resolutions nor how being in violation would call for their invasion. Its not double thought or hypocrasy. Its evidence of your completel incapacity to reason or validating your rather weak arguments.
reads more like a list of bias...
I wouldn't. I never heard much of liters of Sarin Nerve gas.
What a ridiculous argument. If we knew they had destroyed in the first place why would we have attacked them?
[qipote]When I provided those links, I was responding to your request that specific quotes regarding Iraq/Al Quaida connections be provided. Does or does not my collection of links fits the bill and if not why ?[/quote]
You provided links which refuted your assertion AQ outside of support of terrorism was a reason for the invasion. So again your a simply posturing. You haven't proven anything thus far. You have only made assertions you've never planned on backing.
Wasn't Londonboy quoting you when he mentioned this?
No, you provided links of SC resolutions against israel which you haven't proven Israel is in violation of. Many of them are over 30 years old.
Something else i have pointed out to you is the lack of sc resolutions against Israel's opposition. its rather telling there aren't any resolutions against palestinian support of terrorism to speak of. That should raise many questions in your mind.
Perhaps you are simply striving for an argument which lacks any real logical basis?
and they couldn't have just taken it but they could take it now? Please. Come up with something better. With all the crap you could be reading on those indymedia websites you ought to be able to come up with more amusing arguments then this.Interests which could have been met in '91. You haven't provided a single reason with any logical basis as to why we'd fight another war. lose billions more for oil that wouldn't cover the cost. The notions is completely assinine.
Another great example of your incapacity to respond or make associations!
In '91 we could have taken out Saddam and replaced him with a US friendly leader but we infact did not. Why? UN mandate? DOn't be ridiculous. America had hardly any interest in the Iraqi oil until just recently during the invasion of Iraq. Many more nations of the UN had their hands in corrupt dealings with Saddam even before the Oil for Food act. If anything Saddam was left in power to suit their means.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
There are plenty that would call for Iraq's invasion especially concerning WMDs.
If you can believe the crap you do why would you doubt anything that others believe?
Actually i have made very many valid points against your arguments. You just persist with your posturing and consistant rhetoric that you have "debunked" me without providing evidence for your claims or that you have provided "refutations" when you haven't explained how israel is in violations of the SC resolutions you have provided.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0n2h0
http://www.meib.org/articles/0110_ir1.htm
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=446
http://216.26.163.62/2003/guest_holton_2_06.html
I think even you have enough common sense to derive they destroyed what they had a bit before or during our attack on them. Thanks you demonstrating your complete lack of reasoning.
Yes they were convinced. There were definately valid reasons to believe Saddam did infact have WMD.Your oil argument rests as one of the most ridiculous invectives of the opposition.
And why were they disobeying them in the first place? I see this a valid reason to believe the were destroyin them or moving them.
Yes the links you gave provide associations with AQ after making associations of AQ with terrorism as a whole. Their support souly for AQ was never provided as a reason to attack Saddam. Infact terrorism as whole which included AQ was provided as reason. Also the speaches where these quotes were borrowed aren't provided so we have no idea what the context of the statements were.
Then yes i'd suggest you read them as your use of the quotes doesn't validate AQ outside of terrorism as a whole was reason to attack Iraq.
[quote[So far, you have only provided nauseating rethoric (accusations of anti-israelism), and childish "rebuttals" to the conversation. Stop saying we don't provide enough materials, contexts and proofs when you don't even bother providing a single link or quote.[/quote]
this is clearly more an projection of yourself of your behaviors on me. You have constitanyl repeated yourself without validating any of your arguments while drawing very child like thought associations between sc resolution violations and the AQ links. Your rather weak arguments certainly isn't validated by your posturing anymore your associations.
Again, yet another projection. Please cut out your posturing. It doesn't serve your arugment.
This has already been refuted.
But your position is more valid? Your double standard is duly noted.
A rather nonsensical statement statement in light of the fact Saddam has support terrorist agency in the past. To argue ideology is some how in favor or Saddam not supporting terrorist agencies is another one of your weak arguments.
You can't drop the AQ issue can you? AQ was associated within the links you gave to other terrorist agencies. The terrorist support was used as a valid reason to remove Saddam. Your AQ strawman doesn't address the fact that yes, Saddam had terrorist ties.
To have an intelligent refutation i first require something intelligent to refute. With such a baseless accussation as you have provided in light of the evidence Saddam has supported terrorism I am left to assume you are using selective reasoning.
And yet he did support terrorism. Which provides for there being more to the issue then simply whether your Shi'a, Sunni or even Sufi Muslims. As if the terrorists are at all concerned as to where they are receiving money.
If you please drop your mindless litany of half truths and unsupported accussation i would gladly ignore you entirely.
And under the circumstance i provided very valid reason to put off attacking NK and putting Iraq first which included Chinese support.
As much as i would love to continue debating i must stop for several days. My obssession with various forums and other activities are taking their tole on my relationship with my fiance. She just exploded on me for not paying more attention to her and i don't anymore fighting. I am begining to fear i might lose her.
My email and screen names are provided for as well as the PM service on this board in particular. If you wish for me to response to anything you can reach me via other media.
I am really tired of this pointless arguing and i won't stick around for any of this.
And if you like i'll just admit i was wrong. Go ahead believe what you want. I am not going to convince you otherwise. You can even consider this me running away. I doubt you'd think of it as anything else. I really don't fucking care right now.
My email and screen names are provided for as well as the PM service on this board in particular. If you wish for me to response to anything you can reach me via other media.
I am really tired of this pointless arguing and i won't stick around for any of this.
And if you like i'll just admit i was wrong. Go ahead believe what you want. I am not going to convince you otherwise. You can even consider this me running away. I doubt you'd think of it as anything else. I really don't fucking care right now.
RussSchultz said:
I suppose that's why they timed their "coming up for air" bit right after Bush said they were part of the Axis of Evil and made no uncertain claims that they were being targetted? NK was very close to a nuke in 1994. Maybe a year away. How could they have been silently pursuing their nuclear arsenal when they restarted their program last year, and voila, a year later they have 2-3 bombs with a few more on the way?
It simply doesn't add up Russ. If they were really pursuing nukes, they would have had them years ago. The 1994 Non-Proliferation Treaty most certainly stopped them from going any further.
