Not even the remnants of a hurricane will allow me to stop from refuting EVERTHING you are spewing as fact, without taking EVERYTHING into the same context as your "I know all because i read un-named books" view.
Bottom line is the UN did NOT back the United States in this intervention.
Thanks for that. No kidding...and for umpteenth time, just because some countries didn't vote for it to happen....doesnt mean it was wrong, nor anything but self-serving. You still havent contradicted that FACT!
Get over it already. Its done.
So is the war and the removal of a dictator that reigns as one of the worst of our time. Your own medicine is well served.
All the "international conspiracy theories" you want to dream up are not going to change the fact that the international community did not believe the evidence presented was reason to invade.
You make it too easy for a supposedly well read guy.
You are spewing the "conspiracy" angle all over this board that the US is controlled by a bunch of guys that are niether elected nor in power by force, but instead control things because they have been around as advisors to those in position of control through 3 presidents and 15 years. OK...got it.
Here is an example of the FACTS of what these supposed "neo-cons" that controlled the government and TOLD the President of the US to do..whether or not he was in agreement. Again from David Kay...you know, the guy you dismissed as "only an inspector"?>..(I will get back to this in a while)
I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.
The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
Face it, the US went in on their own accord,
Yep..they had the balls to follow up on what everyone else said...agreed.
Everything Bush wanted to achieve in regards to terrorism after 9/11 he has washed away with the action of going into Iraq. He has lost world sympathy.
What was it he wanted to achieve exactly? Annihalation? If so, at least he tried something and didnt sit on his hands and do nothing...which is clearly your foolish idea. Sympathy? Really...is that what being the head of the worlds biggest superpower is supposed to do? I can see the speech now... " Im sorry America, but i couldnt do what i thought was best because others in the world wouldnt like it and therefor we will allow Hussein and his ilk to conduct business as they feel necessary...which is all OK as long as we dont upset their way of thinking".
Got it.
He has INCREASED the numbers of Arabs volunteering to join the fight.
More made up stuff from your phantom books. If this is the case...why hasnt a SINGLE event occurred on US soil since 9/11?
Cant wait for this answer. After all....ARABS (of any nationality apparently) hate the US even more than ever...and want to kill us all...yet havent done a THING. One more time...got it.
Just admit that this was the dumbest move possible by Bush and has blown up in his face big time. The world is not a safer place, as Bush likes to say. The action in Iraq has made it a lot more dangerous as more and more scores are now to be evened by the Arabs.
Yeah...it was dumber than doing NOTHING....got it. Maybe I am happier that a battle that HAS to be fought is happening in Iraq and not next door to me or YOU. Selfish and self-serving on my part? You bet, and i will not apologize for it.
Get a grip already Lanny. If this thing had come to your doorstep you would be screaming from the rooftops that THIS IS BUSH'S fault as well. So NO MATTER what he did....you would still be bleating like an injured goat about...well....something.
Hussein allowed weapons inspectors back into the country after the last resolution was passed, so don't make it sound like Iraq was completely non-compliant.
Holy crap...are you truly this stupid?
The inspectors you speak of were only allowed back in AFTER the US threatened military action.
Werent non-compliant?? You are truly spewing BS like never before in an argument...and thats saying a WHOLE bunch. Fer chrissakes...THE UN SAID THEY WERE NON-COMPLIANT...or are they part of your fantasy conspiracy as well? I have 17 resolutions from your UN "buddies" that say as much...what you got?
Hilarious and denegrades anything you say just that much more...though at this point what does it matter?
The weapons inspection teams were all saying that they wanted more access, but they were satisfied with the way things were going and felt progress was being made.
Pure and utter LIES. Nothing else to say...i can quote your buddy Hans Blix as saying EXACTLY the opposite if you so choose. Your "books" are making you look foolish man...give it up.
Here is just ONE example from a Blix report in January of '03.
While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current “unresolved disarmament issues” and “key remaining disarmament tasks” in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.
They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq’s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.
Sound like "they were satisfied with the way things were going and felt progress was being made"??
Anser honestly.
The fact of the matter is that nothing had been found in almost a decade of searching
LOL!!...OK...im gonna send you my address and tell you that i will be there, and when you find me, i will shake your hand and give you $100...but the day before you want to see me, you have to tell me where you want to find me, and i will have my buddies "escort" you there...and my neighbors wont be allowed to tell you which way i went either....and when you cant find me and complain to the mayor of the city...you can then just say "well he didnt exist from the get go, even though i saw hime before".
Thats your argument. AS supported by both Blix and Kay.
You are falling fast.
Uh no, I don't want the US to go into Sudan.
Why not? Your OK with senseless killings? Your choice i guess.
[b]My point is that if the US is hell bent on removing bloodthirsty dictators, like you say they are,
then should they not also be in Sudan removing a maniacal dictator who IS killing his people RIGHT NOW.[/B]
Yeah.....not like they havent gone to war over this before .......whoops. They did go into Iraq to stop this same thing, among other things. What in the hell is your point?
It has nothing to do with me having a double standard,
Every argument you make...hockey or otherwise, is a double standard...dont go changing to try and please me now.
What containment? How about the containment that the US and British forces had provided for a decade? Retired CENTOM commander, Gen. Anthony Zinni, outlined exactly how containment worked when he appeared before a congressional committee on the matter.
Here we go yet again. Double standard time folks. You clammored laft, right and center just a couple weeks ago how the 9/11 commision was full of manure. One that had all levels of government and military give tesimony, and was decared by YOU as a big pile of non-sense. Yet here you are using another example of PUBLIC testimony (to a government committee no less) too "try" and prove a point. Seriously...which way is it man? Your way is OK and everything else is made up? Again...you make this way to easy.
The US had personnel on bases in six different countries prior to the invasion of Iraq. There was an understanding and good will between the Arabs and the Americans. Hussein was a threat to no one in the region let alone a threat to the United States
Now I know your nothing but a looney.
Ask the good folks of Kuwait and Jordan and Israel and Iran if this flippin moron was "a threat to no one"....good lord.
Who is making sh*t up again? Maybe you should do some reading. Try a book, a web site, the Sunday funnies, one of your coloring books, I personally don't care what you read, but try getting somewhat informed before jousting.
You are....like you always have and always do.
One more time you "double-standard" yourself...very good at it as well i might add.
This is what you said to someone else just days ago.
You know nothing about me, nothing about my situation, so I'd advise you to stick to the subject matter
AmI not afforded the same right as you demand Lanny? Thought so.
Blix had inspection teams right up until the US went into Iraq. You don't remember how the inspection teams were warned to get out of Iraq a couple weeks before the invasion
Yes...and why were they there? Because the US threatened...whats your point?
And now YOU are dealing in "what might of beens"?? Holy crap you truly do contradict yourself every time you open your mouth...keep it up.... i find it so entertaining.
Head of UN Weapons inspections? Uh, that was Hans Blix. David Kay was an inspector.
Oh boy. So Blix has a larger standing in your eyes than that of Kay? Yet, they both held the same position (with different names)...and only ONE of them was there for ANY length of time.? Nice argument again Lanny. Wow.
Here is your comparison using FACT...(you do know what that is anymore dont you?)
David Kay is a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. In 1991, he served as chief nuclear weapons inspector of UNSCOM, the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq.
And since you RELY on Blix for your "unbiased information"...I suggest you but some more of these "books" you regale about...he isnt exactly "the guy" to lean on in support of your "argument".
During the 74-year-old Blix's tenure as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency—the U.N. organization that enforces compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—from 1981 to 1997, the Swedish diplomat developed a reputation as Mr. Magoo crossed with Inspector Clouseau. His most dramatic failure occurred when IAEA failed to uncover Iraq's nuclear program during the late 1980s. As Blix told the Guardian earlier this year, "It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis."
Maybe you should do some reading. Try a book, a web site, the Sunday funnies, one of your coloring books, I personally don't care what you read, but try getting somewhat informed before jousting. Its embarassing.
One word moron...MIRROR. Or your Clown Monthly book. What differance does it make?
Don't be padding his resume too much (nee making sh*t up) there Tranny.
Uhhh...the entire anti-war side was trumpeting his words to SUPPORT themselves BEFORE the war.....why is it different now? And you know why they were Lanny...he was there BEST ammo by a mile...whoops!! I hardly need to "pad" David Kays resume, it speaks for itself and its a mile more legitimate than that of Hans Blix. But hey...why let fatcs get in the way of a good Lanny nonsensical rant huh?
Again I will re-iterate...NOTHING i have said in this thread is in dispute with regards to WMD.
Iraq had them... we know that.
Hussein used them...we know that.
He refused to co-operate with the UN inspectors EVERY time they asked before 98...we know that.
We know that once the UN got serious about things...he kicked them out...for 4 years (apparently THIS is the time frame when Hussein got a conscience and decided to be a good guy and destroy the weapons he has been developing for decades....got it)
This will be my final piece on this with you Lanny, because you are full of crap as per normal.
You have rhetoric, bluster, YOUR opinion, and NO fact as to the WMD part of the argument, other than they havent found them. That doesnt mean they NEVER existed.. You argue that Bush "lied" about WMD in Iraq, yet Russia, China, Germany, France, and about 10 other security council members all AGREED he had them.
You havent a leg to stand on in that argument...none.
I await a reponse that TRIES to switch the subject matter yet again, as is your M.O. on everything you start to get schooled in.
Have fun with it..but it really is getting old.