Quote:
Quote:
[ 12-16-2003, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: sultan ] |
Go visit the 40 towns Saddam bombed with mustard gas and tell them Saddam didn't have WMD. Speculation and investigation are one thing, but a picture's worth a thousand words.
Besides, this failed to quote the portion where Bush mentioned Iraq had failed to disarm for 12 years and that the US had causa belli (yes, Bush used that word, though I prolly mispelled it) to go in. He also stated he went to the UN and told them to do something or the coalition would -- he gave them the chance. As I recall it, they turned to a lengthy discussion about what the pres said rather than turning to dealing with Saddam."Feckless debate" were his words, IIRC. A very good interview, though misrepresented in the article you posted. ;) |
wow, timber. i'm impressed that your response could completely ignore the articles posted. i suspect you are playing devil's advocate, so rather than resummarise the above articles' points, let me respond to your points.
Go visit the 40 towns Saddam bombed with mustard gas and tell them Saddam didn't have WMD. Speculation and investigation are one thing, but a picture's worth a thousand words. key word: had. there's no evidence he had them at the time the little oil monkee and his special interest buddies decided it was in their personal wealth's best interest to invade. Besides, this failed to quote the portion where Bush mentioned Iraq had failed to disarm for 12 years and that the US had causa belli (yes, Bush used that word, though I prolly mispelled it) to go in. He also stated he went to the UN and told them to do something or the coalition would -- he gave them the chance. As I recall it, they turned to a lengthy discussion about what the pres said rather than turning to dealing with Saddam."Feckless debate" were his words, IIRC. A very good interview, though misrepresented in the article you posted. the UN was in the process of enforcing its resolutions with the help of a group of investigators led by a fellow named hans blix. at the time of the US led invasion, there was no evidence that saddam was in contravention of the UN resolutions. it's ironic that now that the US cannot find evidence, either, they are begging for more time - exactly what the UN wanted before the texas ranger, the british avenger, and the midget of steel stormed the gates. besides, if we are going to start invading every country that fails to live up to the letter of obligations imposed by UN resolutions, let's start with the biggest offender in history: israel. let me be clear: i dont care if israel is jewish, muslim, christian, hindu, pagan, or raelian. what i do care about is the rampant lies and hypocrisy behind bush's administration pursuing their private agenda in the name of the american people unchecked. |
I don't care to rehash all of this yet again again. Saddam's failures to comply with resolutions it agreed to accept is rather well documented, and as you said the UN addressing noncompliance at the time -- as it had been for 12 years. In a nutshell, Saddam agreed to destroy a certain amount of weapons (which it agreed it had), yet never documented any such destruction. I, for one, don't think S.H. would have destroyed them covertly -- especially since he was so adepts at calling out inspectors when he cut up a few missiles as a last-ditch effort to show a lame attempt at compliance. Ack.... I said I wouldn't get sucked in, yet there I go.
Let me just say I disagree for several reasons. Iraq is not Israel, and the misdeeds of one country cannot justify the misdeeds of another. If Israel should be accorded more attention, then so be it -- but that is a separate issue altogether. Anyway, I'm not about to get drawn into defending W. I will note that the articles, which I may have ignored a bit, are more opinion than fact, that I prefer the hour-long Bush interview I saw as a source of information, and that however much one may mistrust Bush, there can be no doubt that the biggest liar of all is S.H. the Butcher of Baghdad. For all his faults, G.W.B. has never set weapons against his own people and he does not behead those who speak against him -- in fact he widely recognizes their right to their opinion. Comparing this man to S.H. or any other megalomaniacal dictator is an insult to my country because it so brazenly ignores so many basic facts. |
opinion not fact? fine, dont read the articles, but then keep your opinions about their content to yourself.
if you had bothered to look more closely, you would have found the articles included excerpts from the very interview you say you prefer as a source of information. did you just suck up everything bush said as gospel, or did you integrate it with everything else we know about the supposed causes of the war. had you pursued this little intellectual exercise, you would have to conclude he's either a liar or a hypocrite, possibly both, who started a war without justification in the eyes of the world. i didnt see any comparison between w and saddam at all, so i dont know where that came from. perhaps a bit of knee-jerk american-centric defensiveness? maybe it's okay for americans to criticise the little oil monkee, but not the rest of the world? would it matter if i said i'm an american citizen? that my grand-parents came through ellis island 100 years ago? that i was born and raised in a big city, say chicago, and went to school, right through university, in illinois? would that make my opinion any more or less valid? i'm seeing a whole lot of rationalising so you can all clear your consciences, and it's at times disconerting and other times pathetic. i, for one, will not so blithely forget. and you can bet the rest of the world wont, either. rather than bury your heads in the sand, it's time to take a cold, hard look at how exactly america is presenting itself and what this will mean to the future of foreign relations. |
He's probably a hypocrit, we all are. It's called being human.
He's not an intentional liar from all I've reviewed. I'd prefer to say he was, mind you. I was just saying it was insulting to Americans, whether or not you are or are not one. It presupposes our country would allow someone to commit atrocities, which it would not. At least not on us. ;) Yes, I did percieve the articles as comparing the two men. Rationalizing to clear my conscious. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] What conscious? I'm amoral, don't you know? I prefer trees to people, relish the though of people dying because of the overpopulation problem, and think we'd all be better off with a good orgy in our lives every now and them. I'm also an atheist and, ergo, the antichrist, in case you haven't heard. Soothe my conscious. Pffffft. Look, these articles center around this one excerpt: ______________________________________________ The evidence, compiled by Australian investigative reporter John Pilger, shows that well before the American invasion of Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Bush National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had affirmed that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to America or Iraq’s neighbors. In Cairo, on February 24, 2001, Secretary Powell declared, “Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” Then, on May 15, 2001, Powell boasted that America’s containment policy had prevented Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction or restoring his prior military power. Bush National Security Advisor Rice seconded Powell saying, “We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” ____________________________________________ Okay, never heard that before. But, I'd like to see proof from sources I trust, not liberal overreachers. The impeachment bit -- again [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] If, IF, this were true, it's Condi and Coli on the line, not Bushie. Anyway, I have to go -- you've made me late for a date, or I guess I've made myself late. In closing, I reiterate that the first report selectively quoted Bush, which is unfair. Second, SADDAM ADMITTED HE HAD WEAPONS, AGREED TO DESTROY THEM AND PROVIDE PROOF OF SAME, AND FOR 12 LONG YEARS DICKED WITH THE UN OVER THE WHOLE AFFAIR. It was not a Treaty or a Peace protecting him, but a Cease Fire. Invading him was NOT illegal at all. Even absent any evidence whatsoever of WMD, the fact he admitted having them is enough. If he admitting to having what he did not have, then he only got caught in his own web of deceit and got what was good for him. In closing, I'm about sick of this whole damned forum. I've repeated myself for too damned long here, and I'm just frankly sick of getting carpal tunnel from writing the same damned thing all the damned time. I'm also sick of coming somewhere where you get beat up if you're not a left-winger, and I'm sick of how many good members you guys have run off. This whole damned forum was possibly a bad f**king idea. |
Quote:
We have laws, treaties and courts to deal with conflicts - and if the judgement doesn't go our way, so be it. That's the difference between civilisation and barbarism. |
There's a very thin line between civilisation and barbarism though. I mean, manufacturing a bomb that destroys a metropolis.... how would you describe that ? Civilised ? Barbaric ?
|
Judgment did and will go the US's way. The UN will think twice before putting "all measures necessary" in a cease-fire accord again, though, won't they?
|
Quote:
Well then you should quit spewing them. You remind me of someone....Noro...something..or was that Eisen...someone? Ahh well no matter. You really have a severe chip on your shoulder. Just a suggestion, but you should relax a bit or your gonna get an ulcer. </font> |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved