US military action likely caused birth defects in Fallujah, Iraq - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-05-2010, 07:54 PM   #91
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Resolution 155130945872340597

Clinton video

Resolution 1230498723409732

Clinton video

>>> set on repeat






























There I'm done.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 08:45 PM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post

YouTube - ‪President Clinton orders attack on Iraq‬‎

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and far all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of in-action. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. SADDAM WILL STRIKE AGAIN at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people, and mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them.

President Bill Clinton
December 16, 1998


yes, Bill Clinton was an outstanding President, I remember 1998 fairly well.

Amazing that he had the skills to accomplish so much while facing a relentless unjustified personal attacks

can you give me some context for Dec 1998?

Quote:
Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999
what was the jest of this one speech, that weapons inspectors should continue inspecting and prevent Saddam from rearming?

that Iraqis should try to replace Saddam,


Presidents have called for people of different countries to change their governments, Iran, North Korea, several African countries, come to mind.

and for decades Presidents have been calling for Castro's ouster in Cuba.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2010, 09:15 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i still don't buy it Sean, do you?

(and, please, see if you can respond for once without the vicious personal attacks that you're so famous for, lest i have to take out my ruler and rap your delinquent knuckles)
I'll try to refrain from further ugliness.

No, I don't buy it. The arguments that have been put forth are unchanging--despite their obvious ineffectivness--and rigid. It's like Inception. He creates this false alternate reality, this architecture if you will,and then fills them with a collection of actual facts.

I am convinced that Saddam was a bad guy. I am convinced that he did horrible things to his own people and invaded neighboring countries. I am also convinced that Saddam's number one goal was to perpetuating his own rule. I am convinced that he was not a religious fanatic willing to give his life in the service of some higher cause. I am convinced that Saddam was a ruthless pragmatist. Thus I am convinced that Saddam would not have used WMD on other countries, much less our own, because it would have suicide for him to do so. He might have tried to become an Iran or North Korea, using the "threat" of mass destruction as a way to shoulder his way amongst the international power players. I am convinced he would have blustered a lot, made enough noise to get attention, but not enough to merit an actual attack on his power. I am convinced that continuing to use other means to keep him in check would have been sufficient. I am convinced that we were misled about the reasons that we should go to war in Iraq.

I am not sure whether Iraq is better or worse off without Saddam--my guess is that depends on who you talk to in Iraq. I'm sure the Kurds and Shi'ites are happier with this arrangment. I am not convinced that the region is more stable with him gone. I am not convinced that our nation is better off for having gone to war in Iraq. I am not convinced that we should have gone to war in Iraq. And I'm quite familiar with the same evidence that's been trotted out to the contrary over and over again, so unless there is some new arguments to be made, I'm afraid I won't be convinced. I am however, open to such new arguments if any posters have them.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 11:06 AM   #94
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I'll try to refrain from further ugliness.


you know i was kidding, right?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 11:09 AM   #95
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:30 PM
and in other news, i still don't see the case for invading Iraq. it's all predicated on fantasies and imagined worst-case scenarios, rather than concrete facts and evidence.

we simply don't have the blood and treasure to pour into sand traps, and by doing so we've exposed the limits of US power and greatly reduced our soft power.

sorry. still not buying it.

you'd think after all these years and these repetitious posts that someone would be on board. but as the years have gone by, not so much.

guess the argument was weak from the beginning. oh well. now we know.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2010, 10:19 AM   #96
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Saddam did use WMD...how can you conclude he would not?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2010, 10:55 PM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
you know i was kidding, right?
I did.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2010, 10:56 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
Saddam did use WMD...how can you conclude he would not?
So have we.

The issue for me is less whether Saddam ever had or used WMD and more about whether he was likely to use them against us or anyone that would cause us to feel duty-bound to come after him.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 02:25 PM   #99
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
yes, Bill Clinton was an outstanding President, I remember 1998 fairly well.

Amazing that he had the skills to accomplish so much while facing a relentless unjustified personal attacks

can you give me some context for Dec 1998?



what was the jest of this one speech, that weapons inspectors should continue inspecting and prevent Saddam from rearming?

that Iraqis should try to replace Saddam,


Presidents have called for people of different countries to change their governments, Iran, North Korea, several African countries, come to mind.

and for decades Presidents have been calling for Castro's ouster in Cuba.
Every time Saddam failed to cooperate with UN inspectors or failed to meet his obligations under the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement, it was an example of Saddam defying the world.

What Bill Clinton said below is true:

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and far all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

North Korea is not in violation of any UN Security Council resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the UN. North Korea has not invaded another country in 60 years, and its not used WMD against another country. Saddam's Iraq over the past couple of decades went to war multiple times against countries in the region and threatened resources that are vital to the economic survival of the planet. Saddam has used WMD against another country. The threat posed by Saddam was far greater than any of the other countries you listed given the facts of Saddams open agreession and use of WMD against other countries.

In addition, the Iraqi people NEVER had the capability to overthrow Saddam on their own do to the strength of Saddam's police state and military forces. The only way that Saddam could be removed was through a US led military invasion of the country.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 02:39 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 08:30 PM
duh, there´ll be civil war in Iraq for the next 10 years minimum. i don´t even want to count all the victims , every second day we hear a bomb has been planted here and there and everywhere, 40 dead, 80 dead, 100 school children dead.

the whole plan of the U.S. must have been to destabilize the region. hooray!
__________________
hiphop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 02:56 PM   #101
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I'll try to refrain from further ugliness.

No, I don't buy it. The arguments that have been put forth are unchanging--despite their obvious ineffectivness--and rigid. It's like Inception. He creates this false alternate reality, this architecture if you will,and then fills them with a collection of actual facts.
Please, can you explain what this "false alternate reality" is? What did I say that was "false". Name one thing!


Quote:
I am convinced that Saddam was a bad guy. I am convinced that he did horrible things to his own people and invaded neighboring countries.
What were your feelings on the 1991 Gulf War? Did you support it, unlike most democrats that opposed it? If you did support it, what were some of your reasons for supporting it?


Quote:
I am also convinced that Saddam's number one goal was to perpetuating his own rule. I am convinced that he was not a religious fanatic willing to give his life in the service of some higher cause. I am convinced that Saddam was a ruthless pragmatist.
Well, can you explain why a "ruthless pragmatist" would invade Iran in 1980? Why would someone so interested in the self preservation of their rule take a risk like that? Why would a "ruthless pragmatist" after a devestating 8 year war then invade Kuwait and annex the country starting a conflict with the United States and the international community as well as bringing his country under international sanctions. Whats the pratical benefit in doing this? How does it ensure the survival of himself and his regime?

After losing the 1991 Gulf War, why would this "ruthless pragmatist" defy the international community and refuse to comply with the UN resolutions? All this did was increase the likely hood of more US military action. And it came in the form of airstrikes and finally a ground invasion which removed the regime in 2003.

A ruthless pragmatist would not have spent two decades invading and attacking other countries in the region and going to war with the United States which finally removed him. The safe conservative approach would have been for a leader in Iraq to develop the Iraqi oil industry and other natural resources. Invading and attack other countries is risky under any circumstances, let alone doing it to simply increase ones power.

If Saddam was ever interested in self preservation, he never showed anyone through his actions. The only true threat to Saddam's regime was a US military invasion of the country. Despite that fact, Saddam continued to engage in activites to make that day come true up to the time of his removal from power.

Quote:
Thus I am convinced that Saddam would not have used WMD on other countries, much less our own, because it would have suicide for him to do so
WOW, LOL, WOW. For someone who frets over unchanging arguements and facts, its interesting to note that after all this time that your ignorant of the fact that SADDAM ALREADY HAD USED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AGAINST ANOTHER COUNTRY![/U]

Quote:
He might have tried to become an Iran or North Korea, using the "threat" of mass destruction as a way to shoulder his way amongst the international power players.
Saddam's regime was far ahead of both Iran and North Korea because Saddam's regime used WMD on the battlefield against foreign troops!!!!!!

Iran and North Korea have NEVER amassed the same amount of conventional and unconventional military strength and used in an area of the world vital to its economic survival, in the way that Saddam's regime did.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 03:09 PM   #102
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 12:30 PM
After 7 years of rehashing the same argument over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, I think it's safe to say that no one is changing their minds.

I'm not convinced, Irvine's not convinced, sean's not convinced, and I daresay I don't think any of us are looking to argue with you about it either. We know your position. We just happen to disagree with it.

Let it go, Sting.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 03:58 PM   #103
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiphop View Post
duh, there´ll be civil war in Iraq for the next 10 years minimum. i don´t even want to count all the victims , every second day we hear a bomb has been planted here and there and everywhere, 40 dead, 80 dead, 100 school children dead.

the whole plan of the U.S. must have been to destabilize the region. hooray!
there is not a civil war in Iraq now, and most say that the events of 2006-2007 could not be viewed as a civil war. Far more Iraqi's were killed during the reign of Saddam Hussien than any who have died. There have been months during 2010 when the death rate in Iraq was lower than the death rate in the United States.

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the oil wealth they sit on top of is far more secure now that Saddam has been removed.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 04:10 PM   #104
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I am convinced he would have blustered a lot, made enough noise to get attention, but not enough to merit an actual attack on his power.
It was already determined with the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire Agreement that if Saddam crossed certain lines in the sand with regard to his cooperation, that military action would resume. These lines came well before invading or attacking another country. The international community had already been through that before with Saddam and the object was to PREVENT that from happening again. The goal was to respond before an invasion or attacked occured, not to wait until after a tragedy like that occured before responding.

Quote:
I am convinced that continuing to use other means to keep him in check would have been sufficient.
As has already been explained here in detail, the sanctions and weapons embargo meant to try to contain him had collapsed! So what other means are you talking about?


Quote:
I am not sure whether Iraq is better or worse off without Saddam--my guess is that depends on who you talk to in Iraq. I'm sure the Kurds and Shi'ites are happier with this arrangment.
Take a look at Saddam's history. You'll learn what Iraq was like for 24 years and how he put millions of people through war, torture, starvation, chemical attack. The highest accurate estimate for all deaths in Iraq over the past 7 years is 200,000. The number of Iraqi's who died in the first four months of 1991 from the Gulf War and uprisings in the country afterword, 400,000.

According to the United Nations, Iraq today has a standard of living equal to that of Morocco based on its life expectancy, GDP per capita, and education level. The country has bright opportunities now for development that did not exist while Saddam was in power.

Kurds and Shia make up 80% of Iraq. I think there is only a small fraction of Sunni's today that actually wish Saddam was still in power.


Quote:
I am not convinced that the region is more stable with him gone.
Well look at from the perspective of Kuwait. Do you think Kuwait would be safer and more secure if Saddam were still in power today?

Quote:
I am not convinced that our nation is better off for having gone to war in Iraq. I am not convinced that we should have gone to war in Iraq.
Are you convinced that leaving Saddam in power in 2003 would have been better for US national security, the region, and the safety and security of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? How does leaving Saddam in power improve security?


Quote:
And I'm quite familiar with the same evidence that's been trotted out to the contrary over and over again, so unless there is some new arguments to be made, I'm afraid I won't be convinced.
It does not seem like your very familiar with the evidence at all when you state above that Saddam had never used WMD against another country.

Your ability to make an accurate assement about Iraq or the region will continued to be compromised as long as you remain ignorant of the basic history.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2010, 04:42 PM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post

Your ability to make an accurate assement about Iraq or the region will continued to be compromised as long as you remain ignorant of the basic history.
Perhaps you're right. Could you provide me a link to an article that describes Iraq's use of WMD against another country?
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama General Discussion diamond Free Your Mind Archive 1009 06-28-2010 01:03 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com