Life just gets worse in Iraq - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-09-2006, 10:28 PM   #136
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,063
Local Time: 05:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


yeah, 1.7 million dead from Saddam's actions over 24 years he was in power. We have people claim they did not want him in power, yet were unwilling to support the ONLY thing that could remove him given his capabilities and the proven failures of all the other attempts.
Yeah, and they just had to time it after 9/11 happened. Well done indeed. I can see why some didn't support it.
__________________

__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 10-09-2006, 10:31 PM   #137
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,063
Local Time: 05:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The only ones backed into the corner or those that offer no solutions and only narrow and often repeated criticisms -- keep it up!
Kind of like you repeating a gazillion statistics in each post, eh?
__________________

__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 10-09-2006, 10:46 PM   #138
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


Yeah, and they just had to time it after 9/11 happened. Well done indeed. I can see why some didn't support it.
The United States tried a number of things short of a military invasion to contain and disarm Saddam for 12 years after the 1991 Gulf War, and they all failed. That is why regime change was necessary.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-09-2006, 10:51 PM   #139
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


Kind of like you repeating a gazillion statistics in each post, eh?
Nothing wrong with repeating accurate facts in here since your unlikely to get that from the Washington Post and other media outlets.

In addition, several of my post do have solutions in them for the situation there, unlike many post that do nothing but attempt to criticize things without offering any sort of alternatives or ideas.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-09-2006, 10:54 PM   #140
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The United States tried a number of things short of a military invasion to contain and disarm Saddam for 12 years after the 1991 Gulf War, and they all failed. That is why regime change was necessary.
Saddam was contained


and guess what

he was disarmed, remember no WMDS


and it was not costing 5-7 billion a month to contain him

and the Iraqi people were living decent lives, with the containment, no fly-zones

now it is the worst American Blunder ever
and perhaps the costliest
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 01:59 AM   #141
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


Saddam was contained


and guess what

he was disarmed, remember no WMDS


and it was not costing 5-7 billion a month to contain him

and the Iraqi people were living decent lives, with the containment, no fly-zones

now it is the worst American Blunder ever
and perhaps the costliest
Do you understand what containtment of Saddam meant? It meant the most extensive sanctions and weapons embargo in history and maintaining that indefinitely. Did this exist in March 2003 the way it was set up in 1991? NO In fact, the entire Iraq/Syria border was open to any sort of traffic by 2000. Saddam was making Billions of dollars a year through the black market, as well as reselling humanitarian aid meant for many shia communities in southern Iraq. Saddam was making large amounts of money, starving in sort of opposition to him in the country, and was now essentially free to start acquiring new weapons because the embargo had essentially fallen apart.

Another thing that containment required was the verifiable disarmament of Saddam. This NEVER happened. As of March 2003, Saddam had yet to account for 1,000 liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of nerve gas, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells as well as several other things required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. It was incumbent upon Saddam to verifiably disarm, it was never incumbent upon the United States or any other nation to prove that Saddam had weapon A or B. Verifiable Disarmament was Saddam's responsibility and he failed to live up to the agreement he signed onto in March 1991.


At most maybe 20% of the population had decent lives during some periods of Saddam's reign in power, nearly all of that concentrated in the 4 Sunni provinces. The other 80% experienced starvation, humanitarian disasters brought on by Saddam, WAR(Saddam invaded and attack four different countries while in power), executions, massacres, WMD attacks and experiments, just to name a few things.

The United States was spending over 20 Billion dollars a year, in its efforts to contain Saddam and was failing in this regard.

After all that Saddam had done, and given his close proximity to the economic life line of the planet, combined with the near complete erosion of sanctions and the embargo, its incredible that people would think it would be safe to let that condition persist and worsen.

Regardless of what Saddam did or did not have in terms of WMD in March 2003, one thing is clear is that Saddam had not given up his quest for more WMD as well as expanding his power in the region based on what has been found since the invasion. Better to remove Saddam now than to allow him to re-arm and and potentially throw the entire planet into an economic depression from which it may never recover from. The other options short of regime change through invasion were tried and all failed. That is why regime change through invasion proved to be necessary. The stakes are simply to high given the planets dependency on Persian Gulf Oil.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 09:45 AM   #142
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The only ones backed into the corner or those that offer no solutions and only narrow and often repeated criticisms -- keep it up!


as opposed to narrow and often repeated justifications and excuses?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 09:49 AM   #143
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Do you understand what containtment of Saddam meant? It meant the most extensive sanctions and weapons embargo in history and maintaining that indefinitely. Did this exist in March 2003 the way it was set up in 1991? NO In fact, the entire Iraq/Syria border was open to any sort of traffic by 2000. Saddam was making Billions of dollars a year through the black market, as well as reselling humanitarian aid meant for many shia communities in southern Iraq. Saddam was making large amounts of money, starving in sort of opposition to him in the country, and was now essentially free to start acquiring new weapons because the embargo had essentially fallen apart.

Another thing that containment required was the verifiable disarmament of Saddam. This NEVER happened. As of March 2003, Saddam had yet to account for 1,000 liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of nerve gas, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells as well as several other things required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. It was incumbent upon Saddam to verifiably disarm, it was never incumbent upon the United States or any other nation to prove that Saddam had weapon A or B. Verifiable Disarmament was Saddam's responsibility and he failed to live up to the agreement he signed onto in March 1991.


At most maybe 20% of the population had decent lives during some periods of Saddam's reign in power, nearly all of that concentrated in the 4 Sunni provinces. The other 80% experienced starvation, humanitarian disasters brought on by Saddam, WAR(Saddam invaded and attack four different countries while in power), executions, massacres, WMD attacks and experiments, just to name a few things.

The United States was spending over 20 Billion dollars a year, in its efforts to contain Saddam and was failing in this regard.

After all that Saddam had done, and given his close proximity to the economic life line of the planet, combined with the near complete erosion of sanctions and the embargo, its incredible that people would think it would be safe to let that condition persist and worsen.

Regardless of what Saddam did or did not have in terms of WMD in March 2003, one thing is clear is that Saddam had not given up his quest for more WMD as well as expanding his power in the region based on what has been found since the invasion. Better to remove Saddam now than to allow him to re-arm and and potentially throw the entire planet into an economic depression from which it may never recover from. The other options short of regime change through invasion were tried and all failed. That is why regime change through invasion proved to be necessary. The stakes are simply to high given the planets dependency on Persian Gulf Oil.


and if all of this is SO compelling and SO factual and SO accurate and the removal of Saddam was SO crucial to the future of the planet, then why didn't the administration use any of these reasons when making their case for invasion?

could it be because they, themselves, didn't find them as compelling as you do, and neither does anyone else?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 10:01 AM   #144
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:48 PM
It was left to the liberals to make that case.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 10:07 AM   #145
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,063
Local Time: 05:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The United States tried a number of things short of a military invasion to contain and disarm Saddam for 12 years after the 1991 Gulf War, and they all failed. That is why regime change was necessary.
It wasn't necessary right after 9/11. We had more important things to do first.

We could have taken care of Saddam Hussein after we had taken care of Osama bin Laden.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 12:27 PM   #146
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




and if all of this is SO compelling and SO factual and SO accurate and the removal of Saddam was SO crucial to the future of the planet, then why didn't the administration use any of these reasons when making their case for invasion?

could it be because they, themselves, didn't find them as compelling as you do, and neither does anyone else?
They did! The administration made its case starting September 12, 2002 in front of the United Nations. The #1 reason for the invasion was Saddam's failure to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations involving the Verifiable Disarmament of Saddam. On October 13, 2002, Congress approved of the Administrations course of action and on November 14, another UN Security Council Resolutions was passed approving the use of military force if Saddam failed to comply.

The Security Council Resolutions passed against Saddam were passed for many of the following reasons I listed above. The reason the United States deployed over a half a million troops to Saudi Arabia in 1990/1991 and drove Saddam out of Kuwait was because of many of the reasons I listed above. It is rather obvious how important Persian Gulf Oil supply is to the planet and the need to prevent any threat to it, as well as avoid a repeat of August 1990 when Saddam overran Kuwait. The line in the sand was no longer the border between Kuwait and Iraq but Saddam's compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions to include those covering the verifiable disarmament of all WMD.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 12:40 PM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


It wasn't necessary right after 9/11. We had more important things to do first.

We could have taken care of Saddam Hussein after we had taken care of Osama bin Laden.
Yeah, just like it was more important for the United States to go after Japan and defeat it before it did anything about Germany, right?



The United States does not have the luxury of going about its security like a student does their homework, one at a time. The United States has to deal with a multitude of threats at the same time. Most of the troops on the ground in Iraq would not be used in Afghanistan anyways, in addition, the United States never stopped its operations in Afghanistan going after the Taliban and Al Quada, its only increased them since the start of the Iraq war as well as the number of troops inside the country.

Al Quada is a problem that the United States and the rest of the world will probably be dealing with for decades. Iraq was something that probably was done 4 years late if anything regarding the timing was incorrect. The United States can't afford to wait decades to deal with several other security issues.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 12:43 PM   #148
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


They did! The administration made its case starting September 12, 2002 in front of the United Nations. The #1 reason for the invasion was Saddam's failure to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations involving the Verifiable Disarmament of Saddam. On October 13, 2002, Congress approved of the Administrations course of action and on November 14, another UN Security Council Resolutions was passed approving the use of military force if Saddam failed to comply.

The Security Council Resolutions passed against Saddam were passed for many of the following reasons I listed above. The reason the United States deployed over a half a million troops to Saudi Arabia in 1990/1991 and drove Saddam out of Kuwait was because of many of the reasons I listed above. It is rather obvious how important Persian Gulf Oil supply is to the planet and the need to prevent any threat to it, as well as avoid a repeat of August 1990 when Saddam overran Kuwait. The line in the sand was no longer the border between Kuwait and Iraq but Saddam's compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions to include those covering the verifiable disarmament of all WMD.

no, they didn't! it was all couched in WMDs-will-kill-americans, and hysterical talk by Cheney on various Meet the Press appearances about the reconstitution of a nuclear program, all of which was presented as a direct threat to Mr. and Mrs. American.

you and i both know you're dead wrong about 1441.

it did not, ever, authorize the US to go to war. it is up to the UN Security Council itself to determine how it enforces it's resolution. the opinion held by the Security Council, as well as most of the rest of the world, was that regime change was a disproportionate response to Hussein's alleged failure to disarm.

further, as for the Congressional resolution, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11.

the grand irony is that invasion and regime change on the basis of humanitarian need might have been morally persuasive -- but the administration chose not to pursue that.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 01:12 PM   #149
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:48 AM
and just to quickly pre-empt: i'm not talking about 1441 anymore or reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

it's been done, over and over and over.

so i'm stepping out of this particular tangent of this particular discussion.

am happy to continue to talk about what's going on in Iraq as of right now, and current estimations of what's going on over there right now, and what needs to be done right now, but rehashing the same stuff isn't terribly productive.

so, before it goes any further, i'm walking away.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 01:32 PM   #150
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



no, they didn't! it was all couched in WMDs-will-kill-americans, and hysterical talk by Cheney on various Meet the Press appearances about the reconstitution of a nuclear program, all of which was presented as a direct threat to Mr. and Mrs. American.

you and i both know you're dead wrong about 1441.

it did not, ever, authorize the US to go to war. it is up to the UN Security Council itself to determine how it enforces it's resolution. the opinion held by the Security Council, as well as most of the rest of the world, was that regime change was a disproportionate response to Hussein's alleged failure to disarm.

further, as for the Congressional resolution, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11.

the grand irony is that invasion and regime change on the basis of humanitarian need might have been morally persuasive -- but the administration chose not to pursue that.
There were other reasons listed by the chief and official case for war as presented by the United States to the rest of the world was given on September 12, 2002, in October with the congressional approval, and in November with UN approval.

I would say there a few things I've discussed in this forum in which I would be more right about and in which the evidence supports it, than the fact that resolution 1441 did authorize the coalition to go to war if Saddam did not disarm. I've discussed this issue back and forth and seen every counter arguement before you were even a member here.

The fact remains, if you can claim that 1441 did not authorize the current war then you could claim that resolution 678 did not authorize the first Gulf War in 1991.

If the UN did not authorize the war, where is the resolution condemning the invasion and calling for the immediate withrawal? Where is the attempt at a UN resolution along those lines? The fact is, there is no such resolution or even an attempt at one! There is a resolution authorizing the occupation of Iraq, not something one does if its "illegal".

It is up to the UN Security Council to decide these things, and the council decided on war in 1990 in resolution 678 if Saddam did not comply and it did exactly the same thing with resolution 1441 in 2002.

Resolution 1441 was primarly constructed by the United States and the UK and then presented to the UN for approval. It was a statement of the current situation and official offer to Saddam of one last chance to comply. Resolution 678 which authorizes military force for the purpose of enforcement of subsequent resolutions would legally already authorize the invasion.

Bill Clinton sited resolution 678 when the United States launched massive military strikes in November 1998 against Iraq. The fact is, the UN already had a use of force mechanism in place if Saddam did not comply with the resolutions. That is why all resolutions passed against Saddam are passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN allowing for the use of military force.

The Bush administration only had to show that Saddam had failed to comply with the resolutions which is very obvious to anyone. As of March 19, 2003 when the invasion was launched, Saddam had yet to comply with a single UN Security Council Resolution. The only one required to "prove" ANYTHING was Saddam.

The administration never claimed that Iraq was behind 9/11. Thats just totally laughable and false. There was intelligence indicated that Saddam had talked to Al Quada in the past though. Those are two different things.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 AM.


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