Soldiers say Iraq pullout would be devastating - Page 4 - 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 11-06-2006, 11:40 PM   #46
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The central justification for the war was that Saddam had failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD in violation of UN Security Council resolution 1441 which authorized military action if Saddam failed to comply with this and other UN resolutions. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions when the Coalition invaded in Iraq in 2003, all of them passed under Chapter VII rules allowing for the use of military force to bring about compliance.

In the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire, it was incumbent upon Saddam to verifiably disarm of all WMD. There was NEVER any requirement of any member of the United Nations to prove that Saddam had WMD. All of the requirements were on Saddam ALONE! Military force was to bring Saddam into compliance with the resolutions was authorized as far back as resolutions 678 and 687 from 1991!


hey, thread, STING is totally wrong about this and has been disproved dozens of times by many different posters because 1441 does not give authorization for the US to enforce UN Resolutions; it is up to the Security Council to determine how they enforce their own resolutions.

don't fall for it, no matter how many exclamation points he uses or capitalized words.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-06-2006, 11:44 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
LyricalDrug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Posts: 3,212
Local Time: 02:06 PM
Bush had the power of the White House, and the power of a Republican-controlled Congress, and the sympathy of the entire world after 9/11. What did he do? He led us into a bungled invasion of Afghanistan, where he let bin Laden get away. Then he led us into Iraq, and now he's losing the war there, and badly. Everyone other than Bush and his closest advisers thinks that the Iraq war is a complete disaster.

The overwhelming majority of Americans think that the war in Iraq was not worth it, and that we are not winning.

History won't judge Bush kindly, given that he's losing a war that was pointless to begin with. And he has NO excuse for losing -- the Republican controlled Congress has been giving him blank checks to fund the war. There is no one Bush can blame for losing, other than his own party. The Democrats don't even have any power -- they couldn't stop him if they tried! And yet he is STILL losing the war.

Can't wait until Hillary gets elected....
__________________

__________________
LyricalDrug is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 11:47 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LyricalDrug
Bush had the power of the White House, and the power of a Republican-controlled Congress, and the sympathy of the entire world after 9/11. What did he do? He led us into a bungled invasion of Afghanistan, where he let bin Laden get away. Then he led us into Iraq, and now he's losing the war there, and badly. Everyone other than Bush and his closest advisers thinks that the Iraq war is a complete disaster.

The overwhelming majority of Americans think that the war in Iraq was not worth it, and that we are not winning.

History won't judge Bush kindly, given that he's losing a war that was pointless to begin with. And he has NO excuse for losing -- the Republican controlled Congress has been giving him blank checks to fund the war. There is no one Bush can blame for losing, other than his own party. The Democrats don't even have any power -- they couldn't stop him if they tried! And yet he is STILL losing the war.

Hey, stop talking sense amongst a thread filled with nonsense.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 11:47 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by kellyahern


I see, just because we can't see find them (after 3+ years of looking), doesn't mean they're not there

So who else should we go after now, just in case they get a hold of WMDs?
Is the US government able to see every drug shipment the comes across its border? Its far easier to hide and conceal such things than to find or detect them. Once again, Saddam's cooperation in verifiably dismantling his WMD arsonal, not finding WMD A behind building C, is the issue.

Do you know any other dictators that have invaded and attacked four different countries over the past 30 years, used WMD on a massive scale, defied the United Nations and failed to comply with SEVENTEEN UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations, threatened the majority of the planets energy supply with siezure and sabotage?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 11:57 PM   #50
Babyface
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3
Local Time: 09:06 PM
The best evidence of WMD's ever existing would be the sales receipts Cheney and Rumsfeld have from when they sold them to Sadaam.
__________________
belabud is offline  
Old 11-06-2006, 11:58 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




hey, thread, STING is totally wrong about this and has been disproved dozens of times by many different posters because 1441 does not give authorization for the US to enforce UN Resolutions; it is up to the Security Council to determine how they enforce their own resolutions.

don't fall for it, no matter how many exclamation points he uses or capitalized words.
If you believe that resolution 1441 did not authorize the current war in Iraq, then you can say that resolution 678 did not authorize the use of military force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991.

If 1441 did not authorize the use of military force against Iraq in 2003, where is the UN Resolution condemning the invasion? Where is the UN Resolution calling for the withdrawal of the coalition?

The UN passed several different resolutions when Saddam invaded Kuwait, first condemning the invasion, then calling for Saddam to withdraw his forces. Thats because Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was illegal.

Then, in June 2003, the UN passed resolution 1483, authorizing the occupation of Iraq by the coalition. If the invasion was illegal as many posters claim, why would the UN authorize the occupation instead of condemning it and calling for it to withdraw immediately? Again, look back at how the UN reacts to an invasion they consider to be illegal!


The Security Council determined in resolution 1441 that Saddam had one last chance to comply or face compliance through the use of military force.

If what the coalition did was illegal, where is the UN resolution condemning the action?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:06 AM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LyricalDrug
Bush had the power of the White House, and the power of a Republican-controlled Congress, and the sympathy of the entire world after 9/11. What did he do? He led us into a bungled invasion of Afghanistan, where he let bin Laden get away. Then he led us into Iraq, and now he's losing the war there, and badly. Everyone other than Bush and his closest advisers thinks that the Iraq war is a complete disaster.

The overwhelming majority of Americans think that the war in Iraq was not worth it, and that we are not winning.

History won't judge Bush kindly, given that he's losing a war that was pointless to begin with. And he has NO excuse for losing -- the Republican controlled Congress has been giving him blank checks to fund the war. There is no one Bush can blame for losing, other than his own party. The Democrats don't even have any power -- they couldn't stop him if they tried! And yet he is STILL losing the war.

Can't wait until Hillary gets elected....
Losing the war? If the United States was losing the war, why are there still US troops in Iraq? Shouldn't they have been pushed out of the country by now? Why is there a new elected Iraqi Government? A New Iraqi military? What battles has the US military been defeated in? Can you name one? Why has the insurgency not grown since April 2004?

Wars that involve nation building and counter insurgency take at least 10 plus years which just makes the declarations of defeat after 3 years even more absurd.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:11 AM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by belabud
The best evidence of WMD's ever existing would be the sales receipts Cheney and Rumsfeld have from when they sold them to Sadaam.
The United States never sold Iraq WMD's. Duel use technology that is provided to nearly every country around the world, was provided to Iraq in the 1980s. The vast majority of Saddam's arsonal was supplied by the Soviet Union. A lot of money was supplied by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other countries threatened by Iran. The United States only offered 5 Billion dollars out of the 80 Billion plus total sent to Iraq in the 1980s by various countries. In terms of actual combat weapon systems, it provided NONE. It did provide Transport Helicopters and Trucks.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:43 AM   #54
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


If you believe that resolution 1441 did not authorize the current war in Iraq, then you can say that resolution 678 did not authorize the use of military force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991.

If 1441 did not authorize the use of military force against Iraq in 2003, where is the UN Resolution condemning the invasion? Where is the UN Resolution calling for the withdrawal of the coalition?

The UN passed several different resolutions when Saddam invaded Kuwait, first condemning the invasion, then calling for Saddam to withdraw his forces. Thats because Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was illegal.

Then, in June 2003, the UN passed resolution 1483, authorizing the occupation of Iraq by the coalition. If the invasion was illegal as many posters claim, why would the UN authorize the occupation instead of condemning it and calling for it to withdraw immediately? Again, look back at how the UN reacts to an invasion they consider to be illegal!


The Security Council determined in resolution 1441 that Saddam had one last chance to comply or face compliance through the use of military force.

If what the coalition did was illegal, where is the UN resolution condemning the action?


all of these questions have been answered, repeatedly.

1. yes.
2. are such things necessary requirements to make the point that Resolution 1441 did not give the US permission to unilaterally invade? no.
3. are you comparing the invasion of Kuwait to the US invasion of Iraq? are you holding the two countries to similar standards? are you you drawing a bullshit equivocation? are all UN actions to be measured against all other UN actions? does the UN respond in precisely the same manner to each and every single action it disagrees with as a body? or might the UN reacte in different ways to different situations?
4. again (!!!) (oh, your silly exclamation points!!) what else was the UN to do with an invasion that had taken place by the most powerful nation in the world? it makes the point -- the invasion was illegal because the UN had to retroactively make it legal, not because it was legal in the first place, but because it was illegal! (!!!) it was determined that working with the US to help it manage a successful occupation was the best thing for the Iraqi people. terrible that you twist it into justification for an occupation that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.

i wonder if you've had an original post in here in 3 years.

please, let us know your wonderful plan for fixing the country you've smashed into a million sectarian pieces. i want to know, step by step, how you're going to fix this.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:46 AM   #55
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Losing the war? If the United States was losing the war, why are there still US troops in Iraq? Shouldn't they have been pushed out of the country by now? Why is there a new elected Iraqi Government? A New Iraqi military? What battles has the US military been defeated in? Can you name one? Why has the insurgency not grown since April 2004?

Wars that involve nation building and counter insurgency take at least 10 plus years which just makes the declarations of defeat after 3 years even more absurd.


how you twist words! that's absurd.

the US is losing the occupation because it is unable to provide stability (and, you know, electricity) to Iraq. without safety and a basic level of civil society, an occupation is a failure. your Iraqi government cannot govern, your Iraqi army (and police force) have been overrun by Shiite militias who carry out reprisal killings and mass executions of Sunnis. there is no stability, there is no civil society, Iraq is a FAILED STATE. you've lost the occupation.

if the insurgency has not grown since April 2004, why are over three thousand Iraqis dying a MONTH over the summer of 2006? why was October 2006 the fourth (or was it third?) highest month for US casualties since the occupation began?

we are not at war. we are Israel in Lebanon, circa 1982.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:49 AM   #56
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Is the US government able to see every drug shipment the comes across its border? Its far easier to hide and conceal such things than to find or detect them. Once again, Saddam's cooperation in verifiably dismantling his WMD arsonal, not finding WMD A behind building C, is the issue.

Do you know any other dictators that have invaded and attacked four different countries over the past 30 years, used WMD on a massive scale, defied the United Nations and failed to comply with SEVENTEEN UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations, threatened the majority of the planets energy supply with siezure and sabotage?

and over the past 30 years only ONE american president thought that Saddam was so exceptional and dangerous that it was worth a wholesale invasion and occupation. Bush 1 refused to go to Baghdad when he had a perfect opportunity to oust Hussein when he was far more of thread in 1991 but didn't for precisely the reasons that are apparent today: long standing sectarian tensions that could only be contained by a brutal strongman.

the occupation and radicalization of a generation of Muslim youth (as evidenced by this year's NIE) has not been worth the unilateral enforcement by the united states of UN resolutions that it has no business enforcing all by its self.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:59 AM   #57
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Wars that involve nation building and counter insurgency take at least 10 plus years which just makes the declarations of defeat after 3 years even more absurd.
Funny how we get this "nation building takes time, stupid" argument when absolutely no one in the pre-invasion Bush Administration thought (or at least publically admitted) it was going to take more than a few months to complete. Oh sure, after they realized they based their entire operation on completely unrealistic and dangerously foolish expectations, they have no problem falling back on the "well, nation building takes a lot of time" argument. How convenient.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 01:01 AM   #58
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Irvine,

Every time I read your sig, I can't help but laugh because I hear it through Jon Stewart's GWB impression.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 01:02 AM   #59
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Funny how we get this "nation building takes time, stupid" argument when absolutely no one in the pre-invasion Bush Administration thought (or at least publically admitted) it was going to take more than a few months to complete. Oh sure, after they realized they based their entire operation on completely unrealistic and dangerously foolish expectations do they resort to "well, nation building takes a lot of time" argument. How convenient.


good point.

after all, one of Iraq's biggest selling points was that it was supposed to be easy.

how else can you explain the total lack of any post-war plans? now they compare it to Germany/Japan in 1945 when there wasn't any WW2 to preceed this particular occupation.

it'd be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-07-2006, 01:16 AM   #60
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Funny how we get this "nation building takes time, stupid" argument when absolutely no one in the pre-invasion Bush Administration thought (or at least publically admitted) it was going to take more than a few months to complete. Oh sure, after they realized they based their entire operation on completely unrealistic and dangerously foolish expectations, they have no problem falling back on the "well, nation building takes a lot of time" argument. How convenient.
WOW; just wow. That is so patently false that I hope you are like 12 years old or something so I can excuse your ignorance on the matter. Honestly, and that isn't a dig or a shot or anything; and if you take it that way I apologize in advance. I'm seriously and sincerely just hoping you're not old enough know better and that's allowed you to have been under informed so badly on this issue.

Of all the things that went wrong, or are going wrong, Bush and the administration never once prior to invasion said this would be a short term deal. He repeatedly told the American people that this was going to be a long protracted fight with no end in sight. EVERYONE knew, that cared to know, and that includes the democratic leadership who approved the action in Congress that this was going to be a long term struggle.
__________________

__________________
Snowlock 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 04:06 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