Jump to content
Joseph & Ana

To our liberal friends

 Share

153 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Timeline
Actually Simpson, it wasn't an issue of hindsight. The insurgencies in both countries were entirely predictable.

To this extent, I think thats debatable but regardless where do you think most of the anger should be directed?

Anger should primarily be directed at the aggressor. We had no business going into one of these countries. None.

Not even Afghanistan? How are these cowards coming into the country not considered aggressors?

I said we had no business going into one of them (Iraq) which, I thought would indicate that we did have business going into the other one (Afghanistan). The problem with the latter is that we had specific business going in there and chose to take our eyes off that business in favor of venturing into a land that we did not have any business venturing into. There's also never been a clear strategy on what to accomplish in either place - only inept strategery...

Would we have business over there had he had nuclear weapons as intelligence led us to believe? If not when is a preemptive attack ok with you?

Nuclear weapons? Saddam? There was no intelligence suggesting he had nuclear weapons. Look, there was an inspection underway that was interrupted by the US administration because the President and his war hungry team couldn't get into Iraq fast enough. Listening to Cheney at the time, they we looking forward to collect all them flowers that we'd be greeted with, remember? And then all them flowers just kept blowing up. Oh right, they weren't flowers, they were IED's.

When is a pre-emptive attack acceptable? When another country poses an immediate threat to our security. Iraq did not meet this criteria - not even close.

Dam, I should of said weapon of mass destruction,not sure what I was thinking there but Im very aware of the situation and how it played out back then. I believe at the time because of intelligence the US and others had that the administration honestly believed there was a serious threat to our security.

What threat to our security did Saddam pose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Filed: Timeline
If you supported the government's case for war, you weren't very well informed.

Good reasons for believing he had the capability.

No, there weren't. This is why there was a verification team on the ground. A few months into their work, unfettered by Saddam's regime, they had still come up empty, they found nothing. This is why Bush&Co wouldn't let them finish the job. The fear was precisely that they would verify that there aren't any WMD's in Iraq. They wanted their war and they set it up so they would get it. There's little doubt on that point anymore, really.

Your acting like these searches were golden, please you know that Sadam played nothing but games with these inspectors. The inspections were a joke and we all knew it, furthermore playing all these games gave us even more reasons to believe he might have WMDs. Then there was his past history and also the intelligence from other countries. I really dont buy into these Bush conspiracy theories.

Saddam inhibited the inspections for many years. This is true. Following the authorization of use of force by the US Congress, however, Saddam complied with the demands of the international community and the inspectors were granted unfettered access to any facility they wanted to inspect. The inspector in charge of the effort issued a report to that effect not too long before the US invaded. No country other than the US and the UK actually believed that the intelligence warranted an invasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Anyone familiar with the debate that took place in Europe during 2002-2003 knows that that isn't true.

The Bush administration had decided as early as 2001 that they were going to go to war with Iraq. They simply went through the motions at the United Nations to give it the veneer of legality. In fact, if it wasn't for Tony Blair, the Bush administration would have ignored the UN entirely.

So you believe that Blair was in on the Bush conspiracy or is it that Bush fooled him? I dont think Blair put his reputation on the line because he had a thirst for blood. I believe he belileved as Bush did that we had a serious threat in Iraq and in light 9/11 we couldnt just let these things fester anymore.

Simpson - its been fairly well established that the UK government was well aware that the intelligence used to justify the war was sketchy at best, a whitewash at worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
Anyone familiar with the debate that took place in Europe during 2002-2003 knows that that isn't true.

The Bush administration had decided as early as 2001 that they were going to go to war with Iraq. They simply went through the motions at the United Nations to give it the veneer of legality. In fact, if it wasn't for Tony Blair, the Bush administration would have ignored the UN entirely.

So you believe that Blair was in on the Bush conspiracy or is it that Bush fooled him? I dont think Blair put his reputation on the line because he had a thirst for blood. I believe he belileved as Bush did that we had a serious threat in Iraq and in light 9/11 we couldnt just let these things fester anymore.

Simpson - its been fairly well established that the UK government was well aware that the intelligence used to justify the war was sketchy at best, a whitewash at worst.

Absolutely. Interesting that Simpson entirely ignores the cherry-picking (or fixing) of intelligence that I detailed above or the documented evidence that are contained in the Downing Street Memos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Philippines
Timeline
Anyone familiar with the debate that took place in Europe during 2002-2003 knows that that isn't true.

The Bush administration had decided as early as 2001 that they were going to go to war with Iraq. They simply went through the motions at the United Nations to give it the veneer of legality. In fact, if it wasn't for Tony Blair, the Bush administration would have ignored the UN entirely.

So you believe that Blair was in on the Bush conspiracy or is it that Bush fooled him? I dont think Blair put his reputation on the line because he had a thirst for blood. I believe he belileved as Bush did that we had a serious threat in Iraq and in light 9/11 we couldnt just let these things fester anymore.

Simpson - its been fairly well established that the UK government was well aware that the intelligence used to justify the war was sketchy at best, a whitewash at worst.

Absolutely. Interesting that Simpson entirely ignores the cherry-picking (or fixing) of intelligence that I detailed above or the documented evidence that are contained in the Downing Street Memos.

We all know that the intel was wrong (even Cheney admits this). However unless Cheney or Bush gives a deathbed confession we will never know if they invaded Iraq knowing that the intel was trumped up. In my gut I feel that they did know, but that's all it is... a gut feeling.

FamilyGuy_SavingPrivateBrian_v2f_72_1161823205-000.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you supported the government's case for war, you weren't very well informed.

Good reasons for believing he had the capability.

No, there weren't. This is why there was a verification team on the ground. A few months into their work, unfettered by Saddam's regime, they had still come up empty, they found nothing. This is why Bush&Co wouldn't let them finish the job. The fear was precisely that they would verify that there aren't any WMD's in Iraq. They wanted their war and they set it up so they would get it. There's little doubt on that point anymore, really.

Your acting like these searches were golden, please you know that Sadam played nothing but games with these inspectors. The inspections were a joke and we all knew it, furthermore playing all these games gave us even more reasons to believe he might have WMDs. Then there was his past history and also the intelligence from other countries. I really dont buy into these Bush conspiracy theories.

Saddam inhibited the inspections for many years. This is true. Following the authorization of use of force by the US Congress, however, Saddam complied with the demands of the international community and the inspectors were granted unfettered access to any facility they wanted to inspect. The inspector in charge of the effort issued a report to that effect not too long before the US invaded. No country other than the US and the UK actually believed that the intelligence warranted an invasion.

So we agree that the inspections were a joke, they achieved nothing and were part of some feel good policy. There were many other countries that supported us, sure we didnt have the usual suspects supporting us like Germany and France but it would take something short of a miracle to get there support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not hard to imagine why Saddam played those games, its the only bargaining chip he had.

"The Bluff" is the oldest trick in the book ;)

:lol: How did I miss this one, now I have heard it all, Saddam is a victim. He had too, it was the only option we gave him, good grief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes - the coalition of the bullied and the bribed.

Germany and France have supported the US in the past, so... exaggerate much?

Your really downplaying the discontent that France had for the US, no need to act like we were best buds. At best it was a love/hate relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
If you supported the government\'s case for war, you weren\'t very well informed.

Good reasons for believing he had the capability.

No, there weren\'t. This is why there was a verification team on the ground. A few months into their work, unfettered by Saddam\'s regime, they had still come up empty, they found nothing. This is why Bush&Co wouldn\'t let them finish the job. The fear was precisely that they would verify that there aren\'t any WMD\'s in Iraq. They wanted their war and they set it up so they would get it. There\'s little doubt on that point anymore, really.

Your acting like these searches were golden, please you know that Sadam played nothing but games with these inspectors. The inspections were a joke and we all knew it, furthermore playing all these games gave us even more reasons to believe he might have WMDs. Then there was his past history and also the intelligence from other countries. I really dont buy into these Bush conspiracy theories.

Saddam inhibited the inspections for many years. This is true. Following the authorization of use of force by the US Congress, however, Saddam complied with the demands of the international community and the inspectors were granted unfettered access to any facility they wanted to inspect. The inspector in charge of the effort issued a report to that effect not too long before the US invaded. No country other than the US and the UK actually believed that the intelligence warranted an invasion.

So we agree that the inspections were a joke, they achieved nothing and were part of some feel good policy. There were many other countries that supported us, sure we didnt have the usual suspects supporting us like Germany and France but it would take something short of a miracle to get there support.

No, we do not agree that the inspections were a joke. Not the inspections that were underway and carried out effectively starting in November of 2002. Those inspections were what they should have been all along.

Many other countries supported the US in this effort? The list is below and I highlighted and enriched with the troop committment those nations that were actually \"willing\" to support the invasion - there were 3 providing 48,200 troops altogether, with the UK sending 46,000, Australia sending 2,000 and Poland committing a whopping 200 troops to the effort.

The troop committment post invasion - for the occupation period - was as low as 2 troops (Iceland) and as high as 3,200 toops (South Korea). The vast majority of those troops were withdrawn starting in 2004 (9 nations) and ending in July 2009 when Australia and the UK pulled the last of their troops out of the country.

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia - 2,000, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland - 200, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom - 46,000and Uzbekistan.

Coalition_of_the_willing_original.PNG

Edited by Mr. Big Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
It's not hard to imagine why Saddam played those games, its the only bargaining chip he had.

"The Bluff" is the oldest trick in the book ;)

:lol: How did I miss this one, now I have heard it all, Saddam is a victim. He had too, it was the only option we gave him, good grief.

"Victim" isn't quite what I was thinking of. But its very obvious why he might play up rumours of WMD.

Why else do *we* have nuclear weapons? Not because we intend to use them, but because it acts as a deterrent against attack. In Saddam's case its clear he intended to use rumours of WMD to guarantee his power.

Ah yes - the coalition of the bullied and the bribed.

Germany and France have supported the US in the past, so... exaggerate much?

Your really downplaying the discontent that France had for the US, no need to act like we were best buds. At best it was a love/hate relationship.

:lol: I bet you're one of those "freedom fries" guys.

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia - 2,000, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland - 200, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom - 46,000and Uzbekistan.

Coalition_of_the_willing_original.PNG

Azerbaijan and Albania - FTW!

Edited by Gene Hunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
It's not hard to imagine why Saddam played those games, its the only bargaining chip he had.

"The Bluff" is the oldest trick in the book ;)

:lol: How did I miss this one, now I have heard it all, Saddam is a victim. He had too, it was the only option we gave him, good grief.

"Victim" isn't quite what I was thinking of. But its very obvious why he might play up rumours of WMD.

Why else do *we* have nuclear weapons? Not because we intend to use them, but because it acts as a deterrent against attack. In Saddam's case its clear he intended to use rumours of WMD to guarantee his power.

Ah yes - the coalition of the bullied and the bribed.

Germany and France have supported the US in the past, so... exaggerate much?

Your really downplaying the discontent that France had for the US, no need to act like we were best buds. At best it was a love/hate relationship.

:lol: I bet you're one of those "freedom fries" guys.

:rofl: yeah, we sure put them in their place :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
It's not hard to imagine why Saddam played those games, its the only bargaining chip he had.

"The Bluff" is the oldest trick in the book ;)

:lol: How did I miss this one, now I have heard it all, Saddam is a victim. He had too, it was the only option we gave him, good grief.

"Victim" isn't quite what I was thinking of. But its very obvious why he might play up rumours of WMD.

Why else do *we* have nuclear weapons? Not because we intend to use them, but because it acts as a deterrent against attack. In Saddam's case its clear he intended to use rumours of WMD to guarantee his power.

Ah yes - the coalition of the bullied and the bribed.

Germany and France have supported the US in the past, so... exaggerate much?

Your really downplaying the discontent that France had for the US, no need to act like we were best buds. At best it was a love/hate relationship.

:lol: I bet you're one of those "freedom fries" guys.

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia - 2,000, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland - 200, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom - 46,000and Uzbekistan.

Coalition_of_the_willing_original.PNG

Azerbaijan and Albania - FTW!

Don't forget Eritrea and Ethiopia - two nations at conflict with each other both looking for US support. Or the Eastern European countries that were looking for US support in jointing NATO. Or the $8.5 billion loans granted to Turkey that, while not linked with their participaton in this coalition, were "contingent" upon coopertion on Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
It's not hard to imagine why Saddam played those games, its the only bargaining chip he had.

"The Bluff" is the oldest trick in the book ;)

:lol: How did I miss this one, now I have heard it all, Saddam is a victim. He had too, it was the only option we gave him, good grief.

"Victim" isn't quite what I was thinking of. But its very obvious why he might play up rumours of WMD.

Why else do *we* have nuclear weapons? Not because we intend to use them, but because it acts as a deterrent against attack. In Saddam's case its clear he intended to use rumours of WMD to guarantee his power.

Ah yes - the coalition of the bullied and the bribed.

Germany and France have supported the US in the past, so... exaggerate much?

Your really downplaying the discontent that France had for the US, no need to act like we were best buds. At best it was a love/hate relationship.

:lol: I bet you're one of those "freedom fries" guys.

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia - 2,000, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland - 200, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom - 46,000and Uzbekistan.

Coalition_of_the_willing_original.PNG

Azerbaijan and Albania - FTW!

Don't forget Eritrea and Ethiopia - two nations at conflict with each other both looking for US support. Or the Eastern European countries that were looking for US support in jointing NATO. Or the $8.5 billion loans granted to Turkey that, while not linked with their participaton in this coalition, were "contingent" upon coopertion on Iraq.

Yeah the coalition of the "bullied and bribed"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...