Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:46 am Post subject: | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:46 am Post subject: | |||
And if you had half a brain you would have comprehended that Kanakas point, if I may be so bold as to speak for Kanaka, is simply that the speech you referenced is rendered almost wholly irrelevant in light of GwB's SOTU address. edit: Drat! Only seconds too late! |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:57 am Post subject: | |
|
Irrelevant? Did you hear the speech? Did you read the speech text? What part of it didn't YOU comprehend?
You will note the litany of resolutions the President referenced over the previous 11-12 years that went unadhered. The cry was "give them more time". How much more time do you need to give them? Iraq didn't give as much as a slight hint that they intended to abide by ANY of them. Iraq thumbed their nose at the entire United Nations. I would argue Bush could have given them another 10 years and they wouldn't be any closer to following any of those resolutions. Answer this specifically please.... if 12 years wasn't enough time, just how much more time should Bush have given Iraq that would have pleased you two anyway? Keep in mind, these were UN resolutions, not US resolutions so you and Kanaka should be 100% behind those since I'm sure you both worship the ground the UN walks on (oh wait, that would be the USA, so strike that). Footsoldier Edit.... As for the UN dismissing Bush's speech.... I'm sure they did. I'm sure they weren't happy about being reminded of those resolutions they'd been ignoring. They were letting Saddam off the hook and hated being called on it. |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:13 am Post subject: | |||||
And you will note:
Thus any UN resolution regarding disarmament appears to have been adhered to despite Iraqi reticence and reticence alone is certainly not justification for an invasion.
As much time as it takes to determine the truth of the matter and ensure that innocents don't end up paying for a single nations impatience with their lives. |
|||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:16 am Post subject: Re: I'll take some cheap oil, please! | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:20 am Post subject: | |
|
"As much time as it takes to determine the truth of the matter and ensure that innocents don't end up paying for a single nations impatience with their lives."
"Innocents"? Are you including among those Saddam, his two sons, and all of his henchmen that have been rounded up and imprisoned? FS Last edited by FOOTSOLDIER on Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:21 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:20 am Post subject: | |
|
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:25 am Post subject: | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:53 am Post subject: | |
|
Nope.... just asking if "that bunch" was included in the category.
I don't suppose you have facts to back up your "tens of thousands" statement do you? Where was the outrage when Saddam murdered thousands of his own people? War is hell. It is ugly, and it is tragic. Innocent people do get killed in war unfortunately. Let me take a different approach and pose this question.... Let's suppose a substantial stockpile of WMD's are found.... tomorrow. Does that change any of your opinions about whether the US and allies should be in Iraq or not? FS |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:14 am Post subject: | |||||
Estimated maximum of 13,213 civilians killed.
Not really. For two reasons:
I would, however, support the removal of such stockpiles if it can be conclusively demonstrated that such weapons are outside the scope of Iraqs defensive needs. Like it or not, every sovereign nation has a right to develop the means to defend itself. |
|||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:15 am Post subject: | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:57 am Post subject: | |
|
So you acknowledge that Saddam actually HAD WMD's. Where did they go? What did he do with them? If someone took them off his hands, who has them now? Aren't you the least bit curious what happened to them?
Do you also oppose the military effort in Afghanistan? Is that an unjust war as well along with the efforts to find Osama Bin Laden? Is there ANY scenerio that would justify military force in your minds? Or maybe you just feel this way because the terrorist attacks hit New York and Washington and not Ottawa and Montreal. I know you don't like to think of Afghanistan and Iraq in the same light. Tying them together waters down your argument. Separating them in your mind allows you to ignore the 9/11 attacks. While you're tabulating up the innocent victims, don't forget to include almost 5,000 people who were just going about their business providing for their families on September 11, 2001 when terrorists decided it was time for those 5000 people to die. FS |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:48 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As noted many many times before, whether Hussein had them or not is not the issue. Please don't make us go over that again.
Those are some good questions. How come you didn't ask them before you supported actions that resulted in a lot of dead innocent people?
No.
:roll:
If you're suggesting that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 than you are, as I've explained in another thread, a fucking imbecile.
As I stated above, Iraq had nothing to with the WtC attacks. Now, you're starting to fall back to the same retarded behaviour as the previous thread on Iraq: logical fallacies, changing the subject, refusing to acknowledge the truth of a proposition, heck, you're flat-out refusing to address anything said in response to you. This, of course, begs the question: Why are you so desperate to justify the invasion? Clearly you'll go to incredibly, and increasingly, unreasonable lengths to avoid acknowledging, disputing, or even considering opposing opinions. On page two, you asserted:
My response was:
You have since failed to acknowledge my response. Why? Again on page 2, you asserted:
My response:
You have since failed to acknowledge my response. Why? More from page 2, you asserted:
My response:
You have since failed to acknowledge my response. Why? One more from page 2, you asked:
My response:
To this^^ you responded with an absolutely retarded question:
Which, despite its stupidity, I took the time to respond in kind with this:
Now on page three, you asked:
My response:
You have since failed to acknowledge my response. Why? Page three again, you presented a hypothetical:
To which I replied:
You have since failed to acknowledge my response. Why? Is your ability to support your own opinion really that limited? Or is it simply because your position is untenable? Hmm.... |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 830
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 12:46 pm Post subject: | |
|
What Iraq has to do with 9/11 is they gave us an excuse to get a better foothold in the middle east where we have a centrally located position bordering Syria and Iran. I'm sorry innocent Iraqi's are getting hurt and killed, but blame the insurgents from Syria and Iran and probably Saudi Arabia. If they weren't there it wouldn't take so long to get Iraq in better shape than they've been in decades.
CS 
|
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:05 pm Post subject: | |||||||
Iraq never gave you an excuse. The US simply took some bad intelligence and ran with it to spite the misgivings of the rest of the world.
Had the US never invaded, the insurgency wouldn't have taken place. Furthermore, the insurgency isn't responsible for the thousands killed during the combat phase of the invasion (which ended in April IIRC).
Sadly, Iraq is in worse shape than it's ever been before. |
|||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 830
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:12 pm Post subject: | |
|
I agree that Iraq is in worse shape now than ever before. That's the insurgents fault because they're hindering the work that needs to be done.
And, of course the insurgents wouldn't be there if we hadn't attacked, they'd be at their terrorist training camps concentrating on other attacks around the world. That's what they do. Yes, in the shock and awe phase of the war, and many weeks after thousands were killed. Were all they innocent civilians? I suspect most were Sadaam's military. Our mistake in Iraq was pulling out of the first war and leaving Sadaam to mass murder thousands of his own people who rose up against him. This war is not a mistake. And we need to finish the job. CS
|
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:42 pm Post subject: | |||||||
The insurgents certainly aren't expediting the process but, if you'll check out the article linked in my previous post, you'll note that "Even before the war, the country's infrastructure was crumbling because of sanctions and neglect and misrule" and "decades of wars, added to the effect of sanctions, have given Iraq one of the world's most polluted environments". Thus sanctions, neglect, and war bear much more responsibility for the current crisis than the insurgency alone.
An insurgent is not necessarily a bonafide terrorist. An insurgent is simply an individual rising in revolt against established authority. In Iraq, most insurgents are simply secular Iraqis, organised into disparate, often regional, groups with differing and conflicting agendas, angry at the presence of U.S. and other foreign troops. There are few, if any, ties to traditional terrorist organizations among the insurgents in Iraq. So, no. That's not what they do. This AP article offers a pretty good rundown of the insurgency situation in Iraq.
An estimated 4,300 non-combatant civilians were killed before April 20th, 2004. That's roughly one third of the estimated 13,000 total that were killed during the combat phase of the invasion. |
|||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:58 pm Post subject: | |
|
CS... Your post is right on!!
sleK is on record of stating that even if WMD's were found, even a significant amount of them, it wouldn't change his opinion on the war in Iraq. Using this kind of logic, we would not go to war until someone actually committed an act of war against us first (I'm making the assumption he would agree we have a right to defend ourselves.). Unfortunately, in these days, we can't afford to allow an enemy who has shown a willingness to mass murder his own people to strike first. If a threat is there to our security (including those of our allies), we need to take a proactive defensive posture. History repeatedly illustrates that we can't afford to allow a dictator to gain a foothold and grow in strength. Footsoldier _________________________________________________ The war on terror is a just war. |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 64
Location: Canada
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:43 pm Post subject: | |
|
Footsoldier,
I'd like to see your response to sleK's post...He asked you many questions and asked for your response, but you have not answered. I'm not actively taking part in this thread, but am reading intently. -NAz |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:07 am Post subject: | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:08 am Post subject: | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 245
Location: Seattle
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 1:52 am Post subject: | |||
Footsoldier...How would Saddam have attcked the US? He had limited capabilities rocketwise. His airspace was a no fly zone patrolled by American fighter jets. Actually, kanaka it goes back much further than that. ( I will have to find the source on this, its a couple of years ago. ) The reason that many in the Bush administration are so sure that there are WMD is because they were sold to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war by members of the Bush Administration.  It goes back to when Bush senior was in charge of the CIA.
I agree with Footsoldier with the removal of Saddam. It had to be done. It should have been done in 93/94, but the UN was the ones that were dragging their feet.Your right kanaka, North Korea is a far larger ally to terrorists than Saddam ever was. The problem is China might get a little upset if there was a sudden military build up off their shore. Rwanda and Sudan were colonial ruled by Belgium(R), England and Egypt(S). Although the ties were severed in the mid 20th century, I think this would have put strains on relations between traditional allies to the US. With that said, your argument is basically if the US is willing to step into all the hotspots ...Its Okay...but if its only one or two there's a problem. You can't expect one country to clean up all the skirmishes and petty dictatorships in the world, all at the same time. Its not fair. This is why the US should have waited and gone into Iraq with UN forces. It would put less strain on the US military. There would be a legitimate authority set up in Iraq, without anyone wondering if it was a puppet regime. While your villifying the US, you might want to look at some of the humanitarian sites. I'm sure you will be surprised at the amount of money raised by Americans to aid any number of worthy causes. You might want to remember, if those planes didn't crash into the World Trade Centre, the likelyhood is that we would not be having this discussion. |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:30 am Post subject: | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:28 am Post subject: | |
|
I guess the right response to 9/11 would be to just lick our wounds and warn the enemy they had better not do that again or they will be in big trouble. Oh, and we could have run off to the UN and beg them them to get involved and protect us.
The problem with fighting terrorism is that cells of terrorists may have members representing multiple countries. They are organized groups who often aren't sponsered by any particular country. Who do you go after? Who do you hold responsible? Who is to blame? If a country harbors terrorists, are they not just as guilty as those who commit the crimes? If a country aids terror groups by providing funding, are they not an accomplice to any terrorist act committed by them? Since Kanaka and sleK obviously don't agree with the current policy of this country, I would like to hear how they would have dealt with this on 9/12/2001 instead of criticism of how it's been handled. I'll await your wise counsel. Footsoldier |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:44 am Post subject: | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:20 am; edited 1 time in total |
|