Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ian

Trouble

Recommended Posts

And that, in part, proves, in part, part of my point(s). :lol:

 

Here we go again. Weaseling deeper and deeper into irrelevant detail trying to explain away our actions. :lol:

                                                               

Chengrob said it far better, so see the above. I feel a Mac attack coming on!

I am not weaseling anywhere, those have been my thoughts all along, since the beginning.

 

If you must refer back to anything please refer to my earlier post where I stated quite plainly I did NOT want us to go to war. I did NOT support the action. The difference is that I have a more realistic perspective on why it came about and why the public and the world view it as they do.

 

You got sold on WMD and chose to look at nothing else, you have blinders on.

 

 

If you really think that WMD is the sole reason we went in there please explain to me why the United States has not attacked nations that are most definitely developing WMD and who happen to openly hate and challenge the US?

 

Really, why not?

 

The UN wouldn't support us in that either and the world would hate us for it....so why not?

 

Weren't there other factors involved?

 

No?

 

Israel?

Oil?

Terrorism?

Challenge of UN authority by Saddam?

Shots fired on US warplanes?

Suspicion of WMD?

Murder of Iraqi people by their leader?

Pressure of the people of the US for vengence for the attacks?

etc etc etc

 

 

There was a heck of a lot more to it than the oversimplistic idea of WMD. If it were only WMD we would be attacking many more countries than just that one.

 

 

I don't have to explain my actions at all, I didn't do anything but see the truth for what it was, and I certainly don't feel the need to explain away the actions of the US as I have seen them for what they are all along, unlike some who apparently wear blinders. If you think that is what I am doing then you are mistaken. What I am doing is indicating the reality of the situation and the fact that it is not in keeping at all with either side of the arguments presented for or against the war.

 

So you can choose to poke fun, but that only makes more conspicuous the fact that you have missed the entire point and are assuming that because I don't see it exactly your way I must be against you.

 

Funny, if one were wrong about how the war would come about and believed the WMD reasoning and other things, and I have been more in touch with it all along and have not been surprised I would think one would be more inclined to hear what I have to say rather than assume I were wrong, after all my track record demostrates a tendency to be right.

 

I understood from the beginning that we were going in regardless of the UN. I understood there was a lot more to it than WMD. I understood that there would be skirmishes afterward but that the Iraqi's would be handed their country back. I understood there would be great controversy in the world over it and the US would look very, very bad. I understood that there would be actions by the US military that would be called into question, and rightly so. If I understood all this, and somebody else didn't I would thing that somebody might want to hear what I have to say because obviously they missed something that I didn't.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't you heard :rolleyes: Powell is an obsessive collector of frequent flier air miles. He'll use any pretence to collect a few more :)

Yes, I have heard that.

 

Have you heard that he was under the sincere impression at the time that there really was a WMD threat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have heard that.

 

Have you heard that he was under the sincere impression at the time that there really was a WMD threat?

Hell no,,he don't get that news... :) vj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I take it back a step further and say that the UN was wrong. Wrong for not standing beside the US. I don't think is was the US that ignored the UN, I think it was the UN that ignored the US.

 

Ill take that a little further and state that it was in fact the UN that ignored itself, its own resolutions and bylaws concerning Iraq. The US did what the UN should have done in the mid 90's and that was remove the non co-operative Iraqi government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: I heard lots of stuff, but I rarely believe what any politician has to say. Especially an American Republican one :P

Well then perhaps you find what so many of the Democrats were saying at the time more believable......or some of the other world leaders?

 

 

Anyway he would be nuts not to go after the frequent flier miles. Considering the state of the deficit we need all the help we can get and the government would be paying for his travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway he would be nuts not to go after the frequent flier miles. Considering the state of the deficit we need all the help we can get and the government would be paying for his travel.

......and he was hardly concerned with conserving gas, knowing what he knew BEFORE he got on the plane ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......and he was hardly concerned with conserving gas, knowing what he knew BEFORE he got on the plane ;)

Ahhhhh!

 

OIL!

 

 

So....WMD didn't have as much to do with it as one might have been led to believe.....I get it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ChopDoc,

 

I think I understand what you are saying. I also did not believe that WMD was the true reason why we invaded Iraq. That said, I still today can only speculate on what our true intentions are inside of this country. The problem is that if we don't understand the true underlying reason, then it makes it difficult to weigh the benefit against the 100's of billions of dollars thus far spent over there.

 

I will disagree with you and 12Gamble about one thing. We did have full UN support. Resolution 1492 was a unanimous endorsement of American policy in Iraq. Was it not? The problem was that they wanted to go through the inspection process, and America did not. So we basically ignored our own resolution.

 

It seems almost hypocritical and to say the reason that we invaded Iraq was due to unenforced UN resolutions of the 90's.

 

I agree that WMD was not the reason that we entered the war. And I freely admit that I have no idea true perspective on what would compel us to do such a thing. But it seems truly hypocritical to make up reasons after the fact, like unenforced UN resolutions of the 90's. One thing for sure, I am certain this small fact had little to do with our decision to invade Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhhh!

 

OIL!

 

 

So....WMD didn't have as much to do with it as one might have been led to believe.....I get it. ;)

Chop, the whole damned world outside of Americas borders knows it was nowt to do with WMD's. They continue to be mentioned as a slap in the face of the lying git who used them (and still does) to justify sending his storm troopers into a virtually unarmed, oil rich sovereign nation in the Middle East.

 

Clear now? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will disagree with you and 12Gamble about one thing. We did have full UN support. Resolution 1492 was a unanimous endorsement of American policy in Iraq. Was it not? The problem was that they wanted to go through the inspection process, and America did not. So we basically ignored our own resolution.

 

It seems almost hypocritical and to say the reason that we invaded Iraq was due to unenforced UN resolutions of the 90's.

 

 

The United States wanted all bets off. Put up or shut up....step down, open the gates...let us (The UN) in and no excuses.

 

 

So although 1492 was in support of part of the spirit of US policy, the US was in fact determined to take a much harder line. And they did, but on their own.

 

 

I don't think it is hypocritical to cite Saddam's persistent lack of cooperation. It was a cumulative problem. It is mighty convenient to cite it now, but convenience does not make it wrong. I do remember at the time there were many references to the persistent failure of Iraq to comply, it's not as if it was just realized last week, it really was part of the reasoning for the hardline stance the US wanted to take.

 

 

I also admit that I do not know many of the behind the scenes goings on that led to the war, but regarding those things that were in the open I think I am realistic about it as I was then.

 

I can say that if I woke up one morning and realized the truth after having bought into the whole WMD thing I myself would be pretty ticked off just as all those many people who found themselves in just such a circumstance rightly are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chop, the whole damned world outside of Americas borders knows it was nowt to do with WMD's. They continue to be mentioned as a slap in the face of the lying git who used them (and still does) to justify sending his storm troopers into a virtually unarmed, oil rich sovereign nation in the Middle East.

 

Clear now? :P

Clear as mud.

 

There is as yet no evidence that he lied about believing there was WMD.

 

 

But there are a fair number of people still beating the subject to death.

 

 

2. I find it UNBELIEVABLE to hear people say that this war is not about WMD. It has everything to do with WMD. That's what we told the entire world. WMD. WMD. WMD. WMD. Do you honestly believe that if we say that this war is about something else, that other countries will actually believe it? Hell I don't believe it. I still believe today that we went into Iraq believing that we would find WMD.

 

 

 

If it can be demonstrated that he did not believe there were no WMD, then it is a slap in the face, otherwise.....it's just noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are that many people who fell for it for us to bother with?

 

John Kerry, Tony Blair, Forrest Gump and Deuces Wild.....hardly a significant number is it :lol:

 

edit:

If it can be demonstrated that he did not believe there were no WMD, then it is a slap in the face, otherwise.....it's just noise

Hopefully the November elections will prove you wrong ;)

Edited by Sir T Fireball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chop, the whole damned world outside of Americas borders knows it was nowt to do with WMD's. They continue to be mentioned as a slap in the face of the lying git who used them (and still does) to justify sending his storm troopers into a virtually unarmed, oil rich sovereign nation in the Middle East.

 

Clear now? :P

then why the hell am I PAYING SO :filtered:ED MUCH FOR GAS....lol

 

 

regardless, assuming it was about "oil" just for the sake of argument. Is it wrong for the US to secure a product that essentially allows the country to function? If there were famine in the US and we went to war for food would it still be a bad thing? Just curious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then why the hell am I PAYING SO :filtered:ED MUCH FOR GAS....lol

 

 

regardless, assuming it was about "oil" just for the sake of argument. Is it wrong for the US to secure a product that essentially allows the country to function? If there were famine in the US and we went to war for food would it still be a bad thing? Just curious

Of course it would be wrong.

 

Tidy up your international relations act and the rest of the world might donate a few loaves if it ever came to that :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are that many people who fell for it for us to bother with?

 

John Kerry, Tony Blair, Forrest Gump and Deuces Wild.....hardly a significant number is it :lol:

 

edit:

 

Hopefully the November elections will prove you wrong ;)

Well if nobody bought into it, or only a handful did, why harp on it? The way I see it, many did buy it, and that is why they are ticked off now.

 

 

Forrest Gump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so protecting your citizens is now deemed wrong? Can you then explain to me why we have nations at all....

I'm not sure who might have given you that impression but I will bite.

 

It isn't wrong for a nation to defent its citizens.

 

 

 

 

Why do we have nations?

 

No time for the long form so.....

 

I will say it is simply how society has grown from pack animals with an alpha male to tribal hunter gatherers to small states to nations. It is evolutionary.

 

Won't it be nice when we can get over that phase of evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so protecting your citizens is now deemed wrong? Can you then explain to me why we have nations at all....

aaahh now we're getting there :P You shouldn't be a nation, remember! You turned rogue having been led astray by terrorists in funny powdered wigs way back when. If you had stayed put we wouldn't be in this pickle today :rolleyes:

 

 

:beer:

 

Chopquack, we harp on about it because it is a clear indicator as to the fact that the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet is a sleaze bag who would lie and cheat his way into his post and then lie and cheat so many unfortunate souls into an early grave. Both American and Iraqi. It hurts so we harp on about it. The man is a festering sore - strike that - the man is a cancer that is slowly but surely infecting the whole planet. He needs to be removed before he hits the lymphatic system. (bet I get slated for misdiagnosis now) :mrwinky:

 

Forrest Gump - and the other 3 eejits :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then why the hell am I PAYING SO :filtered:ED MUCH FOR GAS....lol

 

 

regardless, assuming it was about "oil" just for the sake of argument.  Is it wrong for the US to secure a product that essentially allows the country to function?  If there were famine in the US and we went to war for food would it still be a bad thing?  Just curious

It wasn't just about oil either, that was just one component. And to look at the oil question by suggesting we "secured a product" highly oversimplifies the matter. If that were the case we would be swimming in the stuff. It wasn't about oil products, it was about oil politics. Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aaahh now we're getting there :P You shouldn't be a nation, remember! You turned rogue having been led astray by terrorists in funny powdered wigs way back when. If you had stayed put we wouldn't be in this pickle today :rolleyes:

 

 

:beer:

 

Chopquack, we harp on about it because it is a clear indicator as to the fact that the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet is a sleaze bag who would lie and cheat his way into his post and then lie and cheat so many unfortunate souls into an early grave. Both American and Iraqi. It hurts so we harp on about it. The man is a festering sore - strike that - the man is a cancer that is slowly but surely infecting the whole planet. He needs to be removed before he hits the lymphatic system. (bet I get slated for misdiagnosis now) :mrwinky:

 

Forrest Gump - and the other 3 eejits :)

Yes, but I don't believe he lied and cheated his way to his post at all.

 

 

I dont differ with your diagnosos. I feel that way about most politicians. The question of malignancy is where the real difference lays as you said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(OK, cancers don't infect.....but it is an excellent analogy nonetheless)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oil and strategic military bases to replace those you are soon to lose in Saudi perhaps?

 

Once Bush and his Oil buddies realised they were rumbled on the WMD stories, he was advised to let the US public suffer a little at the gas pump to try hide his real intentions. Trust me, some time soon, your gas will be cheaper than it ever has been in your lifetime. (maybe not Volts lifetime though :P )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that oil prices are being manipulated for specific political reasons. Such is the politics of oil.

 

 

What I can say is that if it is demonstrated that Bush lied regarding his beliefs of WMD in Iraq I would support impeachment and or international charges.

 

Politicians lie all the time but I would find that lie particularly offensive since it would clearly demonstrate an intent to draw nations into war on false pretenses.

 

So I understand how you feel since you do believe he lied, I would feel the same if I believed that.

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then why the hell am I PAYING SO :filtered:ED MUCH FOR GAS....lol

 

 

regardless, assuming it was about "oil" just for the sake of argument.  Is it wrong for the US to secure a product that essentially allows the country to function?  If there were famine in the US and we went to war for food would it still be a bad thing?  Just curious

12,

 

I almost have to think you are joking! This kind of thinking is bordering on communism, isn't it? The people with the food have a responsibility to share food with the people that don't. Instead of communism, we have something that I believe is better - capitalism. If the US had a famine, then the price of food would rise dramatically worldwide. It would be inflationary, etc etc. It would certainly would not and should not precipitate a war.

 

On the flip side, the US does not have a famine, but there are many countries (like 90% of them) that have less than us. By this logic, this would give these companies the right to attack us, since we have more food than they.

 

Lastly, this is not about oil PRICES. It is about oil PROFITS. Check out the profits and stock prices of Chevron, BP, etc. They all are enjoying record profits and record stock prices. A LOT of millionaires and billionaires are being made before our eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...