11 myths of iraqi war

[SpidermanTuba]

It is a FACT that you WANT people to still be tortured and killed in that manner.

No it isn't. You made that up. You're a liar. If that were true - then you WANTED Iraqi's to be tortured until Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Why did you want the Iraqi's to be tortured, and how did Hussein's invasion of Kuwait change your mind?

Why do you want N Koreans to be tortured, and Iranians, and Columbians, and Mexicans, and victims of all corrupt governments in the world?

You would be HAPPY if children were still being raped in front of their parents. It takes a special kind of sick bastard to actually prefer child rape over contradicting decisions made 20 years ago. But you fit the bill. Congradulations.

Why do you want the N Korean children to be raped?


Really though, why did you want the Iraqi children to be raped until Hussein invaded Kuwait, why did that change your mind?


Why are you so concerned about the IRaqi children? Why are they more deserveing of rescue than any of the other millions of children living under oppresive governments throughout the world? Why do make excuses for killing their fathers?






So it was neccessary for Saddam Hussein to gas the Kurds in the 80's? You wanted that to happen, didn't you?



You fully admit your reason for wanting the Kurds gassed in the 80's was political - now we're to believe you reason for wanting them saved in the 00's isn't political ? What kind of sucker do you take me for?

 

[manu1959]

I'm not one who thinks its right to bomb entire nations into the dark ages simply because they violated the letter of a treaty. Hussein was no threat to the United States - therefore, we were not justified in setting Baghdad on fire.

they were already in the "dark ages" ..... they signed a treaty .... 18 UN resolutions say they violated it .... they people should have risen up against their unjust leader and voted him out of office .... you know like you all are going to do in 08 ..... or sooner if you can catch him in some crime ..... hey i know ask the french to come liberate you from Bush II.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

they were already in the "dark ages" ..... they signed a treaty .... 18 UN resolutions say they violated it .... they people should have risen up against their unjust leader and voted him out of office .... you know like you all are going to do in 08 ..... or sooner if you can catch him in some crime ..... hey i know ask the french to come liberate you from Bush II.

They signed a treaty with the UN - not the US. The UN decided a full scale invasion was not warranted yet. End of story.

 

[manu1959]

Iraq and the US did not enter into any treaty. The agreement was between Iraq and the U.N. We are not responsible for unilaterally enforcing the UN's treaties - the UN is responsible for that.

the us is the un's world police force and source of funding.... and you know full well the US did not unilaterally enforce the resolutions .... why do you all play so dumb and claim to be so smart ....

 

[manu1959]

They signed a treaty with the UN - not the US. The UN decided a full scale invasion was not warranted yet. End of story.

the UN approved severe consequences what do think that meant a spanking?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

the us is the un's world police force

Hmm, I'm having trouble finding that in the UN Charter or any UN Resolution. Can you help me out here? You didn't just make it up, did you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

the UN approved severe consequences what do think that meant a spanking?

I'm also having trouble finding the Resolution where military force by the U.S. was authorized. In fact - I'm fairly certain it was the President who decided to use US military force in IRaq, and not the UN. Please, if you can find evidence to the contrary, let us all know.

 

[manu1959]

I'm also having trouble finding the Resolution where military force by the U.S. was authorized. In fact - I'm fairly certain it was the President who decided to use US military force in IRaq, and not the UN. Please, if you can find evidence to the contrary, let us all know.

the UN authorized "servere consequences" .... same terminology used for solivenia, somalia etc .... if you read the transcripts you will see that they were discussing an invasion of iraq to remove sadam .... france china germany and russia backed out after voting yes the first 18 times so Bush went to congress .... congress said ok .... spain, england austraila etc..... went to their parliments or whatever they all got approval .... boom .... war

but you knew all that you just want to argue ..... fine by me .... won't change the facts of where we are .... won't change the fact that radical islam continues to attack govt's around the world .... they did it before 911 for 8 years under clinton 8 years under regan....4 years under bush...4years under carter...they have waged a religious war against "the west" since the begining of time .....

 

[manu1959]

Hmm, I'm having trouble finding that in the UN Charter or any UN Resolution. Can you help me out here? You didn't just make it up, did you?

you mean the charter where all members of the UN have to contiribute money and their military? you are a smart dude...google it i am sure you can find it...

 

[SpidermanTuba]

the UN authorized "servere consequences" .... same terminology used for solivenia, somalia etc .... if you read the transcripts you will see that they were discussing an invasion of iraq to remove sadam .... france china germany and russia backed out after voting yes the first 18 times so Bush went to congress .... congress said ok .... spain, england austraila etc..... went to their parliments or whatever they all got approval .... boom .... war

but you knew all that you just want to argue ..... fine by me .... won't change the facts of where we are .... won't change the fact that radical islam continues to attack govt's around the world .... they did it before 911 for 8 years under clinton 8 years under regan....4 years under bush...4years under carter...they have waged a religious war against "the west" since the begining of time .....

Yeah, so what is the number of the Resolution which says the U.S. is authorized to invade Iraq and overthrow its government?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

you mean the charter where all members of the UN have to contiribute money and their military? you are a smart dude...google it i am sure you can find it...

Umm, yeah. So I found a copy of the Charter - and the phrase "world police" doesn't exist in it. Anywhere in it. So without even reading the thing - I'm can say with certainly that it does not say the U.S. military is the "world police". So yeah - you did just make it up.

There also isn't a part that says the US and a subset of the nations of its choosing gets to make decisions for the rest of the UN.


Now which resolution was it that said the US was to invade Iraq?


I'm guessing you made that up to.

 

[manu1959]

Umm, yeah. So I found a copy of the Charter - and the phrase "world police" doesn't exist in it. Anywhere in it. So without even reading the thing - I'm can say with certainly that it does not say the U.S. military is the "world police". So yeah - you did just make it up.


Now which resolution was it that said the US was to invade Iraq?


I'm guessing you made that up to.

so now you want to get all litteral....you are quite correct the term world police does not exist in the charter ....which causes me to wonder why the left uses the term......none the less you know full well what the term implies and why i used it yet you need to be right and change the point of the discussion in order to avoide the topic at hand.

there is no UN resolution that uses the term invade....but you knew that....you also knew that i did not use the term .... again changing the point of the argument to discuss a word rather than the actual topic....

in law school they teach you to do what you are doing if you are fresh out of facts and have no argument.....but then you knew that as well....

which brings me to this simple question....what would it take for you to argue in favour of that you oppose? or are you more intersted in being right at the expense of being correct?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

so now you want to get all litteral....you are quite correct the term world police does not exist in the charter ....which causes me to wonder why the left uses the term......

Uhh - your debating with me here, not with the entire left, and you were the first person to use it.

there is no UN resolution that uses the term invade....but you knew that....you also knew that i did not use the term .... again changing the point of the argument to discuss a word rather than the actual topic....

So which resolution says that individual members of the UN may take it upon themselves to enforce the treaty with Iraq without prior approval of the security council?

which brings me to this simple question....what would it take for you to argue in favour of that you oppose? or are you more intersted in being right at the expense of being correct?

A security council resolution which says that Iraq is to be invaded by a US led force.

 

[Bonnie]

Yeah. That's what we call the first Gulf War. Should we invade Japan since they bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941?

So your saying you supported both the Gulf War and invading Afghanistan??

 

[manu1959]

Uhh - your debating with me here, not with the entire left, and you were the first person to use it.

So which resolution says that individual members of the UN may take it upon themselves to enforce the treaty with Iraq without prior approval of the security council?

A security council resolution which says that Iraq is to be invaded by a US led force.

i am not debating with anyone.

i like the term world police so i use it

the security council voted 18 times the 19th time they bailed .... france germany china and russia decided not to join so UN forces were not deployed ....many say they bailed because of the huge debt owed them by iraq....or for the oil they were getting in spite of the embargo they voted to enforce or for the sale of military weapons systems they were trading for oil.....personally don't care...they bailed

the countries that did not bail decided to do something and correct what they perceived to be a wrong.... the decided to forgo debt...they decided to right a wrong.....the US is a world power.... for the US to lead is a no brainier....

sadam is gone that is a good thing.....we are at war ....that is a bad thing..... personally i would like to see the us pull all of its troops out of everywhere, close our borders and whish the rest of the world luck.....have said this for 20 years....unfortunately we are in the middle of it .... so stick with it and resolve it .... quitting won't fix it ....saying we shouldn't be there won't fix it .... saying bush is stupid won't fix it .... saying Bush lied won't fix it

take a look at the 5 steps of grief and tell me which one you are in

 

[Bonnie]

Spiderman..Talking about a public TV station meant for the civilian population. How does dropping a smart bomb on a TV station with civilian workers in it save civilian lives?

Since when was it the only mission of war to save Iraqi civilian lives?

 

[Gem]

Uhh, yeah, actually, you're wrong. We weren't at fullscale war with Iraq until we invaded them.

Uhh, yeah, actually, I'm right. The war we are presently engaged in is larger than simply Iraq. We have been ignoring the threat of terrorism and condoning complicity for decades...Iraq is one of the end results of this complacency.

Considering that I have not yet been rude in any way to you...you might consider changing your tone...unless you enjoy being smarmy to people simply because they disagree with you.

What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Not one of the hijackers was from there, not one of the people who planned the hijacking was from there. A bunch of Saudi Arabians under the direction of people who planned the attack in Afghanistan and Pakistan attacks us - and this means we should invade the weakest Muslim nation we can find that had nothing to do with it? How does that make any sense? Didn't you read the 9/11 report? No collaborative efforts between Hussein and Al Qaeda.

9/11 has much to do with the war in Iraq. Just not in the direct way you are attempting to view it as.

After 9/11 many people realized that we had been involved in this "war" with radical fundamentalist Muslims for decades and that no one in any administration had done anything to combat it and in fact, recent administrations like Clintons and HW Bushs had probably made it worse. (For proof of this look into Saddam's reaction to Bush leaving Iraq without entering Baghdad during the first Gulf War and Bin Ladens comments on that AND his comments on Clinton's pulling the troops out after the death of our soldiers in Somalia).

With that in mind, Bush was advised that one possible solution was to deal with the matter in an incredibly aggresive and long-term plan.

Invade a nation that was centrally located in the Middle East, one that was seen to be easily defeated, one that had a base population in great need of help and hopefully, one that wanted a chance to build a democracy, and one that had a goverment hostile to the US and possibly capable of causing the nation great harm. In time (again - Bush was not looking for a quick fix...but a permanent solution to dealing with terrorism) with a stable democracy starting to flourish in the Middle East other peoples in other nations would see its successes and begin to fight for their own independence. When people were given the choice to have the freedom to live their lives, not be oppressed, have a chance to provide for their families - choosing terrorism would become less of an attractive option.

Iraq met all of these requirements and more. It also was a nation ruled by a Dictator who had tried to assasinate a US President, enjoyed harboring known terrorists, paid the familes of suicide bombers, and had used chemical and biological weapons in the past. Additionally, most of the intelligence agencies of the world agreed that he was trying to build more weapons if he had not succeded already. Toss onto that HUGE HEAP of reasons to choose Iraq as a second front after Afganistan the fact that its incestuous relationship with France, China, Russia, and Germany had turned the UN into a den of slime and dirty money...and you have an amazingly sound reason to choose Iraq.

So when you were a kid, if someone in the schoolyard hit you, you retaliated by walking up to another kid that had nothing to do with it but that you knew you could beat and hitting them?

No...but if I knew this "innocent" other kid was paying the kids who hit me to do it, was teaching all the others how to hit me, was possibley getting ready to beat the shit out of me big time, AND if I beat up this bully I might be able to stop other people from picking on me...you bet your sweet bippy I'd kick that guy in the junk in a heartbeat.

To close, I'd just like to remind you (since you are so fond of accusing others of not reading reports) that you might want to look into some of the things Kay said upon his return from Iraq. I'm sure you were fascinated by the "No WMD" comments, as I was. However...rather than stopping at the headlines, I continued on...and was further intrigued by his statements to the effect of: It is more apparent now than ever before that we needed to remove Saddam. While he was not stockpiling WMD he was keeping everything ready...and as soon as the UN backed off, he was going to start again.

So you see...I could care less if the UN inspectors were done with their tours or not. Saddam was receiving phone calls from corrupt members of the UN letting him know exactly when people were coming and where they were going...and all he was doing was waiting them out. If not for Bush, the UN would have eventually tired of the game and left...and Saddam would have started everything up again. And you'd be touting it all as a wonderful success for the UN.

 

[Bonnie]

Uhh, yeah, actually, I'm right. The war we are presently engaged in is larger than simply Iraq. We have been ignoring the threat of terrorism and condoning complicity for decades...Iraq is one of the end results of this complacency.

Considering that I have not yet been rude in any way to you...you might consider changing your tone...unless you enjoy being smarmy to people simply because they disagree with you.



9/11 has much to do with the war in Iraq. Just not in the direct way you are attempting to view it as.

After 9/11 many people realized that we had been involved in this "war" with radical fundamentalist Muslims for decades and that no one in any administration had done anything to combat it and in fact, recent administrations like Clintons and HW Bushs had probably made it worse. (For proof of this look into Saddam's reaction to Bush leaving Iraq without entering Baghdad during the first Gulf War and Bin Ladens comments on that AND his comments on Clinton's pulling the troops out after the death of our soldiers in Somalia).

With that in mind, Bush was advised that one possible solution was to deal with the matter in an incredibly aggresive and long-term plan.

Invade a nation that was centrally located in the Middle East, one that was seen to be easily defeated, one that had a base population in great need of help and hopefully, one that wanted a chance to build a democracy, and one that had a goverment hostile to the US and possibly capable of causing the nation great harm. In time (again - Bush was not looking for a quick fix...but a permanent solution to dealing with terrorism) with a stable democracy starting to flourish in the Middle East other peoples in other nations would see its successes and begin to fight for their own independence. When people were given the choice to have the freedom to live their lives, not be oppressed, have a chance to provide for their families - choosing terrorism would become less of an attractive option.

Iraq met all of these requirements and more. It also was a nation ruled by a Dictator who had tried to assasinate a US President, enjoyed harboring known terrorists, paid the familes of suicide bombers, and had used chemical and biological weapons in the past. Additionally, most of the intelligence agencies of the world agreed that he was trying to build more weapons if he had not succeded already. Toss onto that HUGE HEAP of reasons to choose Iraq as a second front after Afganistan the fact that its incestuous relationship with France, China, Russia, and Germany had turned the UN into a den of slime and dirty money...and you have an amazingly sound reason to choose Iraq.



No...but if I knew this "innocent" other kid was paying the kids who hit me to do it, was teaching all the others how to hit me, was possibley getting ready to beat the shit out of me big time, AND if I beat up this bully I might be able to stop other people from picking on me...you bet your sweet bippy I'd kick that guy in the junk in a heartbeat.

To close, I'd just like to remind you (since you are so fond of accusing others of not reading reports) that you might want to look into some of the things Kay said upon his return from Iraq. I'm sure you were fascinated by the "No WMD" comments, as I was. However...rather than stopping at the headlines, I continued on...and was further intrigued by his statements to the effect of: It is more apparent now than ever before that we needed to remove Saddam. While he was not stockpiling WMD he was keeping everything ready...and as soon as the UN backed off, he was going to start again.

So you see...I could care less if the UN inspectors were done with their tours or not. Saddam was receiving phone calls from corrupt members of the UN letting him know exactly when people were coming and where they were going...and all he was doing was waiting them out. If not for Bush, the UN would have eventually tired of the game and left...and Saddam would have started everything up again. And you'd be touting it all as a wonderful success for the UN.

Bravo maestro!!!!!!!!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Uhh, yeah, actually, you're wrong. We weren't at fullscale war with Iraq until we invaded them.





What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Not one of the hijackers was from there, not one of the people who planned the hijacking was from there. A bunch of Saudi Arabians under the direction of people who planned the attack in Afghanistan and Pakistan attacks us - and this means we should invade the weakest Muslim nation we can find that had nothing to do with it? How does that make any sense? Didn't you read the 9/11 report? No collaborative efforts between Hussein and Al Qaeda.


So when you were a kid, if someone in the schoolyard hit you, you retaliated by walking up to another kid that had nothing to do with it but that you knew you could beat and hitting them?

BLAH BLAH BLAH,,,the connection has been proven over and over and over, sorry if you refuse to deal with reality...

I bet you wipe your ass 10 or 15 times every time you take a shit too, just cant understand, once should be enough....

People, errr, idiots, who continue to bring up the arguements that have been refuted over and over show one thing, they are EXTREMELY MYOPIC, which comes from a deep rooted hostility....

funny, you have a serious problem with us killing Iraqi soldiers who were drafted "on the pain of death",,,you dont see anything IRONIC (quite unintentional Im sure as anyone with a peabrain your size couldnt possibly be that witty) with that statement of yours?

SADDAM IS KILLING THEM IF THEY DONT JOIN,,,you dont have a problem with that? BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So the reason we invaded Iraq was just so we could do it - and then pretend to care about the Iraqis?
?

Ya know,,,,wishes that would come true

That you would be in a room alone with a Marine who is serving in Iraq, and say that to his face,,,ohhhh I would love to sell tickets. How fast can you run coward???? Just dont trip over that tail between your legs....