If A Suitcase Nuke Went Off In NY

[Annie]

Following our own system does not make multilateral. It was a US led invasion, not a mulitlateral invasion.

As for the justifcation of the Iraq war, there are a few mistakes that you have made.

It is patently false that there is "no doubt" that it was justifiable. In fact there are large segments of the US population and world population that either doubt it was justifiable or think it was definitely unjustifiable.

Secondly, that has nothing to do with what you two are discussing. Iraq was NOT justified as a response to 9/11. Whether it was justified for other reasons is open to debate. I think it was not, you think it was. But it is very very hard to argue that we needed to invade Iraq because of 9/11.

All but your last point was discussed by MM and myself. I do not care whether or not you agree with my pov or his. Where did you find me referencing 9/11 for anything to do with Iraq.

 

[Larkinn]

All but your last point was discussed by MM and myself. I do not care whether or not you agree with my pov or his. Where did you find me referencing 9/11 for anything to do with Iraq.

It was discussed by you and MM, and you happen to be wrong. Not subjectively wrong, objectively wrong. Whether you care or not is irrelevant to what I choose to say or when I feel obliged to point our inaccuracies on your, or anyones, part.

As to you referencing 9/11 and Iraq, you were talking about responses to terrorist attacks on the US. MM pointed out that what happens if you attack someone incorrectly for a terrorist attack on the US. You then brought up Iraq and said the war was justified. I gave you the benefit of assuming the two comments were linked and that you weren't randomly talking about Iraq for unknown reasons. Should I have assumed otherwise?

 

[Annie]

It was discussed by you and MM, and you happen to be wrong. Not subjectively wrong, objectively wrong. Whether you care or not is irrelevant to what I choose to say or when I feel obliged to point our inaccuracies on your, or anyones, part.

As to you referencing 9/11 and Iraq, you were talking about responses to terrorist attacks on the US. MM pointed out that what happens if you attack someone incorrectly for a terrorist attack on the US. You then brought up Iraq and said the war was justified. I gave you the benefit of assuming the two comments were linked and that you weren't randomly talking about Iraq for unknown reasons. Should I have assumed otherwise?

Interesting the way you spin. I wrote what I wrote, never did I say you shouldn't or couldn't write anything you care to. I just said your opinion of my pov is of no concern to me.

We were dealing with a hypothetical attack on US and possible hypothetical responses. In no way or shape was 9/11 the topic, but write whatever you wish, I'd rather though you not attribute to me ideas that aren't mine.

 

[Larkinn]

Interesting the way you spin. I wrote what I wrote, never did I say you shouldn't or couldn't write anything you care to. I just said your opinion of my pov is of no concern to me.

We were dealing with a hypothetical attack on US and possible hypothetical responses. In no way or shape was 9/11 the topic, but write whatever you wish, I'd rather though you not attribute to me ideas that aren't mine.

And where did I say or imply that you said that I shouldn't or couldn't write anything I care to? No, all I said is that whether you care or not is irrelevant to my decision to post or not.

I'm sorry for assuming you brought up Iraq because it had something to do with the topic at hand. I foolishly assumed you were over the disease that seemed to have afflicted you last night when you shat all over several of my threads with incoherent ramblings, and that your posts here would be relevant to the topic at hand. I apologize, I will not make the same mistake twice.

 

[Annie]

And where did I say or imply that you said that I shouldn't or couldn't write anything I care to? No, all I said is that whether you care or not is irrelevant to my decision to post or not.

I'm sorry for assuming you brought up Iraq because it had something to do with the topic at hand. I foolishly assumed you were over the disease that seemed to have afflicted you last night when you shat all over several of my threads with incoherent ramblings, and that your posts here would be relevant to the topic at hand. I apologize, I will not make the same mistake twice.

Fine by me, please don't.

 

[red states rule]

justifiable? I disagree that there was "no doub"t that the war was "justifiable". Congress certainly AUTHORIZED the use of force, but their actions to "authorize" do not, in and of themselves, "justify" anything. The UN ceasefire agreement was a UN ceasefire agreement. I think an argument can be made that, if invasion of Iraq was to be "justified" because of Saddam's purportedly heinous and eggregious violations of UN cease fire agreements, it should be the UN's place to make that call, and not the United States', especially when WE placed the issue before the UNSC and they failed to agree that such JUSTIFICATION either existed or was warranted.

The same UN that was running the Oil fo Food program?

Yea, they could handle things just fine

 

[maineman]

The same UN that was running the Oil fo Food program?

Yea, they could handle things just fine

who cares? the war, if it was to be "justified" by anyone as a result of violations of UN sanctions, that "someone" should have been the UN, and not the US.

Clearly....Bush told us that if we had to go in, that our mission (singular) was clear: disarmament. Since Saddam didn't have any WMD's at the time of the invasion, mission (singular) accomplished. No WMD's...no connection to 9/11....no alliance with AQ.... No islamic extremist presence. Stupid, unjustified war. case closed.

 

[red states rule]

who cares? the war, if it was to be "justified" by anyone as a result of violations of UN sanctions, that "someone" should have been the UN, and not the US.

Clearly....Bush told us that if we had to go in, that our mission (singular) was clear: disarmament. Since Saddam didn't have any WMD's at the time of the invasion, mission (singular) accomplished. No WMD's...no connection to 9/11....no alliance with AQ.... No islamic extremist presence. Stupid, unjustified war. case closed.

Seeing how the UN was in bed with Saddam - I am sure they would have done their usual fine job of enforcing the rules on Saddam

 

[maineman]

Seeing how the UN was in bed with Saddam - I am sure they would have done their usual fine job of enforcing the rules on Saddam

according to our own secretary of state. the sanctions and inspections had had an effect on Iraq. Saddam was not able to project power to his neighbors, let alone to us...and Powell said all that six months BEFORE 9/11. Was he lying?

 

[red states rule]

according to our own secretary of state. the sanctions and inspections had had an effect on Iraq. Saddam was not able to project power to his neighbors, let alone to us...and Powell said all that six months BEFORE 9/11. Was he lying?

Yea, they had as effect. Saddam made billions, bribed UN officals and government leaders of other countries, and millions of his people died

 

[maineman]

Yea, they had as effect. Saddam made billions, bribed UN officals and government leaders of other countries, and millions of his people died

so. Colin Powell was lying when he said that Iraq was incapable of projecting power to its neighbors?

 

[red states rule]

so. Colin Powell was lying when he said that Iraq was incapable of projecting power to its neighbors?

Tell that to Kuwait and Iran

For years, libs have attacked Powell as being a lap dog for Bush - now they want to use him as a source for their appeasement views

 

[maineman]

Tell that to Kuwait and Iran

For years, libs have attacked Powell as being a lap dog for Bush - now they want to use him as a source for their appeasement views

Kuwait and Iran happened before the first gulf war ... they have nothing to do with Saddam's ability to project power to his neighbors in 2001.

I asked you a simple question: Was George Bush's Secretary of State (and the FIRST Bush's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) a LIAR? yes or no?

 

[red states rule]

Kuwait and Iran happened before the first gulf war ... they have nothing to do with Saddam's ability to project power to his neighbors in 2001.

I asked you a simple question: Was George Bush's Secretary of State (and the FIRST Bush's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) a LIAR? yes or no?

Listening to the left over the last few years - yes

No suroprice libs would want to coddle Saddam and let him slaughter his people, and ignore the cease fire he agreed to - there was no benefit for their party to do otherwise

 

[maineman]

Listening to the left over the last few years - yes

No suroprice libs would want to coddle Saddam and let him slaughter his people, and ignore the cease fire he agreed to - there was no benefit for their party to do otherwise

"Colin Powell is a liar and RSR speaks the truth"....is that your position?

 

[red states rule]

"Colin Powell is a liar and RSR speaks the truth"....is that your position?

I said, if one listens to what other LIBS said about Mr Powell - they are the ones who have insulted and attacked him - not me

 

[maineman]

I said, if one listens to what other LIBS said about Mr Powell - they are the ones who have insulted and attacked him - not me

I am not insulting him. I point out what he said about Iraq...and you have said those statements were lies.

It is YOU who called COlin Powell a liar, not me

 

[red states rule]

I am not insulting him. I point out what he said about Iraq...and you have said those statements were lies.

It is YOU who called COlin Powell a liar, not me

This is why so many people find you to be such a fucking jerk

I did not say that and you know it, but being so desperate - you have to fall back on the personal attacks and twist things

I understand your fustration. Your party has fallen on its ass, the poll numbers stink, and the Dems have been unable to muster the guts to cut off funding so they can surrender to terrorists

Your world sucks so you lash out at others

 

[Larkinn]

This is why so many people find you to be such a fucking jerk

I did not say that and you know it, but being so desperate - you have to fall back on the personal attacks and twist things

I understand your fustration. Your party has fallen on its ass, the poll numbers stink, and the Dems have been unable to muster the guts to cut off funding so they can surrender to terrorists

Your world sucks so you lash out at others

Projecting again, honey?

 

[red states rule]

Projecting again, honey?

No

Pointing out the facts of the real world that libs like you and MM ignore