|
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
aceventura3, the last sentence in your above quote, IMO, is contradicted by what the Duelfer report said, documented in the article that I included in my last post. Twice, now, I'm making a sincere and thorough effort to demonstrate, and document, why I believe that the Bush administration had no basis for pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq, for the justifications that you maintain are valid and legal.
|
Legality in war is a technicality. It is like the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules - He who wins the war defines its legality.
With that aside. Saddam routinely fired on US military planes in the no fly zone in Iraq. That alone could prove to be justification for war.
Quote:
|
Kindly respond with some references that explain what triggered the "About Face", that changed the threat that Saddam's Iraq posed to the US, considering the comments of Powell, Rice, and DIA chief Thomas R. Wilson, in 2001, before 9/11, and Cheney's 9/16/01 statment that we had Saddam Hussein, "bottled up".
|
I don't have a source or need a source. In my opinion he was not "bottled up". He was a man who was motivated to make war and he had done it in the past, he was not cooperating (being submissive) with the the US or UN, he was rebuilding his military machine. Are you suggesting he was a changed man with no interest in making war? If you say yes to that we fundamentally disagree. If no then we simply disagree on the point of - if we had him under control or not. To that question - we will never know the answer, all we can do or all anyone can do is speculate.
Quote:
|
I would think that you would perceive a motivation to defend your justification for the invasion, since the record strongly indicates that Saddam posed no threat, in Cheney's own opinion, as late as on 9/16/01, Powell said that the sanctions against Iraq had been reformed to keep Saddam from obtaining WMD, Duelfer reported that there was no program to obtain or rebuild the WMD capability, and ten days before the invasion, the WMD inspection program was back in place in Iraq, and the French Foreign Minister, Villepin, made a speech before the UN, stating that:
|
The only problem with me trusting the French in this situation is the fact that Sadaam owed them billions of dollars. As I recall they had an economic incentive not to support the war.
Quote:
|
aceventura3, as you can see, I'm documenting that Powell said he had worked to "reform" the sanctions, and right after the 9/11 attacks, Cheney said that Saddam was "bottled up". Rice had the same opinion, six weeks before 9/11. When the US invaded Iraq, Villepin had said in his speech, ten days before that the WMD inspectors were back in Iraq, and making serious progress for "a month". I will credit the Bush policy of assembling a threat of use of military force, under the resolution of the UN, for restoring the inspections teams that "were making progress".
|
Can you at least ackowledge that Sadaam was playing games with inspectors? Can you ackowledge that he was basically thumbing his nose at UN mandates? If you can do that - I will ackowledge that, with the real threat of war, Sadaam was going to allow the pretense of the inspectors making progress in the month you refer to. In my opinion, by that time my mind was already made up.
Quote:
|
<b>aceventura3, the scenario that you wanted to keep Saddam from restarting WMD development or obtaining and holding WMD, was in place, by all accounts, before Bush ordered the military invasion. To order invasion, in spite of that, is a war crime, similar to shooting a disarmed "suspect", after calling away the police who were frisking him for hidden weapons....just because....you...with the gun, still felt threatened by the suspect. Your stance IMO, reduced to unsubstantiated and it follows...unjustified, pre-emptive war.....is one that both Bush and Cheney failed to justify, in new attempts in the last few days, probably because of the huge, contrary body of evidence that hangs over this. A strong case, IMO, can also be made that the invasion of Iraq was not justified to the point that arguments that it was an illegal war of aggression, must be respected, and without any more valid justification than Bush and Cheney can now come up with, may end up prevailing.</b>
|
No. I see it more like a guy that lives on my block who in the past used his attack dog to attack his neighbor, then continually threatens to harm others on the block. after we tell him to get rid of the dog and that we are going to inspect his property to make sure the dog is gone, he fails to let us do it and plays games with the mandate. He also throws rocks at my children when they walk past his house, and he shows no respect for our association rules. when we call the police, the police don't do anything.
At some point I am going to go over and kick the guys a$$.
Sure - my mother-in -law and a few other will call me a neandrethal, I may go to jail, etc.
But I won't live on a block where my children are not safe.
I won't live on a block where a guy bully's others.
I will do what needs to be done.
Quote:
|
<b>aceventura3, the Bush admin. is concerned enough that the analysis in the Law Professor David Cole'ss preceding, excerpted review, puts it in legal jeopardy, for it's commission of Crimes against Humanity, to attempt:</b>
|
I think Bush is spending too much time and effort trying to make "nice, nice" with his political opponents. Are we guilty of war crimes? I don't know. However, I a graduate of the school of - if your enemy breaks your finger - you break his arm.
You don't understand me, and I don't understand you. Would you let someone make threats against the people you love, without taking some action? Would you wait until after they act on the threat before taking action? Do you agree - that at some point talk is not enough?
Quote:
|
....and yup.....this is long....but so is this ordeal, and since the folks who ordered the invasion of Iraq, can't justify why they did it, I think that sharing what I've learned, could be beneficial to you, aceventura3, because, there is no telling where embracing a policy of "pre-emption", failed and resulting in crimes against humanity, will take our country with it's destroyed international "standing", next......
|
Don't say they can't justify why they invaded Iraq. What I get from your posts is that you don't agree with the justification given. To me that is an important difference.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
aceventura3, the last sentence in your above quote, IMO, is contradicted by what the Duelfer report said, documented in the article that I included in my last post. Twice, now, I'm making a sincere and thorough effort to demonstrate, and document, why I believe that the Bush administration had no basis for pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq, for the justifications that you maintain are valid and legal.
|
Legality in war is a technicality. It is like the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules - He who wins the war defines its legality.
With that aside. Saddam routinely fired on US military planes in the no fly zone in Iraq. That alone could prove to be justification for war.
Quote:
|
Kindly respond with some references that explain what triggered the "About Face", that changed the threat that Saddam's Iraq posed to the US, considering the comments of Powell, Rice, and DIA chief Thomas R. Wilson, in 2001, before 9/11, and Cheney's 9/16/01 statment that we had Saddam Hussein, "bottled up".
|
I don't have a source or need a source. In my opinion he was not "bottled up". He was a man who was motivated to make war and he had done it in the past, he was not cooperating (being submissive) with the the US or UN, he was rebuilding his military machine. Are you suggesting he was a changed man with no interest in making war? If you say yes to that we fundamentally disagree. If no then we simply disagree on the point of - if we had him under control or not. To that question - we will never know the answer, all we can do or all anyone can do is speculate.
Quote:
|
I would think that you would perceive a motivation to defend your justification for the invasion, since the record strongly indicates that Saddam posed no threat, in Cheney's own opinion, as late as on 9/16/01, Powell said that the sanctions against Iraq had been reformed to keep Saddam from obtaining WMD, Duelfer reported that there was no program to obtain or rebuild the WMD capability, and ten days before the invasion, the WMD inspection program was back in place in Iraq, and the French Foreign Minister, Villepin, made a speech before the UN, stating that:
|
The only problem with me trusting the French in this situation is the fact that Sadaam owed them billions of dollars. As I recall they had an economic incentive not to support the war.
Quote:
|
aceventura3, as you can see, I'm documenting that Powell said he had worked to "reform" the sanctions, and right after the 9/11 attacks, Cheney said that Saddam was "bottled up". Rice had the same opinion, six weeks before 9/11. When the US invaded Iraq, Villepin had said in his speech, ten days before that the WMD inspectors were back in Iraq, and making serious progress for "a month". I will credit the Bush policy of assembling a threat of use of military force, under the resolution of the UN, for restoring the inspections teams that "were making progress".
|
Can you at least ackowledge that Sadaam was playing games with inspectors? Can you ackowledge that he was basically thumbing his nose at UN mandates? If you can do that - I will ackowledge that, with the real threat of war, Sadaam was going to allow the pretense of the inspectors making progress in the month you refer to. In my opinion, by that time my mind was already made up.
Quote:
|
<b>aceventura3, the scenario that you wanted to keep Saddam from restarting WMD development or obtaining and holding WMD, was in place, by all accounts, before Bush ordered the military invasion. To order invasion, in spite of that, is a war crime, similar to shooting a disarmed "suspect", after calling away the police who were frisking him for hidden weapons....just because....you...with the gun, still felt threatened by the suspect. Your stance IMO, reduced to unsubstantiated and it follows...unjustified, pre-emptive war.....is one that both Bush and Cheney failed to justify, in new attempts in the last few days, probably because of the huge, contrary body of evidence that hangs over this. A strong case, IMO, can also be made that the invasion of Iraq was not justified to the point that arguments that it was an illegal war of aggression, must be respected, and without any more valid justification than Bush and Cheney can now come up with, may end up prevailing.</b>
|
No. I see it more like a guy that lives on my block who in the past used his attack dog to attack his neighbor, then continually threatens to harm others on the block. after we tell him to get rid of the dog and that we are going to inspect his property to make sure the dog is gone, he fails to let us do it and plays games with the mandate. He also throws rocks at my children when they walk past his house, and he shows no respect for our association rules. when we call the police, the police don't do anything.
At some point I am going to go over and kick the guys a$$.
Sure - my mother-in -law and a few other will call me a neandrethal, I may go to jail, etc.
But I won't live on a block where my children are not safe.
I won't live on a block where a guy bully's others.
I will do what needs to be done.
Quote:
|
<b>aceventura3, the Bush admin. is concerned enough that the analysis in the Law Professor David Cole'ss preceding, excerpted review, puts it in legal jeopardy, for it's commission of Crimes against Humanity, to attempt:</b>
|
I think Bush is spending too much time and effort trying to make "nice, nice" with his political opponents. Are we guilty of war crimes? I don't know. However, I a graduate of the school of - if your enemy breaks your finger - you break his arm.
You don't understand me, and I don't understand you. Would you let someone make threats against the people you love, without taking some action? Would you wait until after they act on the threat before taking action? Do you agree - that at some point talk is not enough?
Quote:
|
....and yup.....this is long....but so is this ordeal, and since the folks who ordered the invasion of Iraq, can't justify why they did it, I think that sharing what I've learned, could be beneficial to you, aceventura3, because, there is no telling where embracing a policy of "pre-emption", failed and resulting in crimes against humanity, will take our country with it's destroyed international "standing", next......
|
Don't say they can't justify why they invaded Iraq. What I get from your posts is that you don't agree with the justification given. To me that is an important difference.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."
Last edited by aceventura3; 09-13-2006 at 06:08 PM..
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
|