Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
This is as close to a flame or a troll that I have ever seen without actually being either of those things.
Host. We get it. You don't like Ustwo (and other's support of the war in Iraq).
Here's the thing.
Making a post like this is not going to win you support from those who don't share your point of view. All it does it more firmly entrench them their position. There is nothing like calling someone, "liars, incompetents, unqualified, incurious, clueless" to really get them to NOT listen to you.
I really think that you need to reasses your approach and attempt to engage people in disussion because your current method does little to change minds and everything to get their backs up.
[/COLOR]
|
No,you don't "get it". Tomorrow, at American holiday dinner tables, there will be at least <a href="http://icasualties.org/oif/">3874</a> permanently empty chairs, and a much larger number (a 30 or 40 times greater number) of chairs occupied by young Americans who are no longer "whole"....all because of a "war of choice", a pre-emptive war that has also killed huge numbers of Iraqis who would be alive today if an ignorant, incompetent, incurious American president had been told what he needed to hear, instead of what he wanted to hear.
I would have written the OP, and done this thread, no matter who had posted
"It can be saved and won"
, and that "We've got a nation of 27 million people under our direct and indirect control"?
I avoided posting a quote displaying anyone's screen name directly, to make it clear that I am reacting to the opinions, not to the messenger. <h3>I would have started a new thread, with the same OP no matter who had posted those opinions.</h3> I don't believe that a reliably informed individual could post them. I've documented why, in thorough detail.
I started a new thread because the response I thought that "It can be saved and won", merited, was too OT for the thread topic where it was posted.
Consider that you had posted this, on that <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2348490#post2348490">other thread (Post #36)</a>:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
You see this is where you fall off for me. You are correct in the resulting failure of Iraq will not be the fault of just one person. However, that fault lies in the absence of a sound plan for solving the issue of Iraq in the first place.
The invasion should never have occurred in the manner in which it did. The Bush administration entered Iraq without a Gulf War 1 coalition. <h3>There was arguably a good reason to take out Saddam and doing this was going to be easy.</h3> It was what comes after Saddam that they need support to pull off.
Regardless of the reasons for going in (anything from oil to building a stable democracy in the middle east) Iraq has been one giant fuck up of monumental proportion whether or not the so-called left decides to pull out or not.
|
"Good reason"? Can there be "good reason", without legal justification? The invasion was illegal, it's not me saying that, I only concur and pass it along:
Quote:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/
.....Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:
"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."
It's that simple. Ferencz called the invasion a "clear breach of law," and dismissed the Bush administration's legal defense that previous U.N. Security Council resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War justified an invasion in 2003.
Ferencz notes that the first Bush president believed that the United States didn't have a U.N. mandate to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein; that authorization was simply to eject Hussein from Kuwait. Ferencz asked, "So how do we get authorization more than a decade later to finish the job? The arguments made to defend this are not persuasive."
Writing for the United Kingdom's Guardian, shortly before the 2003 invasion, international law expert Mark Littman echoed Ferencz: "The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution of the Security Council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the Security Council.".....
|
Charlatan, I've done my "homework", and I've shared all of the results of my research. I beg you to read it:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...pt#post2191248
THERE WAS NO THREAT TO THE US FROM SADDAM'S IRAQ THAT JUSTIFIED THE INVASION. THE LIES TOLD BY THE US OFFICIALS, DETAILED AT THE PAGES ACCESSED IN THESE LINKS, CLEARLY SUPPORT WHAT I'M SAYING:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=28
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...rs#post2239744
This disaster will not end until "It can be saved and won" sentiments are confronted vigorously, and exposed as uninformed, every single time they are publicly expressed....
I heard the same BS for seven full years, about Vietnam, after Walter Cronkite's Feb. 27, 1968,post Tet offensive appraisal of the US war in Vietnam. It was wrong then, and we are immersed in an Iraqi civil war today because the lessons of Vietnam were unlearned by the people who led us into Iraq in present times.