1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Prewar justifications: bringing democracy to the ME

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by basso, Apr 14, 2005.

  1. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,400
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    i liked ike's "the grand crusade" but i suppose that would've damaged delicate ME sensibilities.
     
  2. Oski2005

    Oski2005 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,100
    Likes Received:
    447
    Yay, you just answered your own question!!!

    You deserve a reward: http://www.americawestandasone.com/video.html
     
  3. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,810
    Likes Received:
    20,466
    yes, it is better to point out an extra s, than to respond to the point.
     
  4. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    Because one is a no-brainer while the other needs deliberation?
     
  5. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Unfortunately, the "no-brainer" turned out to be absolutely false.

    We should have deliberated.
     
  6. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    Well, yes, the no brainer did turn out to essentially be false. They still haven't dug up all that sand...

    We did deliberate between January and March-- not to mention the decade before then.
     
  7. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,400
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    this is an essential point. Saddam didn't start violating UN resolutions after 9/11- he'd been doing so for 12 years, calmly and methodically murdering his own people all the while. this is the status quo andy et al want to go back to.
     
  8. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    :rolleyes:

    Are you sure you want to claim we just haven't found them yet?

    Three whole months of deliberation, wow, what a debatefest. During that time, we also ignored all of the diplomatic solutions that presented themselves and instead charged into a war without proper planning based on cooked up "intelligence" and "plans" based on flowers being thrown at our feet and a reconstruction that could be financed by Iraqi oil funds.
     
  9. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,810
    Likes Received:
    20,466
    Andy et al. has never proposed keeping the Status quo of Saddam murdering his own people.

    It appears that when you run out of civil discourse, and issues based discussion you resort once again to claiming that we want Saddam in charge. Nobody has ever said that.
     
  10. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    You need to get your facts straight. Saddam had been violating the UN resolutions for quite some time until he turned an about face and let the inspectors back into Iraq. Inspections were going according to plan until GWB pulled them out. Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out, GWB pulled them out to get his war on.

    And Saddam's murdering was mainly done in the 80s, when he was an ally of the US, or have you forgotten the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?

    Containment was working and Saddam could not have conceivably been a threat to us or anyone else for at least another decade.

    I agree that Saddam being in charge of Iraq was not the best possible scenario, but neither was GWB and his cabal's elective war.
     
  11. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,400
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    bottom line andy, if you could roll the clock back to spring 2003, would you leave saddam in place? do you think a saddamite regime, "certified-cleansed" of WMD should have been left to rule iraq?
     
  12. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Given some oversight, yes. I would still have taken the containment route and worked for regime change in other ways. The ONLY reason the UNSC passed resolutions was the result of WMDs and the US had no justifiable reason for overthrowing him in the absence of said WMDs.

    There are "human rights" situations much more pressing that we should be able to see to, but cannot now due to being stuck in Iraq.

    We should have concentrated on finishing the job in Afghanistan, including capturing Bin Laden and instead are stuck in a place where we do not belong, where the people don't want us, and where our military is stretched way too thin. There is also the matter of the $300 billion we have spent there which would be put to much better use helping people here in America.
     
  13. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,400
    Likes Received:
    9,319
    how would you have enforced said oversight? and given the scandal of the oil-for-food program, how could you trust the UN to help contain saddam? the containment system in place prior to the invasion was falling apart.
     
  14. rhester

    rhester Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,600
    Likes Received:
    104
    Somebody read the book Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert and then post a book report.
     
  15. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,795
    Likes Received:
    41,232
    You can address this to me. Yes, absolutely. Saddam wasn't a clear and present danger to the United States. AQ, with their Taliban allies, were. That was a war I was fully behind, and was brilliantly executed.

    If Bush, and his little group of incompetent advisors, had maintained a war against terrorism, instead of invading a sovereign country, which we had in a box, and which wasn't a clear and present danger to the United States, there would have been an aspect of Bush's foreign policy of which I'd be supportive and singing his praises about. We also wouldn't be tied down in Iraq, and exposed before the world as weaker than we should be perceived.

    It is no coincidence, IMO, that North Korea and Iran are doing what they are doing with their nuclear program. They don't face the unfettered might of the United States military, and would have been scared ****less of our power. Instead, they see a United States exposed as being stretched to the limit by the occupation of an easily defeated Iraq.


    basso, I can't believe we keep going over the same ground over and over again. You refuse to see the facts, IMO, and we are certainly not going to change your mind. The Bush Administration keeps changing the reasons they went to war. They have weakened this country, severely damaged our relations with our longtime allies, and their people, if not every government, and they have thrown away...thrown away, the near universal goodwill towards the US that swept the world after 9/11. Bush had the support of the world for the Afghan War. He had the support of the world for a real fight against AQ and their allies. He threw it away with his adventure in Iraq.

    I'll give you and Giddy credit for being stubborn. Go ahead. Be stubborn. We're up to our necks in the sands of Iraq. You just have your heads buried in it.



    Keep D&D Civil!!
     
  16. surrender

    surrender Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,340
    Likes Received:
    32
    Awesome, an "ends justify the means" question
     
  17. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    <b>Originally posted by andymoon

    Are you sure you want to claim we just haven't found them yet?</b>

    I was mostly being tongue in cheek, but if you are comfortable with errors in paperwork...

    <b>Three whole months of deliberation, wow, what a debatefest. During that time, we also ignored all of the diplomatic solutions that presented themselves and instead charged into a war without proper planning based on cooked up "intelligence" and "plans" based on flowers being thrown at our feet and a reconstruction that could be financed by Iraqi oil funds.</b>

    You've conveniently ignored the entire decade of the 90s to which I referred. This was the decade which saw Saddam flout the UN sanctions post-Gulf War.

    I have no doubt that mistakes were made. I also have no doubt that Iraq and the Middle East are better off now than before.
     
  18. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    How to go from brilliant to incompetent: disagree with Deckard! :D
     
  19. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    1) Trump up "evidence" in support of a war.
    2) Ignore all diplomatic solutions to said war.
    3) Ignore half of your own country's and virtually all of the world's protests over said war.
    4) Throw away all of the worldwide good will and support we had in pursuit of said war.
    5) Ignore the reasonable voices during the planning of your war.
    6) Gloss over the true costs of the war.
    7) Fail to equip your soldiers properly.
    8) Fail to send enough troops to effectively do the job.
    9) Give the appearance of impropriety by giving the no-bid reconstruction contract to your Vice President's old company.
    10) Allow such little oversight that your troops think it is OK to torture prisoners.
    11) Retaliate against anyone with the temerity to disagree with your reasoning for war in public.
    12) Continually change the justification for your war as the "evidence" in step 1 is proven false.


    Finally, a 12 step program for the neo-cons.
     
  20. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    We could have verified the errors in the paperwork without a war. It is good that you can finally admit that we went to war over paperwork errors, though.

    Yes, and then he saw the error of his ways and allowed the inspectors back in. Saddam was not "flout[ing]" the resolutions when we decided to go to war, he was complying. He was certainly complying in order to save his own butt, but he was complying until GWB pulled the inspectors out.


    I have plenty of doubt, but only the next couple of decades will tell.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now