"Iraq supplied al-Qaeda with WMDs" -- Does this report justify the war?

[monty2_2001]

*Originally posted by SimonX *
**WEll, 60% of our active duty combat forces are in Iraq right now. We’ve put in a unit that has been traditionally reserved for dealing w/ the ventuality of conflict in NK. If NK gets out of hand, we’ll be short handed.

Ahh. You’re starting to get it. This is exactly my point. Iraq wasn’t a serious threat to world security. Nor, was it a probable threat to world security in the forseeable future. It was, though, as you correctly pointed out a “potential” threat to world security. But so’s Fernando Poo. Potential doesn’t cut it. It has to at least a likely threat. World security doesn’t cut it either. We don’t need to be the WorldCop. Iraq was violating UNSC resolutions, let the UNSC deal w/ it. They were dealing w/ Iraq’s violations more strictly than they were dealing w/ Israel’s violations of UNSC resolutions.

Iraq was forcibly partitioned and subject to more than a decade of severe sanctions and near daily bombing runs.

Can you cite the international rules and the language thereof that justify the attack? AFAIK, there’s none. Yes, I’ve read and reread UINSC res 1441. It says no such thing, Check it out for yourself.

We weren’t engaged in passive behavior w/ Iraq. **

Ah, so now we can’t handle North Korea either. You’re of the Robert Fisk type of mentality that predicts the USA will be screwed everytime, but is proven wrong constantly.

I didn’t say we WERE passive, just that you WANT to be passive.

And were you bitching about Kosovo like this? The only difference is the party in control of the military at the time.

Potential does cut it, we have to PREEMPT 9/11 type attacks from now on! We can’t just absorb them and respond afterwards. It’s a different world out there now, you need to catch up.

[tomndebb]

Cause you say so? We had already fought one war with Iraq and they used ballistic missiles against our ally Israel. You think they weren’t a threat? Sure…

Your hysteric anti-Bush sentiments are making you say things that are patently false. It’s kinda sad.

Cause I say so? No, because that is what the historic record shows. When Iraq went after Israel, it was part of a (loathesome) defensive effort. They had attacked the much weker Kuwait (in accord with my statements) under the misapprehension that they would be allowed to do so by the world community. Instead, President GHW Bush organized an assault by the world community to recover Kuwait, at which time Hussein attacked Israel in the hopes of getting the rest of the Arab world to rally to his cause. He has never launched an unprovoked attack on a stronger enemy.

My hysterics? “Patently false” statements? You are the one who has falsely accused me of predicting the “downfall” of the U.S., has lied that Iraq was connected to the attacks by al Qaida, has made inaccurate analogies to the the defeat of Japan and Germany, and has referred to U.N. resolutions in a selective way to rationalize illegal activities, (all the while contradicting the U.S. Constitution that treaties are part of the law of the land).

I suspect that hysterics and falsehoods are something with which you are better acquainted than I.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**Well me too.

That doesn’t include any UN stuff, btw…
**

Article
VI

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**
It certainly doesn’t forbid the invasion of Iraq, which was mandated by the UN’s own rules and our ceasefire in Gulf War 1. **

Can you cite the where this is mandated?

[monty2_2001]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**Cause I say so? No, because that is what the historic record shows. When Iraq went after Israel, it was part of a (loathesome) defensive effort. They had attacked the much weker Kuwait (in accord with my statements) under the misapprehension that they would be allowed to do so by the world community. Instead, President GHW Bush organized an assault by the world community to recover Kuwait, at which time Hussein attacked Israel in the hopes of getting the rest of the Arab world to rally to his cause. He has never launched an unprovoked attack on a stronger enemy.

My hysterics? “Patently false” statements? You are the one who has falsely accused me of predicting the “downfall” of the U.S., has lied that Iraq was connected to the attacks by al Qaida, has made inaccurate analogies to the the defeat of Japan and Germany, and has referred to U.N. resolutions in a selective way to rationalize illegal activities, (all the while contradicting the U.S. Constitution that treaties are part of the law of the land).

I suspect that hysterics and falsehoods are something with which you are better acquainted than I. **

I never lied about connections, I simply said I believe they were connected. That’s not a lie, I believe it.

My analogies to Japan and Germany was correct. We didn’t cause them to unite with enemies and further damage us.

It takes a liberal to see an offensive attack on Israel as a defensive act in any sense. You’ve really out-lefted yourself.

[monty2_2001]

*Originally posted by SimonX *
**Can you cite the where this is mandated? **

The original ceasefire in Gulf War 1.

Force was justified to make Iraq comply with agreements. Period.

Now, where does Article VI say that the Iraq war was ‘illegal’ exactly? The UN didn’t say it was ‘illegal’. Therefore there’s no justification for that line of thinking.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**
Ah, so now we can’t handle North Korea either.
**

No, I’m saying that attacking Iraq in the manner in which we did hampered our ability to “handle” NK by tying up valuable resources and manpowwer.

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**
I didn’t say we WERE passive, just that you WANT to be passive.
**

Well, you’re wrong. I didn’t want us to be passive in our dealings w/ Iraq.

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**
And were you bitching about Kosovo like this?
**

I was concerned about our use of troops then as well. We had a bit of NATO help, IIRC.

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**
The only difference is the party in control of the military at the time.
**

Your view of world events must be very myopic if the only difference you can see between these two events is what party is in charge of the White House.

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**
Potential does cut it, we have to PREEMPT 9/11 type attacks from now on! We can’t just absorb them and respond afterwards. It’s a different world out there now, you need to catch up.
**

Nearly every country in the entire world has the potential to stage disastrous attacks on the US in terroristic fashion.Some, Like the UK could even do it w/ traditional forces. What makes the difference is the likelihood of these attacks. While the UK has the potential to launch a devastating attack on the US, it is very uinlikely that it will.

Since we cannot simultaneously attack, subdue and pacify the entire world, we must engage only those who represent realistic threats to the US.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**
The original ceasefire in Gulf War 1.

Force was justified to make Iraq comply with agreements. Period.
**

Do you happen to have a link to this document?

*Originally posted by monty2_2001 *
**
Now, where does Article VI say that the Iraq war was ‘illegal’ exactly? The UN didn’t say it was ‘illegal’. Therefore there’s no justification for that line of thinking. **

International provides for acceptable occasions for the use of military force. The attack on Iraq can only be justified if Iraq presented an imminent threat. It did not.

[tomndebb]

Force was justified to make Iraq comply with agreements. Period.

No. Force was justified by the UN, not by rogue nations, period.

Since you have demonstrated that you are not capable of seeing your own errors, repeating your own errors regarding WWII and the firsty Gulf War without demonstrating that you understand either your own points or mine, I suspect you could probably use a good lesson in studying history.

[monty2_2001]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**No. Force was justified by the UN, not by rogue nations, period.

Since you have demonstrated that you are not capable of seeing your own errors, repeating your own errors regarding WWII and the firsty Gulf War without demonstrating that you understand either your own points or mine, I suspect you could probably use a good lesson in studying history. **

Same back at you.

I hope you’re not an American with that attitude, I really do.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by december *
**
No doubt some Bush basher will now explain that this deadly alliance is a result of our invasion of Iraq. Without our involvement the Ba’ath Party and al Qaeda would have remained vicious enemies. The US is to blame for forcing these two opposing groups into each others arms. Suuuure… **

Here’s another group of Bush-bashers, the CIA and the DIA:

[quote]
CIA warned administration of post war perils in Iraq

By BRYAN BENDER The Boston Globe

In February, the CIA gave a formal briefing to the National Security Council, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and President Bush himself: “A quick military victory in Iraq will likely be followed by armed resistance from remnants of the Ba’ath Party and Fedayeen Saddam irregulars.”

“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators,” Cheney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on March 16. “I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House.”

“I imagine they will be welcomed,” Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, a key architect of the White House’s Iraq strategy, said in an interview April 3, two weeks into the war, with CBS’s “60 Minutes II.”

“I think there’s every reason to think that huge numbers of the Iraqi population are going to welcome these people . . . provided we don’t overstay our welcome, provided we mean what we say about handing things back over to the Iraqis,” Wolfowitz said.

According to US intelligence officials who compiled or contributed to the reports, and provided excerpts to the Globe, on multiple occasions in the months before the war the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency warned that fighting would probably continue after the formal war. The assessments went so far as to suggest that guerrilla tactics could frustrate reconstruction efforts.

…the administration instead clung to the optimistic predictions of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group headed by Ahmed Chalabi, who left Iraq in 1958. Chalabi, who is now a member of Iraq’s US-backed Governing Council, is a close Rumsfeld and Cheney ally who had the ears of top administration officials in the months before the war.
[/quoet]

[Squink]

DAMN those Liberal Bush Bashers !

Flawed assumptions by President Bush’s advisers about postwar Iraq are contributing to Iraqis’ resentment of the U.S. occupation and undermining its legitimacy, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.
Even the war itself has yet to be won, said Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind.
“Having said that,” Lugar said, “I reiterate we’re there now. Whether they made a good choice or not in terms of tactics is irrelevant.”

He’s probably a secret communist to boot

[PatriotX]

Lugar must be a leftist liberal. I’ll write a letter and tell him, because I’m sure that he doesn’t know yet.

[rjung]

Am I the only person who gets the impression that monty2_2001’s thought processes go something like this…

Anti-Iaq war critic: “The notion that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States was tenuous before the war, and it’s even weaker today. International intelligence communities show no credible ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, and the supposition of guilt before proven innocent goes against everything the United States stands for.”
monty2_2001: “Ugh! Stop using them big words! You’re only using big words cuz your view sucks! Saddam bad! USA good! Go George!”

…or is it just me?

[Rashak_Mani]

Monty answer these please:

1. Do you know how many UN resolutions the USA vetoed in order to protect Israel ?

2. Do you know how many UN resolutions Israel has totally disregarded ?

3. Do you think Iraq was more dangerous than North Korea ?

4. Do you think acting like a Bully makes other Bullies feel free to act in the same way ?

5. Do you or your family have any participation in Big Oil Companies or benefitted from the Tax Breaks ?

6. Does Bush defend International War Criminals since he doesnt support the International Criminal Court ?

7. Why does an american’s opinion have more weight than 10 opinions from other countries ?

8. Do you think Terrorism is a simple problem easily solved ?

[RedFury]

In living color:

"Ugh! Stop using them big words! You’re only using big words cuz your view sucks! Saddam bad! USA good! Go George!"

[David_Simmons]

*Originally posted by Rashak Mani *
**Monty answer these please:

7. Why does an american’s opinion have more weight than 10 opinions from other countries ?

**

Let me see if I can guess Monty’s answer to this one: “Hey, right’s right and wrong’s wrong. Anybody who can’t see that is a spineless weenie who’d be willing to let Saddam blow up two more US skyscrapers.”

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by RedFury *
Anyway, I am disinclined from participating any further in this thread as it has turrned into one big monty2_2001 flame-fest.

I have to agree. monty’s debating style is, um, interesting, ain’t it?

[monty2_2001]

*Originally posted by rjung *
**Am I the only person who gets the impression that monty2_2001’s thought processes go something like this…

Anti-Iaq war critic: “The notion that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States was tenuous before the war, and it’s even weaker today. International intelligence communities show no credible ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, and the supposition of guilt before proven innocent goes against everything the United States stands for.”
monty2_2001: “Ugh! Stop using them big words! You’re only using big words cuz your view sucks! Saddam bad! USA good! Go George!”

…or is it just me? **

Oh, it’s just you. You’re biased to think the war was bad already, so you simply see that side as being more rational. Of course, that’s incorrect, but nothing will convince you.

[monty2_2001]

*Originally posted by Rashak Mani *
**Monty answer these please:

1. Do you know how many UN resolutions the USA vetoed in order to protect Israel ?
   **

Not Germane

**
2. Do you know how many UN resolutions Israel has totally disregarded ?
**

Not Germane. Besides, the UN is notoriously antisemetic.

**
3. Do you think Iraq was more dangerous than North Korea ?
**

Both are dangerous

**

4. Do you think acting like a Bully makes other Bullies feel free to act in the same way ?
   **

No

**

5. Do you or your family have any participation in Big Oil Companies or benefitted from the Tax Breaks ?
   **

No, and yes

**

6. Does Bush defend International War Criminals since he doesnt support the International Criminal Court ?
   **

No

**

7. Why does an american’s opinion have more weight than 10 opinions from other countries ?
   **

Strawman

**
8. Do you think Terrorism is a simple problem easily solved ? **

No

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Do you know how many UN resolutions the USA vetoed in order to protect Israel ?

---

Not Germane

Of course it’s germane. You’re the one who raised Iraq’s non-compliance with the UN resolution as a (legally incorrect) justification for a unilateral US invasion. If Iraq’s non-compliance is grounds for a US invasion, why not Israel.

Why is it ok for the US and Israel to violate UN treaties but not Iraq?

the UN is notoriously antisemetic.

Cite?

Do you think Iraq was more dangerous than North Korea ?

---

Both are dangerous

1.) Who was more dangerous.

2.) In what way was Iraq a threat to the US? Please provide evidence for your answer.

Do you think acting like a Bully makes other Bullies feel free to act in the same way ?

---

No.

Why not? If the US doesn’t have to follow international law, why should Iran or North Korea or China? (Also, can I take from your answer that you admit the US is acting like a bully?)

Do you or your family have any participation in Big Oil Companies or benefitted from the Tax Breaks ?

---

No, and yes

Are you in the richest ten percent? If not you haven’t benefitted much.

Why does an American’s opinion have more weight than 10 opinions from other countries ?

---

Strawman

How is it a strawman? Are you sure you know what a strawman is? It’s a perfectly valid question. Why is the opinion of the uS more important than any other country’s opinion.