No WMD's? Strike 1. No Saddam/Qaeda connection? Strike 2

[Clucky]

*Originally posted by Sofa King *
**Okay, by even mentioning this, the Bush-backers win this debate, but I think Clucky will enjoy this a lot. And there ain’t jack we can do about what’s going on, anyway.

Last year, it came out that during the 2000 Florida fiasco, Enron and Halliburton lent Bush campaigners the use of their corporate planes on credit.

Does that sound familiar to you? Don’t feel bad if it doesn’t because it’s largely forgotten now, but in 1932, Erhard Milch, founder of Lufthansa, allowed a certain someone to charter a Lufthansa plane on credit so that he could campaign across the country. Yep, it was that madcap madman, Hitler himself.

You can find a partial cite on page 31 of e-book, but check out some of Len Deighton’s historical works for the full skinny on how Milch went out of the way to bend the rules for his new pal.

Fortunately, nobody’s burned down the Capitol and tried to pin it on the Liberals, so I think that’s where the historical parallels end for now. Anyway, I just thought you’d like to know, Clucky, in case you were forgetting to renew your Prozac prescription. **

Uh, I don’t need Prozac, but thanks for your help.

I still don’t know what that post was supposed to accomplish, other than just attack the messenger. Rummy brought up Hitler. I thought it ironic that we fought for “freedom and democracy,” and before any of that could be accomplished, Rummy’s bringing up how Hitler was elected. Why? So as to explain that we can’t just let people vote. We have to enlighten them, and show them how the electoral process works. They couldn’t POSSIBLY do that themselves.

It’s just an example of the rhetoric used to support the delay of elections until we get a puppet in position for election.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by Tee *
**
Yes, but which state, Iraq or Kurdistan?

Either is a ridiculous idea, that they even bother themselves with geopolitical boundaries, but I’ll play along. Who do they have to fight to attain their goal, and what does this “goal” look like. **

Iraq is not an Islamist state.
Maybe Col would’ve been more clear if he had said:
They were fighting to create an Islamic state.

To achieve their goal, they had to fight the Baathists, (Hussein et al), and the more secular movements that are also in existence in the area. From the accounts that I’ve read, what it would look like has been compared to what the Taleban had established.

Why is it ridiculous that someone would “bother themselves” with geopolitical boundaries?
IIRC, most of humanity for the most of human history has done so.

[Tee]

*Originally posted by SimonX *
Maybe Col would’ve been more clear if he had said:
They were fighting to create an Islamic state.

ok, for you then. What state, Iraq or Kurdistan? Simple question.

[PatriotX]

I’m not sure what they’d like to call the state they were trying to create.

Why is it ridiculous that someone would “bother themselves” with geopolitical boundaries?
IIRC, most of humanity for the most of human history has done so.

[Clucky]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
Knowing what we know about Saddam, and yet still oppossing his ouster, boggles the mind and show a definite lack of a moral compass. But it also show the illogical extreme some (many) are willing to go to, simply to try to pin some blame on GW and/or America.

Uh, we knew these things about Hussein decades ago. We knew he attacked innocent people viciously. That is nothing new. Again, Bush cited Halabja during the march for war. Well, that was impressive to note that 5,000 people died at the hands of Saddam’s military, except that the U.S. and the rest of the West could care less. An excerpt:

Protected by the West

At that time the regime was not worried about international reaction. In the recording of the meeting of 26 May 1987, Proconsul Al Majid declares: “I will kill them all with chemical weapons. Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them! (6)” His language may be coarse, but the cynicism of the butcher of Kurdistan, later promoted governor of Kuwait and subsequently minister of defence, was fully justified.

Iraq was then seen as a secular bulwark against the Islamic regime in Teheran. It had the support of East and West and of the whole Arab world except Syria. All the Western countries were supplying it with arms and funds. France was particularly zealous in this respect. Not content with selling Mirages and helicopters to Iraq, it even lent the regime Super Etendard aircraft in the middle of its war with Iran. Germany supplied Baghdad with a large part of the technology required for the production of chemical weapons. And in an unusual display of East-West military cooperation, German engineers enhanced the performance of the Scud aircraft which Iraq had obtained from the Soviet Union, increasing their range so that they could strike at Teheran and other distant Iranian cities.

Despite the enormous public outrage at the gas attack on Halabja, France, which is a depositary of the Geneva Convention of 1925, confined itself to an enigmatic communiqué condemning the use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world. The UN dispatched Colonel Dominguez, a Spanish military expert, to the scene. In a report published on 26 April 1988, he confined himself to recording that chemical weapons had been used once again both in Iran and in Iraq and that the number of civilian victims was increasing (7). On the same day the UN Secretary-General stated that, with respect to both the weapons themselves and those who were using them, it was difficult to determine the nationalities involved.

Clearly, Iraq’s powerful allies did not want Baghdad condemned. In August 1988 the United Nations Sub-Committee on Human Rights voted by 11 votes to 8 not to condemn Iraq for human rights violations. Only the Scandinavian countries, Australia and Canada, together with bodies like the European Parliament and the Socialist International, saved their honour by clearly condemning Iraq.

Things did not begin to change until the end of the Iraq-Iran conflict and the influx into Turkey in September 1988 of refugees fleeing a new chemical weapons offensive. On 7 September France issued a communiqué in which President Mitterrand expressed concern at information received about the use of chemical weapons and other means of repression against the Kurdish population in Iraq. He added that he had no wish to interfere in Iraq’s internal affairs, but the bonds of friendship between Iraq and France were even more reason to make his feelings known. In America, a resolution urging sanctions against Iraq was tabled by Senator Claiborne D. Pell and passed by both Houses of Congress. It was vetoed by President Bush. The White House even granted Baghdad a further loan of a billion dollars.

It was not until Iraq occupied the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait in August 1990 that Saddam Hussein became America’s bogeyman, referred to by George Bush as a new Hitler. Still useful, however, he survived the Gulf war. American troops did nothing to overturn the Iraqi dictator. And they stood idly by in the spring of 1991 while his presidential guard ruthlessly suppressed the popular uprising for which the United States’ president had himself called.

[Tee]

SimonX: "Why is it ridiculous that someone would “bother themselves” with geopolitical boundaries?
IIRC, most of humanity for the most of human history has done so."

{{shrugs}} They don’t. The Islamic world is a kingdom, a caliphate. They don’t accept non-Islamic rulers or laws. (Islamic by their standards of course.)

So, why would they want an independent Kurdistan, breaking away from Baghdad, I wonder.

[PatriotX]

*Originally posted by Tee *
**
The Islamic world is a kingdom, a caliphate. They don’t accept non-Islamic rulers or laws. (Islamic by their standards of course.)
**

Yeah, maybe a hundred years ago.

Double check your sources or your sources’ sources for some dates.

You do realize that 2 out of 3 Muslims live somewhere other than the ME and that only 1 in 5 Muslims is an Arab, don’t you.

[Tee]

I meant the Islamic world according to al-Qaida and their ilk. Big difference there.

[Clucky]

One big problem is that Al Queda is even mentioned in a thread about the American/British war on Iraq. There is no connection between Hussein’s Baath party and Al Queda. The U.S. should have continued its war on Al Queda, not instead use the 9-11 killings as a chance to take over Iraq.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by BeatenMan *
**Cite. I guess you are still mad that we got rid of that Hitler guy. We should have fought him from our borders. **

Why did you fight him? He was, after all, only pursuing the ‘mandate by the German people’ to seek ‘Lebensraum im Osten’. According to your own argumentation, he had every right to do so.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by BeatenMan *
**Saddam broke the cease fire agreement from the first gulf war that is all we needed. That was all clinton needed to launch desert fox. He was a democrat so nobody complained. Oh and I don’t need instructions on how to start a proper war from somebody posting from Germany. **

Yes, obviously you do not, since you still believe this is 1939. There was no ceasefire agreement. There was a ceasefire imposed on ALL parties. The US violated its terms as much as Iraq. And no, violation does not immediately restore the state of war. We’re not talking about a ceasefire agreements between nations. The UNSC authorizes the use of armed force to counter specific threats to peace. In the case of the first war, that was the invasion in Kuwait. With the Iraqis being expelled from Kuwait, that authorization was settled.

[BeatenMan]

*Originally posted by OliverH *
**Yes, obviously you do not, since you still believe this is 1939. There was no ceasefire agreement. There was a ceasefire imposed on ALL parties. The US violated its terms as much as Iraq. And no, violation does not immediately restore the state of war. We’re not talking about a ceasefire agreements between nations. The UNSC authorizes the use of armed force to counter specific threats to peace. In the case of the first war, that was the invasion in Kuwait. With the Iraqis being expelled from Kuwait, that authorization was settled. **

What terms did we violate?
The USA beat Iraq in a war 1991. The agreement was do as we say we we have to kill the rest of you.
Most people in the USA and England know main reason we attacked Iraq was to show how powerfull our army is and how we will come visit you and make your lives hell If you back terrorists that want to do America harm. You can go on and compare the USA with other countries that don’t follow proper rules for making war and say we are unfair and unjust. The people of the USA wanted us to kick some ass and to show the world how hard of a ass kicking we could give. They don’t care about WMD’s or whats fair. The people here only saw people in bagdad having a party when the towers went down.
I and a lot of rabid republicans think one of the main reasons we have had this terrorism problem is because we would not take out saddam the first time. They thought we were afraid to fight in the cities and that is why we did not invade bagdad. They saw us as weak which made them more bold. After the first trade center attack the people of the arab world saw we did not respond. They felt we would just take it as long as they wanted to give it, and it was that way for a while. I think the american flag should have a fist in place of the stars with the motto " You want to keep it up?"

[BeatenMan]

Oppps that should have been an “or” instead of the first “we” in the third sentance.

[ChaosGod]

*Originally posted by BeatenMan *
<snip>
You can go on and compare the USA with other countries that don’t follow proper rules for making war and say we are unfair and unjust.
The people of the USA wanted us to kick some ass and to show the world how hard of a ass kicking we could give.
They don’t care about WMD’s or whats fair.

Indeed

[BeatenMan]

*Originally posted by ChaosGod *
**Indeed **

Let’s not forget the 42,000 people that die in auto crashes in the usa each year they look just as bad. Do you think the speed limit should be 10mph?
There will be a lot less people dieing in Iraq this year thanks to the USA giving food and medicine to the Iraq people in the south of Iraq that had none. They say starvation is the most painfull way to die it just does’t look as good as the pictures you had me look at. Most people in Iraq are greatfull for the liberation of their country.

[elucidator]

Let’s not forget the 42,000 people that die in auto crashes in the usa each year they look just as bad…

For the purposes of our conversations, yes, we can forget about them without a moments hesitation. We can also quite entirely ignore the victims of SARS, and those maimed in tragic farm machinery accidents. None of these people were injured at the hands of my government, by persons sworn to my protection. I bear no responsibility whatsoever for thier fate, as it was Not In My Name. I’ll break that down for you if this subtlety eludes you.

…Most people in Iraq are greatfull for the liberation of their country.

And when did they call you and tell you this?

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by BeatenMan *
What terms did we violate?
The USA beat Iraq in a war 1991. The agreement was do as we say we we have to kill the rest of you.

You must’ve missed the part of UNSC Resolution 687, which explicitly affirmed Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Hard to miss; it’s right at the beginning.

Most people in the USA and England know main reason we attacked Iraq was to show how powerfull our army is and how we will come visit you and make your lives hell If you back terrorists that want to do America harm.

Beat up one kid on the block, in order to keep the others in line. Great.

I also like the “back terrorists that want to do America harm” part. So now it’s open season not just on terrorists and those who aid or harbor them, but on anyone who “backs” them in whatever loose sense?

You can go on and compare the USA with other countries that don’t follow proper rules for making war and say we are unfair and unjust.

We are unfair and unjust. Just because there’s someone worse than we are, doesn’t automatically make what we do right.

The people of the USA wanted us to kick some ass and to show the world how hard of a ass kicking we could give. They don’t care about WMD’s or whats fair.

The same could have been said about Saddam. I hope you see the point of responding to the Saddams of the world in ways that don’t bring us down to their level. But it’s a faint hope.

There’s a moral basis for going to war to keep someone from kicking our ass, or even to keep them from kicking some third party’s ass. But when the raison d’etre for war simply becomes one of gratifying our desire to hand out ass-kickings, we’ve gone over to the dark side.

The people here only saw people in bagdad having a party when the towers went down.

Wasn’t that the West Bank?

I know: why am I bothering with such details? Baghdad, West Bank, they’re all the same bunch of scummy towelheads, right? :rolleyes:

But even if you had it right, that would hardly constitute a casus belli for war, in places that count themselves civilized.

I and a lot of rabid republicans

I’ll note your apparent self-description, meditate on its appropriateness, and leave it at that.

think one of the main reasons we have had this terrorism problem is because we would not take out saddam the first time. They thought we were afraid to fight in the cities and that is why we did not invade bagdad. They saw us as weak which made them more bold.

They thought we were weak, after bombing the shit out if Iraq for six weeks, then retaking Kuwait in four days?

On account of that makes no sense at all, I’ve gotta ask for a cite.

[Tee]

quote:

The people here only saw people in bagdad having a party when the towers went down.

RTFirefly: Wasn’t that the West Bank?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1537128.stm

They had downed another coalition plane that patrolled the southern part of Iraq on 9/11. So there’s half a day time difference or so - they were celebrating that as the attacks here were underway. Proving that Saddam…well, the Luck of the Irish he just don’t have, so to speak.