This is YOUR war.

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Dave
I even compared her to myself on the opposing side of matters.Please don't.

I already did, my first post about it.

[Back]

Originally posted by Dave
I don't think the arguments here would affect the grand scheme of things backlash, so to me it is futile. If she was Nancy Pelosi, it might be something I would waste my breath on right now, aside from that, no thanks.

[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Dave]

You never know. 7 degrees of separation and all that. You yourself are an example of how discussion here CAN affect the grand scheme. You might say life itself is futile because we all die in the end. It doesn't stop us from living though.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by Backlash

What we have here is a classic Socratic Dialogue. Its point/counterpoint until a conclusion is reached by both parties.

I think we reached one; that being that the two sides of this issue will not ever agree.

-Melissa


While I agree that may be true for some members of this board, I would say that the debate in general has been a good, healthy and productive one.

Although the most outspoken advocates of either side in this case may not move much, that is not uncommon. What is more likely is that some of the less entrenched and also perhaps some of the less informed may be better equiped to now make an educated decision on this matter.

So not a futile effort at all as long as the argument was made intelligently and without rancor.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Also, couldn't you call the attack on Pearl Harbor a pre-emptive strike? "

Couldn't you also call it a deplorable loss of human life... or say, a fucking tragedy?

Yes, obviously.

[Back]

Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are similar in my opinion.

But Iraq is nowhere near WWII.

[Hulkein]

I wasn't trying to draw any links between the two.

Just saying the invasion of Iraq wasn't anywhere near the first pre-emptive strike.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I wasn't trying to draw any links between the two.

Just saying the invasion of Iraq wasn't anywhere near the first pre-emptive strike.

If you can name another time in the modern history of the United States where we openly declared and acted upon a declaration of war against another country without relevent, convincing evidence of their recent transgressions, I will conceed this point.

I'm not sure that the times of Ceaser applied to the original meaning of my post. I'll try to be clearer in the future.

-Melissa

[Hulkein]

You didn't say history of the US in your original post. You said it was the first ever.

It isn't.

It's not even the first in the history of the US.

..and to think this person is trying to give me history lesson.

[CrystalTears]

Define "recent" and "modern" while you're at it, because all these actions regarding Iraq has occured within the last 10 years. How recent and modern does it need to be to satisfy?

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by Hulkein
I wasn't trying to draw any links between the two.

Just saying the invasion of Iraq wasn't anywhere near the first pre-emptive strike.

If you can name another time in the modern history of the United States where we openly declared and acted upon a declaration of war against another country without relevent, convincing evidence of their recent transgressions, I will conceed this point.

I'm not sure that the times of Ceaser applied to the original meaning of my post. I'll try to be clearer in the future.

-Melissa

The only problem with the qualifying term of "recent" is that after a certain number of times when the expansionist policies included in but not limited to the concept of manifest destiny have been followed through, such overt acts of pre-emptive strikes are no longer necessary.

That does not mean we as a nation has not many times conducted military actions without provocation, as we clearly have.

This is not to say that the US did anything any other nation would not have done if given the opportunity, but simply to say that there is a reason such brazen actions have slowed over the years more due to the lack of need and a shrinking rate of return when compared to political fallout from such actions.

There is one blaring mistake that I cant get over, and I am sorry for having to point it out.

The United States has NOT declared war upon Iraq, not once since its inception. So please refrain from saying we have declared war against them. Thank you.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
The United States has NOT declared war upon Iraq, not once since its inception. So please refrain from saying we have declared war against them. Thank you. That is very true.

I tend to use the word "invasion" because of that very fact.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Slider
Ok, lets try this one more fucking time for the IQ impaired... Once again, this is from the UNSCOM websight detailing their activities in Iraq. You do remember who these folks where, right? The people who where actually IN Iraq conducting the inspections for the UN to dismantle Iraqs WMD programs. So, Melissa, lets compare your statement "There are/were no WMDs in Iraq" to UNSCOM's very own, official report on their activities, shall we?



Your links refer to 1998 not 2002 and what it proves is that weapons inspections work.

Weapons inspections were resumed in 2002 but Bush and his hot heads couldn't wait for the outcome. They made their case to the UN and the UN decided an invasion wasn't in order. You remember the UN the people whose information you quoted. So Dubbya and Co. rush into Iraq and what do they find NADA NOTHING NOT ONE WEAPON, ZERO, ZIP.

Now for the I.Q. impaired.

No WMD have been found since the invasion.

The UN voted against invading Iraq.

Bush and Co had a plan to invade Iraq before 9-11.

Sept 2, 2001 Rumsfeld says he wants to invade Iraq despite being told by those in the intelligence community that Al Qaida is not in Iraq but in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld's response "but there are better targets in Iraq".

No Al Qaida, Iraq link found by Bush's 9-11 Commision.

No WMD of any kind found in Iraq since the invasion.

Iraq's massive reserve of oil now under US control.

Cost of war in Iraq as of this post:

$ 163 Billion dollars

$$163,421,043,063

[Edited on 4-16-2005 by xtc]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Dave
The United States has NOT declared war upon Iraq, not once since its inception. So please refrain from saying we have declared war against them. Thank you. That is very true.

I tend to use the word "invasion" because of that very fact.
I agree with you, though I doubt we feel the same about it. Yes we invaded, and now we occupy at the grace of the Iraqi government.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by xtc

It was only American intelligence that claimed that Saddam had WMD, England relied heavily on US intelligence. It was only these two nations that made this claim, no other nations did.

um, it was Brittan that said Saddam was getting nuclear material from Africa.

Sorry my mistake, however Bush was told by the CIA that it was unlikely to be true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56336-2003Jul14&notFound=true

[CrystalTears]

It's not Bush's fault that the UN pussied out on their own tactics when dealing with Iraq. They told Saddam that if he didn't comply with the inspection that he would be invaded. He did one of these :fu: to the UN and then they said said, oh wait let's give him more time. Fuck that, said Bush, he's going down.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Because those of us who actually understand something about world religion understand the Shiites and the Sunni hate each other.

Uh false, they have differences but they don't hate each other. They are like Catholics and Protestants.

Originally posted by xtc

Your links refer to 1998 not 2002 and what it proves is that weapons inspections work.

Weapons inspections were resumed in 2002 but Bush and his hot heads couldn't wait for the outcome. They made their case to the UN and the UN decided an invasion wasn't in order. You remember the UN the people whose information you quoted. So Dubbya and Co. rush into Iraq and what do they find NADA NOTHING NOT ONE WEAPON, ZERO, ZIP.

[Edited on 4-16-2005 by xtc]

You forgot to mention something, though I am not surprised because it does not help your argument. The major stipulation for the inspections to continue was Iraq turning over a detailed report on the weapons that they claimed to have dismantled since the end of the previous inspections (1998). Iraq was kind enough to turn over a 15,000 page report which contained little to no information that was required, and most of which had nothing to do with the subject. America already knew that Allah is great, we didn't need to read it in a report about the dismantling of WMD.

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Because those of us who actually understand something about world religion understand the Shiites and the Sunni hate each other.

Uh false, they have differences but they don't hate each other. They are like Catholics and Protestants.
To add to it, just like the NRA in the catholic and protestant conflicts, there are extremists on both sides.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Because those of us who actually understand something about world religion understand the Shiites and the Sunni hate each other.

Uh false, they have differences but they don't hate each other. They are like Catholics and Protestants.
To add to it, just like the NRA in the catholic and protestant conflicts, there are extremists on both sides.

NRA, National Rife Association?

esh IRA rather, you knew what I ment.

[xtc]

Just an FYI but where did Iraq first get biological weapons? Thats right from America.

This is an Associated Press story.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/nation/4185659.htm

[Edited on 4-16-2005 by xtc]

[CrystalTears]

So not signing up to that. Post the relevants parts of the article or something.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave
esh IRA rather, you knew what I ment.

So a very small group of Protestants and a very small group of Catholics dislike each other in Belfast. A city that is making strides every day.

So to say the Catholics hate Protestants wouldn't be a true statement, anymore then it would be if you said Shiites hate Sunnis.

[xtc]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
So not signing up to that. Post the relevants parts of the article or something.

wrong link try again

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/nation/4185659.htm

I was agreeing with you XTC. I said the dislike between Shiite and the Sunni sects of Islam can be compaired to the IRA's actions.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by xtc

Your links refer to 1998 not 2002 and what it proves is that weapons inspections work.

Weapons inspections were resumed in 2002 but Bush and his hot heads couldn't wait for the outcome. They made their case to the UN and the UN decided an invasion wasn't in order. You remember the UN the people whose information you quoted. So Dubbya and Co. rush into Iraq and what do they find NADA NOTHING NOT ONE WEAPON, ZERO, ZIP.

[Edited on 4-16-2005 by xtc]

You forgot to mention something, though I am not surprised because it does not help your argument. The major stipulation for the inspections to continue was Iraq turning over a detailed report on the weapons that they claimed to have dismantled since the end of the previous inspections (1998). Iraq was kind enough to turn over a 15,000 page report which contained little to no information that was required, and most of which had nothing to do with the subject. America already knew that Allah is great, we didn't need to read it in a report about the dismantling of WMD.

So we went to war because Bush didn't like Saddams report?

How important was this report anyway? Not very according to former UN weapons inspector and US Marine Scott Ritter.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-106.htm

Scott Ritter bio
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37306,00.html

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by xtc
[quote]Originally posted by Dave
[quote]Originally posted by xtc

How important was this report anyway? Not very according to former UN weapons inspector and US Marine Scott Ritter.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-106.htm

Scott Ritter bio
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37306,00.html

Scott Ritter?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A56950-2002Oct20&notFound=true

He may not be the best source of information.

C/Valth

I've met Scott Ritter and heard him present his case against the war in person when I was still in Illinois.
It he appeared to me to be a man lead by his own dislike because he was scorned by the administration.

That is my personal view from what I saw and the questions he answered.


Great website to prove your case... Why not put something up aisde from the first thing you google XTC.



[Edited on 4-16-2005 by Dave]

[Warriorbird]

Not like ANY of you use anything better.

I have not posted links in a long time, and because of peoples aversion to Fox News, i normally stick to the Communist News Network (CNN) when I do post links... or AP and the like.

[Warriorbird]

More referring to some folks' odd Drudge report paraphrasing, which in my opinion is just about on the same level as Common Dreams.

Well I am not Drudge now am I? I also do not think that anyone else on the boards goes by the name of Drudge either. In fact I would venture to say none of us hold much fame in the eyes of any republicans. So why not avoid acting like a hypocrite and quit bitching about where "WE" get our information when you do it twice as much as anyone else.