Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raider179 on May 30, 2005, 11:28:34 PM
-
I really despise Cheney and will make no excuse for myself regarding saying it. This statement by him sums it up for me.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.amnestyintl/index.html
"But if you trace those back, in nearly every case, it turns out to come from somebody who has been inside and been released ... to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated.
This is his excuse for why there are allegations of abuse at GB.
Wow Cheney really? How many inside Gitmo have had the chance to talk to someone on the outside? I don't think I would have near the problem I do with the current administration if it would drop rumsfield/cheney.
-
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter accusations.
Go Dick!
-
You don't have much evidence that he's not telling the truth... do you?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter accusations.
Go Dick!
Is'nt that Karl Rove's montra?
-
Was it Karl Rove who used those tactics in response to a stained dress? Can't remember...
If we were to list politicians that used this tactic, this will be a long thread.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Was it Karl Rove who used those tactics in response to a stained dress? Can't remember...
Yeah, what a threat to national security that was.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You don't have much evidence that he's not telling the truth... do you?
Please Holden. His defense is we released them so they are liars. It's GITMO, I think I have a pretty good idea what goes on down there, dont you? The whole world knows what goes on there it just is kept quiet. Or at least as quiet as they can.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You don't have much evidence that he's not telling the truth... do you?
Like that's hard to find? Come on.
I tell ya what. I spend an hour digging up and posting the BS on Cheney, and you wolf down a dozen hotdogs and wash it back with mayonaise. Neither one of us are going to enjoy it, but it aint like it's impossible.
(tiresome when someone, pretending like they have amnesia, says "prove it".... when I reckon we should be well past the point of having to prove it and instead start letting reality sink in and discuss what it actually portends.)
-
RPM, I thought we were talking about rhetorical tactics. Like the 'change the subject' one you just used.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter accusations.
Go Dick!
Thats a standard defense these days, unfortunately.
-
wait... (off topic)
Is this the guy (Cheyney) who refused to acknowledge M.L.K.? Not just that, he even voted NAY for declaring M.L.K. day a holiday!
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
RPM, I thought we were talking about rhetorical tactics. Like the 'change the subject' one you just used.
Change the subject? I was replying to Sandman's post, then yours. WTH are you smoking?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Please Holden. His defense is we released them so they are liars. It's GITMO, I think I have a pretty good idea what goes on down there, dont you? The whole world knows what goes on there it just is kept quiet. Or at least as quiet as they can.
Originally posted by Nash Like that's hard to find? Come on. [/B]
I don't deny that there may be problems at Gitmo, it is just I have seen a lot of accusations, no difinitive proof. AI based their findings on second hand info.
Mostly those at Gitmo were captured on the battlefields of Afganistan and could be said to have a grudge against the great Satan even before their incarceration.
I have not been privvy to the evidence that you all seem to be. Appartently your security clearance is higher than mine.
Sometimes smoke is just a smokescreen, and it can be blown by Cheney, the Taliban, or both.
-
originally posted by RPM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Was it Karl Rove who used those tactics in response to a stained dress? Can't remember...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, what a threat to national security that was.
Please show me the part that was in response to Sandman.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I don't deny that there may be problems at Gitmo, it is just I have seen a lot of accusations, no difinitive proof. AI based their findings on second hand info.
Those at Gitmo were captured on the battlefields of Afganistan and could be said to have a grudge against the great Satan even before their incarceration.
I have not been privvy to the evidence that you all seem to be. Appartently your security clearance is higher than mine.
Somethimes smoke is just a smokescreen, and it can be blown by Cheney, the Taliban, or both.
So you dont deny there are problems at GITMO. Thats all I need to hear. You don't disagree, you just havent seen video/pictures.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter accusations.
Go Dick!
Originally posted by rpm
Is'nt that Karl Rove's montra?
-
Originally posted by rpm
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Was it Karl Rove who used those tactics in response to a stained dress? Can't remember...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, what a threat to national security that was.
You forgot this one rpm, the one I responded to, and the one you apparently objected to.
This is the one where you used the 'change the subject' rhetorical tactic.
You now use another well worn tactic of selectively ignoring what you said.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
So you dont deny there are problems at GITMO. Thats all I need to hear. You don't disagree, you just havent seen video/pictures.
"Not disagreeing" and "argeeing" are not synonymous.
To "Not deny" is not the same as saying it is, in fact, truth.
-
GITMO is a joke. A horrible joke.
It is as if nobody played the tape out in their head.
What.... ya gonna leave these people in there for the next 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years?
No way.
Yet, you can't just release them either. Because if somebody releases them, what does that say about their resolve in the fight against terror? If you just release them, what does that say about you locking them up in the first place?
Whaddyagonnado? Give them lawyers? Give them their day in court? Well it turns out that courts kinda have a certain respect for due process. When they get explained to them the reasons, facts, and evidence for each one of those Afghanis' detention at GITMO (nevermind the treatment), the courts will look at the prosecutors as if they have lost their collective minds.
So what to do? Release terrorists and in doing so admit the huge mistake? Keep them locked up for decades and get seen as the worst abusers of human rights evar? Give them their day in court and let the world in on the insanity that is the reality?
What a pickle. It's a ****-up. There's no respectable way out.
-
Well Nash, the alternative was to shoot them on the battlefield and that probably would have received some bad press too.
-
Like we mourn for the fallen Afghanis who didn't wind up in WEIRDMO? Like we even give a crap about them? Like if the folks in TWIGHLIGHTMO had actually been shot instead, we'd even be talking about this?
BERMUDA_TRIANGLEMO is a blunder. And it is a blunder borne singly from lack of foresight. Just like almost every single thing about these wars.
-
So you are saying we should have just shot them behind the ear?
Before or after we took off their handcuffs?
Gitmo is populated by in large with Taliban, not Iraqis.
Canada, France, Russia, and many other countries supported the UN Afgan operation.
-
"So you are saying we should have just shot them behind the ear?"
Do you mean to tell me that there's no standard for the handling of prisoners of war?
"Oh," you might say, "but these weren't mere prisoners of war."
"Because of this," you might say, "we have something special in mind. We'll call them 'prisoners that we don't know what to do with.'"
"We'll find a special place for them. It starts with a 'G' and rhymes with 'GITMO,'" you might say.
Ah. That was easy. Except....
They cannot stay in GITMO forever. I mean, decades from now there will still actually be a GITMO detaining prisoners of a far away war that America has long since struggled to scratch and claw out of its memory? No.
And as sure as everyone who is accused of a crime is not guilty, there can be prisoners of GITMO who are not guilty. How do you tell the difference? A court of law? Is that what it all becomes? Does everone get their day in court, including the truly guilty? They would all have to. And what would emerge, honestly?
Now Holden, does this make any sense to you?
Gitmo is populated by in large with Taliban, not Iraqis.
Well that's good. Because I'm not exactly sure that Iraqis were a part of the war on terrorism iffin ya know what I mean.
Certainly I didn't bring up Iraqis. What reason would I have to do that?
Canada, France, Russia, and many other countries supported the UN Afgan operation.
Exactly. Some could tell the difference between a war on terrorism and a war on something else entirely.
-
Ahh yes gitmo....the "gulag of our time"
I bet these guys get treated like royalty down there. Knowing the military the way I do I bet abuse aligations are investigated thouroghly (SP)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Just like almost every single thing about these wars.
You said wars so it appeared you were linking Afganistan and Iraq.
So what do you propose about Gitmo?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You forgot this one rpm, the one I responded to, and the one you apparently objected to.
This is the one where you used the 'change the subject' rhetorical tactic.
You now use another well worn tactic of selectively ignoring what you said.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Was it Karl Rove who used those tactics in response to a stained dress? Can't remember...
If we were to list politicians that used this tactic, this will be a long thread.
Originally posted by rpm
Yeah, what a threat to national security that was.
I was replying directly to you on the subject of your post. You bring up a subject and I respond to it. I'll ask you again, WTH are you smoking?
-
Because I implied that these wars are and were repleat with screw-ups does not mean that I am implying that that these wars maintain anything near a relationship to eachother in terms of justification. Just simply that they were repleat with screw-ups. In fact, the only relationship these wars have to eachother can be found in the temperature of those regions and the the folks at the helm.
What do I propose for GITMO?
Take one in the face, and shut it down. WALK the talk. Physically demonstrate to your enemies that when you say "Democracy" and "Freedom" and "Justice," that despite the errors that any country is apt to make, you are able to recognize them, and that you endevour to right them. Even if it means a backlash. Whatever the fall out. Nobody's perfect. That's fine.
In fact, there is probably no better demonstration of America than the ability to recognize what is fundamentally flawed and posessing the flexibility and strength to right them. Despite any set-back and for no other reason but for that it is just. simply. the. right. thing. to. do.
It speaks volumes.
Because to them? The people over there who's help you absolutely need? With GITMO? They look at it and say "same 'ol."
So you asked and that's what I would recommend. We've already gone over the alternatives. None of which are very pretty. And they are only going to get uglier over time. So, strictly on a PR basis even, you could turn a futile situation into unmistakable testament to what America stands for, virtually overnight and GITMO becomes a fading memory.
But as if. And GITMO will instead and for years continue to fly in the face of whatever it is you're trying to accomplish over there. And for whatever it nets you, it harms you that much more.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I was replying directly to you on the subject of your post. You bring up a subject and I respond to it. I'll ask you again, WTH are you smoking?
The subject of my post in response to your Karl Rove post was that the rhetorical tactic of "Admit nothing, Deny everything, Make counter accusations." was common on both sides of the aisle.
As Karl Rove is a lighting rod for the rhetoric of those opposing the GWB White House, your Karl Rove post, it seemed to me, was to show that the tactic is was within the Bush white house, and seemed to leave out the rest of politicians.
Your reponse to my post was national security implications, not the rhetorical style.
That is why I correctly identified your tactic (at least used it this thread) of changing the subject. It is a tactic you continue to use with your smoking question.
-
The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice President Dick Cheney says, and he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/index.html
Wow I will take that bet. lol
-
Take anything a news agency has to say, unless you were there to witness the news in action first hand, divide it by twelve and thats how much of it is true.
Never trust a reporter to do what is right. Connie Chung proved that.
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
Never trust a reporter to do what is right. Connie Chung proved that.
That doesn't make sense. Connie Chung is one journalist, how can her actions prove a generalisation about all of them?
-
1k3.. Do you think that mlk should have an entire holiday in his name? Is he the most important person in the history of the world? the only man to have a holiday in his name?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Raider179
This is his excuse for why there are allegations of abuse at GB.
The Vice President is entitled to his opinion on the subject of abuse.
Even your quote says "allegations"
Are the allegations by AI facts? I am under the impression they have almost all of their information from released prisoners. Are you positive none of theses fine upstanding gentlemen don't have an agenda or bias?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice President Dick Cheney says, and he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/index.html
Wow I will take that bet. lol
your wish for failure is touching.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
your wish for failure is touching.
Your ability to mistake perception for wishfulness is touching. Aren't we over that by now? Why do you hate America?
-
Only five posts before a "Yea but what about Clinton".
I think we need a new BBS law like Godwin's Law.
Lets call it the Blue Dress Corollary to Godwin's Law.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter accusations.
Go Dick!
He's starting to sound like a Democrat now isn't he?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The subject of my post in response to your Karl Rove post was that the rhetorical tactic of "Admit nothing, Deny everything, Make counter accusations." was common on both sides of the aisle.
As Karl Rove is a lighting rod for the rhetoric of those opposing the GWB White House, your Karl Rove post, it seemed to me, was to show that the tactic is was within the Bush white house, and seemed to leave out the rest of politicians.
Your reponse to my post was national security implications, not the rhetorical style.
That is why I correctly identified your tactic (at least used it this thread) of changing the subject. It is a tactic you continue to use with your smoking question.
My response to your post was about the dress comment. Again, you brought up the subject, I replied. Now if you brought up the subject of the blue dress and I replied with "Oh yeah, where's the nonexistent WMD's?" that would be changing the subject. Hopefully you have slept off whatever it was you were on by now and can understand.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
your wish for failure is touching.
I don't wish for it, I am just not dumb enough to believe everything is gonna be peachy keen over there by the time bush leaves office.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The Vice President is entitled to his opinion on the subject of abuse.
Even your quote says "allegations"
Are the allegations by AI facts? I am under the impression they have almost all of their information from released prisoners. Are you positive none of theses fine upstanding gentlemen don't have an agenda or bias?
He's the VP. He has already shown he has zero tact in handling these kind of situations. Why do you think they keep him holed up in some bunker somewhere. "allegations" please. If you don't think we are doing some really bad **** down in GITMO you can just keep living in your fairy tale world.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
. If you don't think we are doing some really bad **** down in GITMO .
I hope we are! And for every innocent life it saves the soldiers there should receive medals.
-
for them whats slow in the brain, i explain.......the prisoners in gitmo want to KILL YOU. they is yo enemys not yo friends.
-
How many inside Gitmo have had the chance to talk to someone on the outside?
Those waste of existence down in camp Gitmo have no rights, period. They should be praying to Alah that they are still alive.
-
Originally posted by JBA
I hope we are! And for every innocent life it saves the soldiers there should receive medals.
Ah, so you arguing that they should be held for "future-crime". Did the precogs tell you they were guilty?
Cheney's logic is equally...well non-existant. A police officer arrests someone, holds them for a few years and does charge them or present any evidence before court. The prisoner gets out and talks about how ****ed up the situation was. The police officer then responds with, "How can you believe him, he was arrested?".
Where else is Amnesty International supposed to get information on what happens in SCREWTHERULEOFLAWMO? To rule out the detainees as a source of info, because they were arrested and held is rediculous.
-
Originally posted by john9001
for them whats slow in the brain, i explain.......the prisoners in gitmo want to KILL YOU. they is yo enemys not yo friends.
So, is that a crime? I'm sure that alot of Americans want to kill people in other countries. Does that mean that the other countries have a right to arrest those Americans and hold them without charge into perpetuaty? I can just imagine what your response would be if a country did do that to an American citizen.
Actus Reus - The act or omissions that comprise the physical elements of a crime as required by statute.
-
Originally posted by john9001
for them whats slow in the brain, i explain.......the prisoners in gitmo want to KILL YOU. they is yo enemys not yo friends.
This post says so much with so little work by brain cells of any kind.
-
uhmmm...Dick is correct.
GO DICK!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by rpm
My response to your post was about the dress comment. Again, you brought up the subject, I replied. Now if you brought up the subject of the blue dress and I replied with "Oh yeah, where's the nonexistent WMD's?" that would be changing the subject. Hopefully you have slept off whatever it was you were on by now and can understand.
It is simply amazing to me that you (and MT) think that the subject of my post was Clinton.
I clearly pointed out, with a well known example, that the use of the tactic of deny, admit nothing, and accuse, and showed that it was common throughout the political spectrum.
While I knew that the example would elicit some backlash, I thought that some would have the intelligence to read the post and ascertain it's true meaning (as explained above) and not respond with a knee-jerk. You and MT were among those I expected to respond appropriately.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I clearly pointed out, with a well known example, that the use of the tactic of deny, admit nothing, and accuse, and showed that it was common throughout the .political spectrum.
That was kinda plain to me. But then personally, if I were trying to make a point, I wouldn't combine Rove and Clinton's blow-job in a single sentence and hope to make a clean getaway. History is too full of relevant examples without having to resort to those.
The result was that your point wasn't made. Which is just as well, because your point was that by virtue of the existence of lying politicians, Cheney's lies are a-okay.
That's not much of a point.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
1k3.. Do you think that mlk should have an entire holiday in his name? Is he the most important person in the history of the world? the only man to have a holiday in his name?
lazs
Its called "appeasement"
-
Originally posted by Nash
That was kinda plain to me. But then personally, if I were trying to make a point, I wouldn't combine Rove and Clinton's blow-job in a single sentence and hope to make a clean getaway. History is too full of relevant examples without having to resort to those.
The result was that your point wasn't made. Which is just as well, because your point was that by virtue of the existence of lying politicians, Cheney's lies are a-okay.
That's not much of a point.
Close Nash, my comment was in response to a comment referring to Karl Rove; the whipping boy of the political left as much as the Clintons are whipping boys of the right. I inferred Rpm's comment was to point out that "all these republicans are liars." Which is, of course, false, or at the very least incomplete in it's condemnation, as the tactic is all too common.
People in power tend to be adept in the use of smoke and mirrors no matter their political persuation. True believers in politics are rare, and holding one party or another to a higher standard is rediculous. We should hold all our officials to the fire, and demand straight talk. Perhaps if we held integrity above party, we may get somewhere.
-
You're gonna get no argument out of me on that. Agreed, completely.
When it comes to lies, though, I would only add to this equation the significance of scale. The ramifications of them. Their relevance to people's everyday lives. Because there are lies. And God knows, there are lies.
How can you reasonably compare "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" to the consequences of the multitudes of lies Cheney told in order that good folks just like you felt inspired to talk your sons and daughters into going to war?
There are lies, and then there are lies. We've come to expect them. They are politicians, after all. But I don't think we should feel lulled into accepting them as equal. Lulled into acting on them as if they were the same thing.
One demands the ignoring of a blow job. The other demands self sacrifice. They are not the same.
I honestly think that when you ignore this, you are doing nothing more than signaling to the politicians that just about anything goes. That you will reward their lies. Yes, you can take a stab at it in terms of relativism, but they aren't really that related. The consequences are dramatically different.
-
Instead of the finger wagging, I could have used other lies as an example, such as Gulf of Tonkin, "It's just a weather plane", the trail of tears, or to internationalize, even the Dreyfuss affair. But I used a contemporary example as I thought reaching back in history would overly stretch the discourse.
The finger wagging is a documented lie and is a good example of the rhetorical tactic that Sandman first mentioned, even tough it causes knee jerks.
{warning: tangent ahead}
The WMD issue is not as good of an example, even though the policies and decisions based of faulty intel are far more important, because one can make the argument that those in power (not just Bush, but several international leaders) thought that they were correct in assesments made in late 2002 and early 2003.
I have searched diligently for a pre invasion statement by any leader other than Saddam that says Iraq was WMD clear. I have found many statements of leaders asking that the inspections be given more time but I have had no luck in finding a leader saying that the inspections are complete and Iraq should be declared WMD free.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I have searched diligently for a pre invasion statement by any leader other than Saddam that says Iraq was WMD clear. I have found many statements of leaders asking that the inspections be given more time but I have had no luck in finding a leader saying that the inspections are complete and Iraq should be declared WMD free.
The reason why you can't find a leader who said that "the inspections are complete and Iraq should be declared WMD free" is because the inspectors were kicked out by the west before getting the chance to say that.
In essence, the inspectors were in there, and went to every single dang place that all this so-called world intelligence told them to look and they found nothing. Nothing.
I wouldn't blame you for saying that it was alright for some politicians to have thought that these weapons existed, but I would blame you for implying that all of these politicians continued to believe in the existence of them in the face of the inspections turning up nada.
Everyone started running from the idea as if it were leprosy incarnate.
Except the USA. Except Britain. Plus a handful of the joke foisted on us as the "coalition."
Now we know through the notes of the Bush/Blair meeting in 2002 that during these inspections, and before the inspector's conclusion of their futile work, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
So okay. And wow. It didn't really matter what the evidence showed. In fact, the lack of evidence was not good news to those in the administration.
Playing out at the same time, well before the inspectors were kicked out by the US, the US and RAF aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war.
Ya don't say. This is all going on while these inspectors were there trying to get to the bottom of it.
And you wanna blame the world for faulty intelligence?
Faulty intelligence led to inspectors being there in the first place. It was only pure lies that whittled that world community down into a fraction of those willing to prosecute the war based on it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Faulty intelligence led to inspectors being there in the first place. It was only pure lies that whittled that world community down into a fraction of those willing to prosecute the war based on it.
Wow, looks like I hit a nerve.
I thought it was a UN mandate based on the end of the 1991 Gulf War armistice that put UNSCOM into the inspection business.
Then in Dec 1998 The UNSCOM Chairman concluded that Iraq did not provide the full cooperation it had promised on 14 November 1998 and UNSCOM withdrew its staff from Iraq.
In 1999 UNMOVIC replaced UNSCOM but did not enter Iraq for inspections until November 2002, after 1441 is passed unanimously and the threat of coalition invasion loomed.
I guess I was wrong.
-
No, you're right.
But... what to make of the events once the inspections resumed and turned up nothing, then were forced to leave not by Iraq but by the US?
Are you going to be one of those that say "it was only by threat of force that inspections resumed in the first place?" Are you going to say that it did not matter that the inspections turned up nothing, because there wouldn't even be inspections if it were not for the threat of force? And in so doing, make the funny argument that inspections didn't even have to happen because they wouldn't have happened without the threat of force and because it took the threat of force then force was really the only option therefore the inspections which turned up nothing to justify the force weren't neccessary?
-
C'mon Nash... it's obvious (all evidence notwithstanding) that Hussein posed an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States. Get with the program. He was plotting against the U.S. with Osama Bin Laden. Not to mention, he used chemical weapons on his own people and he was building a dirty bomb.
We're all safer because that brutal dictator is no longer in power.
Don't you feel safer?
-
Ah it's all roses. :)
-
It helps if you just repeat it over and over again.
We are safer.
We are safer.
We are safer.
:)
-
Well, there hasn't been a terrorist orange alert since last November, so maybe it's working.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well, there hasn't been a terrorist orange alert since last November, so maybe it's working.
I've got some elephant repellant in my kitchen cupboard. It has been 100% effective.
-
Well Nash,
When UNSC 1441 was passed, and gave Saddam "one last chance to comply", and warned of 'serious consequenses" of their were failure to comply with 1441. Troops began to build up in Kuwait in October, and backed up the threat.
10 days later UNMOVIC arrived in Iraq.
Hanz Blix spoke of Iraqi cooperation put forth by "outside influences" but also said that cooperation was not what it should be if the Iraqis were fully committed to disarmament like the South Africans were. While Blix was opposed to the military action, he spoke of frustration that inspectors were not supposed to be investigators but were supposed to be verifiers.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
When UNSC 1441 was passed, and gave Saddam "one last chance to comply", and warned of 'serious consequenses" if their were failure to comply with 1441. Troops began to build up in Kuwait in October, and backed up the threat.
Hmmm... if we're going to use UNSC 1441 as the reason, shouldn't it have been up to the UNSC to enforce it?
Or... is it now the policy of the U.S. to selectively enforce UN resolutions?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... if we're going to use UNSC 1441 as the reason, shouldn't it have been up to the UNSC to enforce it?
You would think so wouldn't you?
-
Yeah, you would.
Erhm... huh?
So I guess what you're saying is that the UN didn't do the job of enforcing its rules so the US stepped in to enforce its rules for them.
For one thing, the US and everybody else would be a hell of a lot better off right now if, when it came to Iraq, the US didn't jump in and start enforcing the UN's rules against the UN's wishes. Okay? That much we now know.
For another, Powel stood up in front of them with a PowerPoint presentation the cost of which probably equaled the GDP of a few third world countries combined, trying to show the UN what it thought it knew. It's not as if Uganda or wherever has spy satellites.
When push came to shove, the US kicked out the UN's ability to verify the intelligence that the US was so kindly supplying to them. The UN wanted to check it out. The US wouldn't let them. And you wanna foist the blame on the UN?
Your remark seems only to say "They wouldn't do it, so we had to."
Thus, in light of everything we now know, your argument becomes "They wouldn't do it, because it was not justified, but we did it anyways, because they wouldn't." Well good for you. It's irrational.
-
Actually it is my opinion, and that opinion is totally academic, that if France, Russia, and China agreed with th UK and the USA and supported the military threat, Saddam may have realised his hand had been called, and the possibility existed that he may have begun to comply with the 1991 cease fire.
But since the UN has only authorized military action twice, in 1950 and in 1991 IIRC, I believe that Saddam thought "They won't do anything, eventually get bored and go home."
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Saddam thought "They won't do anything..."
Do anything about what?
Really...
Holden, lets get real here. Saddam was the walking dead long before you and I got wind of it. Long before we were lied to about the reasons for it.
Half of his country was restricted airspace, his joint was getting bombed the shreck up daily, his army was destroyed, he couldn't trade with the rest of the world, and finally the inspectors weren't allowed to say that he really wasn't up to much of anything.
China or whoever else wasn't needed to back up any threat. The inspectors were in, didn't find anything, and were yanked. What more could have been done by China or whoever else?
-
Holden, I'll make it easy for you. If you see a politician and his lips are moving, there's a greater than 80% chance he's lying regardless of the subject.
-
Nash,
If you get pulled over by the police and they demand that you hand over your license and registration do you argue over the legitimacy of the stop, or do you comply?
I suggest you comply.
The effect of of a monolithic UNSC would have been stronger than a split council and I contend may have been effective in making the inspections actually work and may have averted the use of the military option.
But only twice in the history of the UN has it been more than a paper tiger.
-
Please enlighten me GS.
When, other than Korea 1950 and Kuwait 1991, has the UNSC authorized the use of force against anyone? Not just blue hat peacekeepers, but real armed forces capable of taking and holding territory?
-
i doubt there will be any solid paper trail. but holden, would you endorse your children to fight in cheney's war?
-
The Kosovo operation was a NATO operation. Operation Allied Force.
Show me the UNSC reslolution authorising that UN forces "take" Bosnia. UNPROFOR was initially established in Croatia to ensure demilitarization of designated areas. The mandate was later extended to Bosnia and Herzegovina to support the delivery of humanitarian relief, monitor "no fly zones" and "safe areas". The mandate was later extended to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for preventive monitoring in border areas.
-
Sorry about the edit, I thought I got it before you replied.
-
I posted it for 10 seconds when I saw you were trying to answer my question already. What... do like to vulch too?
Resolution 1031 (1995) establishes IFOR as a mop up peacekeeper force.
Resolution 1244 (1999) authorises KFOR in June, but NATO struck in March 24.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
He's the VP. He has already shown he has zero tact in handling these kind of situations. Why do you think they keep him holed up in some bunker somewhere. "allegations" please. If you don't think we are doing some really bad **** down in GITMO you can just keep living in your fairy tale world.
So what part of "allegations" in your original post is wrong?
As far as doing some really bad **** down in gitmo.
It sounds more like there may have been some abuse not torture.
In my opinion they dumb down the definition of torture when they include scantily dressed women sitting on laps, sleep deprivation, cold air conditioners and threatening to flush the Koran.
-
are you guys that think the world isn't safer now that the sadman is gone really that short sighted?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
are you guys that think the world isn't safer now that the sadman is gone really that short sighted?
lazs
How exactly do you quantify "safer"?
Terrorist attacks across the globe have increased significantly: Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4488513.stm)
Recruitment to militant organisations is up: Link (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050531-105953-1119r.htm)
Militant influence in the long time Islamists strongholds of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is as strong as ever: Link (http://www.saag.org/papers14/paper1394.html) & Link (http://www.saag.org/papers14/paper1303.html)
Still no resolution to the problem with North Korean nukes despite Bush's insistence that a diplomatic remedy is the only answer.
Meanwhile Iran scambles to build nukes spurred on by the example recently made of Iraq.
-
I don't say that the world is safer at this exact time. I say that establishing a democracy in the middle east in Iraq particularly will make the world safer..
I say it is long overdue but that it may take some time. I also say that the sadman had worked on nukes before and I believe that he would again.
lazs
-
Bush, Dick & rumy Suck:mad:
-
Bush, Dick & Rumy are Heroes :D
-
Originally posted by MENDEZ
Bush, Dick & rumy Suck:mad:
Ya, man.............dammit!!! You tell em.
-
saddam should be accountable for his actions, but those morally bankrupt politicians that took him off the known terrorist list, supplied him with billions of dollars and wmd and looked the other way when it was proven that he was committing mass genocide, surely deserve a pass for their actions.
democracy in the middle-east is long overdue, make those that subverted iran's democracy and subsequent support of a dictatorship for more than three decades, a tad short sighted.
if iraq wasn't sitting on the second largest reserve of oil, it would be reaganomics as usual.
typical double standard.
-
All entirely correct Torque. No flaws, no misses, no errors.
*ahem*
I hear canada has oil and beer.
...and a large french population that's beggin fer an arse-kickin.
don't make us come up there.
;)
-
Originally posted by Raider179
The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice President Dick Cheney says, and he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/index.html
Wow I will take that bet. lol
Hehe looks like the administration is gonna pull us out of there no matter whats going on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4598761.stm
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari says he is worried that the US may pull its troops out before local forces are able to maintain security.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't say that the world is safer at this exact time.
Are you guys that think the world isn't safer now that the sadman is gone really that short sighted? :D
-
Hehe looks like the administration is gonna pull us out of there no matter whats going on.
====
so whats the "hehe" for raider? you one of those people that think american failure in iraq would be a great victory?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Hehe looks like the administration is gonna pull us out of there no matter whats going on.
====
so whats the "hehe" for raider? you one of those people that think american failure in iraq would be a great victory?
It's in reference to the first post in which Cheney specifies we will be out of Iraq before Bush leaves office. This saying by the Iraqi FM seems to indicate he thinks we are gonna leave them high and dry. So taking that all into account and the fact that the "insurgents" have only increased in the number of attacks since the elections, I ask you what makes Cheney believe Iraq is gonna be stable on it's own in less than 4 years?
Actually I believe America has reached past the point you can call it a failure. We gave them their chance for democracy (or freedom from Saddam,whichever you prefer) and if they screw it up from here blame rests on them. (the Iraqi's)
-
I do believe that the world is better off without the sadman as a leader.
I think that we did not try to establish democracy and stabilize the regiopn for totally altruistic reasons although I believe that many people in the U.S. have altruistic reasons.
I think that what we did needed to be done eventually and it was simply a logical move that took guts and greed and ability all coming together to happen.
I think the world lucked out that all these things came together at the same time while the U.S. was the last remaining superpower.
lazs