FINALLY! Our whorish mainstream media reports on the memo

I didn't say i disagreed with the Persian Gulf war, was just defending martin's position.

 

what i mean is that the events of the last 15 years have changed the way we need to operate. now we need to be the aggressor, the killer. if we had always left things alone and done our own thing, this might not have happened. but it did, so now i say lets fight. it sucks terribly, but too bad for us. i cant think of the world as the way i wished it was had we done things we didnt do and not do things i think were mistakes.

now we have the situation we have, the terrorism, the wars, all that. and there is nothing we can do but what we are doing.

 

From above Salty... I think we should nuke the entire middle east... save American lives...

 

Yes, I do believe it. It's a part of the historical record of the last 20 years.
In addition, I served in the U.S. Army from 1991-1999, and this is what we were told...that operations in Iraq were in a state of cease-fire, subject to reopening of hostilities at such a time as the Commander-in-Chief should direct.

Given the fact that you have an anti-Bush agenda to begin with, this doesn't surprise me. You're trying to pass off personal opinion as fact.

Israel is acting in the best interests of it's own self-preservation. Wake up, man...the Palestinians have been offered their own land for going on 60 years now. It's not good enough for them...they want Israel gone too.

I'm not admitting any such thing. The fact that this guy invaded Kuwait once
showed that he was a danger to the region. He never denied having the WMD...in fact he threatened to use them on our troops in the days leading up to the resumption of hostilities. If he wanted to save his neck, why not just open up everything?

So just because there are so many of them, you are in favor of allowing tyrants to flourish unhindered. Just so long as it doesn't affect YOU.

Once again, you need to wake up, man. This is no longer Fortress America.
The Atlantic and Pacific are no longer barriers to people that want to do us harm. That kind of thinking is what allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place.

 

This philosophy was what made Ronald Reagan's Presidency the success that it was.

 

don't resort to the weakest attempt to validate your argument...that being, discrediting your opponent because of their opinions on particular individuals. i could sit here and tell you that your logic is equally flawed because you have been brainwashed by right-wing, war-hungry propoganda. but that gets you nowhere. the fact is, i don't have an anti-bush agenda. the only agenda that i have is one that holds with deepest regard the best interests of this country. period. if that entails denouncing the president time and again, then so be it. but to dismiss ones argument on the basis that they simply have disdain for an individual is a cop-out.

bush's vendetta has been well-documented. the first thing he asked the counter-terrorism units after their first meeting following the WTC attacks was 'whadd'ya got on iraq?' he wanted 9/11 to be iraqs fault more than anything. this mindset has been called into question time and again, most recently in the article which this thread is about. but, as is often the case with pro-war types, any verifying information is simply dismissed on the grounds of discrediting the source. again, must be nice not to care.

it's own self-preservation that continues to perpetuate acts of terror on it's own people? nice. so then it's ok to violate all the UN sanctions that you want so long as you can make a case that you're acting in the best interests of your own self-preservation? what a joke.

look, guy. if you think that we, or any other nation, actually have the resources and power to eliminate every tyrant in the world, you are sadly mistaken. but if we should go after all of them, we should start in saudi arabia. yes, our best friends are also tyrannous villains. was it you that made the remark about how appeasement has no place in international politics today? we certainly have been sucking their butts for some time now.

well, you're partially right. but do you really know what kind of thinking allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place? dick cheney telling CTU, as well as congress, that he 'didn't want to hear anything else about terrorism'. this administration, as well as clintons, obliviation of counter-terrorism funding. numerous ignored warnings/memos from CTU about bin laden using airplanes to attack american landmarks. again, you're falling into the pitfall of relating iraq to terrorism. please make this factual connection that our government officials have miserably failed to prove time and again and i will let you have this one.

you want to bring up history? i'll reiterate this statement since everyone is conveniently ignoring it: do you know what our 'mission' was in vietnam? to spread democracy in asia. you see what a success that was. communism now dominates the region. does it not frighten ANYONE that we are saying the EXACT same thing, and making the same mistakes, as we were back then? you know, you're supposed to LEARN from your own history. they say those that do not know their history are doomed to repeat. apparently, those who know their history are also doomed to repeat it. f*cking sad.

aaahahahaha! lmao! credibility? that's the funniest thing i've heard all day. open your eyes. our credibility has been completely obliterated by the false pretenses on which they sold this stupid war. every item that they swore to be the absolute truth has 'turned out' to be utterly and laughably false. this little 'cease fire' that everyone keeps bringing up was never a selling point of the war, and this is not a coindidence. the arguement itself is very weak. the 'cease fire' was UN res. 686, stating that saddam was to comply with all previous resolutions against him. resoltion 678, being a previous resoltuion, was the only one which allowed enforcement by 'any means necessary'. however, the security council deemed iraq to be in substantial compliance with the limitations set forth by 686 in '98. the NPT, or res 687, was then drafted to impose economic sanctions on iraq. this resolution never authorized the use of force if it was violated, only the continuance of the economic sanctions.

if you want to get into the legal aspects of UN resolution 1441, you'll be fighting with ambiguity all day long. but the bottom line is that 1441 never authorized the use of force against iraq either. a separtate resolution would have had to have been drafted to authorize compliance by 'any means necessary'.

 

it wasnt a selling point according to people who pretend the war was only about wmd and nothing else.

besides, what does it matter what you claim was the justification? the cease fire violations justify the war, and thats it. the end.

do you think we should sign a cease fire and let the other guy not stick to it and do whatever he wants?