Piece of **** muslim convert kills young soldier and wounds another

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by saltyone, Jun 1, 2009.

  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    BS, not everyone agreed that a laughable "snub" was worth a war on behalf of the UN, who by-the-way, did not authorize or join us in war.

    Yes, most people wholeheartedly supported the effort in Afghanistan, where AL Qaida lived and was protected by the Taliban. That was going after the people who hit us on 9/11. But when they melted away into Bora Bora and later to Pakistan, Bush lost focus and let them hide for years.

    The Invasion of Iraq was NOT wholeheartedly supported. The notion that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam was flaunting UN regulations is rewriting history. The Republicans never cared one flip about the UN. They had always wanted an excuse to take down Iraq and "bring democracy to the arab world".

    Obama was against it, he made a speech about it. I was against Iraq from the beginning, go read my old posts. Everything that I predicted would fail failed. The generals were against the Iraq invasion, but they were ignored by the Bush administration. Lot's of people were against it. And the ones that believed in the Bush/Cheney insistence that Saddam possessed WMD's and was allied with bin Ladin, both of which were proven false.

    Saddam was a failed third-world dictator who was completely stymied by 10 years of UNSCOM destruction of his WMD's, an economy in shambles, sanctions in place, and 10 years of no-fly zones with American aircraft occasionally blowing things up. He was a threat to no one and it was just a matter of time before he was done.

    We lost focus on Al Qaida for 6 years and wasted a Trillion dollars and suffered 30,000 US casualties while Al Qaida and the Taliban rebuilt themselves in Pakistan and now they threaten to take down the friendly Afghan government and perhaps Pakistan, too.

    Why do you keep trying to justify an obviously failed Irag policy, a badly mismanaged war, and an endless, expensive occupation of a country of people that hate us.
     
  2. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Because it pisses me off when people use 20/20 hindsight to justify their complaints. Show me your (generally speaking) objections that were registered AT THE TIME, or STFU.
     
  3. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17,958
    Likes Received:
    8,799
    A lot of people did support it, particularly a lot of people that were running the government.
     
  4. LSUDeek

    LSUDeek All That She Wants...

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    6,456
    Likes Received:
    151
    There were quite a few people in the current administration, save the President, who supported it as well.
     
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    ignoring the conditions of a cease-fire is not a "laughable snub". it means fire is no longer ceased and war resumes.


    they are right to ignore the UN unless it is politically advantageous to do so. at the end of the 1991 war, there were sanctions. whether not these were just placed by america (as a victor in the 1991 war) on iraq, or whether they had the backing of the UN is not relevant.


    because sabanfan is a realist. the world is a tough place and sometimes wars are necessary.
     
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    What "cease fire" was ignored? When did Iraq fire on us?

    It is when it is used as an excuse, obviously.

    SabanFan is a realist and so am I, but he's got his facts wrong. Wars will indeed be necessary at times and sometimes wars will be unnecessary, too. If there was ever a misbegotten excuse for an unneeded war it was Iraq.
     
  7. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    i meant the terms of the cease-fire. we stopped the 1991 war because iraq agreed to various things

    "That dictator agreed in 1991, as a condition of a ceasefire, to fully comply with all Security Council resolutions - then ignored more than a decade of those resolutions. Finally, the Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say "serious consequences," for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences. And so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world."

    - bush

    he is right. the commitments must have meaning. else why bother. when you words have no meaning your threats and warning mean nothing. this emboldens your enemies.
     
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Oh, because you're too lazy to search for them, so I have to STFU? Not bloody likely.

    I don't mind doing the work, but then you can STFU! I never objected to taking down Taliban Afghanistan, they were in on 9/11. But Iraq was a distraction and a waste from day one with me. I didn't start posting in FSA until November 2003. Here are a few of my earliest comments and predictions concerning Iraq.

    12/14/2003
    2/3/2004
    3/30/2004
    3/31/2004
    4/1/2004
    4/7/04
    4/10/2004
    5/12/2004
    6/0/2004
     
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Well, George, in those ten years economic sanctions crippled Iraq's economy, UNSCOM inspectors on the ground destroyed tons of chemical weapons, US aircraft patrolled over the country day and night--occasionally shooting up Saddam's air defense system, Iraq was hit with air and missile strikes twice as punishment for defiance. His army was in shambles, his air force was sitting on runways in Iran, and all he had left was bluster. So he bragged about nukes to scare us. Our own experts testified that Iraq had no WMD's and no nuclear program. But you bought it anyway, George. I'd like to sell you some resort waterfront property in Plaquemines Parish, though.

    You pump up an already-beaten third world dictator living in a world of chit into an menace? He posed no threat to the US in any fashion, he wasn't even a threat to Kuwait. He had nothing to do with terrorism or Al Qaida. The stupid fugger tried to fight a stand-up war with a Superpower and got himself humiliated. Then he got humiliated for ten more years of UN sanctions. He had nuthin'.
     
  10. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    is your contention that he did in fact abide by the terms of the cease-fire?

    if you answer is yes, then you are wrong. if you answer is no, then presumably tou think we should not stand behind our commitments.

    it wasnt just about saddam. it was about long term stability. it doesnt matter if saddam is threatening us. he has to abide by the agreements or war resumes.

    if for example, some lunatic wants to invade their neighbor, if the UN and every other nation except america is too spineless to do anything, they still know that america will stand behind their threats. and that is important. particularly now that north korea is seeing exactly how much they can get away with. if the US had just let saddam do his thing, then why would our other enemies bother caring what we say? you create stability with threats that you are willing to back up. you dont say "oh well, sure we made these commitments, but whatever, we like peace and we are cowards".
     

Share This Page