"war in Iraq can still be won" Yay! - wait a minute - can still be won?

Giancarlo · January 3, 2005, 09:05

Funny because it is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with me to begin with. I don't even look like him.

techumseh · January 3, 2005, 11:39

Originally posted by Oerdin

Have you noticed how no one gives a flying poop about the no fly zones? You are literally the only person to bring them up.

You're the one that brought up the "cease-fire" violations as a justification for the war. The no-fly zones are a big part of that.

Giancarlo · January 3, 2005, 12:07

Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement, and it was legally required that the US invade.

Pax · January 3, 2005, 15:23

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement, and it was legally required that the US invade.

if it was so clean cut then 1. bush would have used this as his arguement. 2. they would have been invaded a long time ago.

Giancarlo · January 3, 2005, 15:23

Originally posted by Pax
if it was so clean cut then 1. bush would have used this as his arguement. 2. they would have been invaded a long time ago.

1. Please international community.

2. Clinton.

GePap · January 3, 2005, 15:37

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement, and it was legally required that the US invade.

techumseh · January 3, 2005, 15:41

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement, and it was legally required that the US invade.

Jeez. They had to do it. There it is, right under our noses all this time. They were LEGALLY REQUIRED to invade. If they didn't, someone woulda called a cop or sued them or something. Boy, I'm glad that's settled. Now we can all get back to hockey.

Giancarlo · January 3, 2005, 15:43

Originally posted by techumseh

Jeez. They had to do it. There it is, right under our noses all this time. They were LEGALLY REQUIRED to invade. If they didn't, someone woulda called a cop or sued them or something. Boy, I'm glad that's settled. Now we can all get back to hockey.

If we didn't, it would give Al Qaeda the opportunity to bomb us to hell because we don't have a backbone. Thank goodness we did not listen to you peaceniks, and we used force because it sets the right precedent. It shows we have guts in the face of terrorism.

GePap · January 3, 2005, 15:45

Originally posted by Giancarlo

If we didn't, it would give Al Qaeda the opportunity to bomb us to hell because we don't have a backbone. Thank goodness we did not listen to you peaceniks, and we used force because it sets the right precedent. It shows we have guts in the face of terrorism.

X 10.

Giancarlo · January 3, 2005, 15:49

Originally posted by GePap

X 10.

If John Kerry got elected there would of been dozens of terrorist attacks because he insists on being weak minded, as yourself.

GePap · January 3, 2005, 15:52

Originally posted by Giancarlo

If John Kerry got elected there would of been dozens of terrorist attacks because he insists on being weak minded, as yourself.

X 20

Alexander's Horse · January 3, 2005, 15:59

Originally posted by Oerdin

They were authorized to remove Iraq from Kuwait and to insure that UN resolutions were upheld.

So when will the USA enforce the UN resolutions against Israel by military force?

Oh yeah - that's different

Giancarlo · January 3, 2005, 16:01

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

So when will the USA enforce the UN resolutions against Israel by military force?

Oh yeah - that's different

Israel is a rightful, legitimate, and democratic state that has a right to exist. Saddam's Iraq wasn't.

Provost Harrison · January 3, 2005, 16:01

Oh put a sock in it Fez, you don't know what you are on about. Those 'peaceniks' told you it would end in a bloodbath. And look where we are now...

Giancarlo · January 3, 2005, 16:04

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Oh put a sock in it Fez, you don't know what you are on about. Those 'peaceniks' told you it would end in a bloodbath. And look where we are now...

The peaceniks can't say a ****ing thing. It isn't a bloodbath. You put a sock in it. If it was up to me, peaceniks would be in mental hospitals. those morons said it would be like Vietnam.

Where are the heavy casualities? And I'm not minimizing anything right now.. but it isn't even close to Vietnam in the number of casualities proving peaceniks are brainless people.

Alexander's Horse · January 3, 2005, 16:09

Originally posted by Giancarlo

What?

I didn't post an article. I want to see a link for the article you posted. I have a link but it is to my blog: http://www.glomar.net

I went there

Welcome to my all new website, that I created on my own.

brilliant

Giancarlo · January 3, 2005, 16:10

Hey AH, what site did you go to? If you used your head for a minute, you would realize the old site is not important. Go to the blog.

Dinner · January 3, 2005, 18:39

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
So when will the USA enforce the UN resolutions against Israel by military force?

Oh yeah - that's different

That's the beauty of the UN. The great powers get to pick and choose to their hearts content and it is all perfectly legal. That's the way the UN has always worked and the is how it will always work.

Alexander's Horse · January 3, 2005, 19:24

lame answer - Israel can thumb its nose at the international community because the US protects it.

And guess which ME country really has got WMD? Not going to do anything about that?

Jon Miller · January 3, 2005, 19:30

you can't actually do something about a country that really has WMD

Jon Miller

techumseh · January 3, 2005, 19:59

Send in the inspectors!

Geronimo · January 3, 2005, 20:09

There are a lot of countries that I couldn't care less about having WMD because I can't picture them selling them or handing them to any non state entity. This includes pretty much all of the declared nuclear powers including India and certainly Israel is a country that I would never expect to export it's WMD in any manner.

It would be a huge waste of resources to invade isreal to secure it's wmd. On the other hand if Iraq under saddam really had had WMD and if he had kicked out the inspectors again and if we had everything wrapped up in afghanistan certainly it would have made sense to invade Iraq to secure those WMD. Does anybody really think WMD would have been as safe in Saddam's hands as in isreals?

I don't see why governments can't pick and choose who they trust with WMD in the same way.

Odin · January 3, 2005, 20:15

Originally posted by Giancarlo

If John Kerry got elected there would of been dozens of terrorist attacks because he insists on being weak minded, as yourself.

BS

Kuciwalker · January 3, 2005, 20:29

Odin, you're hardly one to talk.

techumseh · January 3, 2005, 22:54

Originally posted by Geronimo
Does anybody really think WMD would have been as safe in Saddam's hands as in isreals?

It depends on wheather you're an Arab or an Israeli, now doesn't it?

Kuciwalker · January 3, 2005, 23:10

Actually, it depends on whether your a poor, melodromatic troll or a reasonable person who understands the likelihood that the Israelis will launch their nukes, or give them to people who will launch the nukes, compared to the likelihood that Saddam would do so.

techumseh · January 3, 2005, 23:46

Do you really think that the Arab "man on the street" feels more comfortable that Israel has the bomb than IF Saddam did?

notyoueither · January 4, 2005, 00:53

Originally posted by GePap

Having read the actual resolution, sorry, but no. Authorization was given to remove Iraq from kuwait, certainly-but regime change in Iraq? NO. The fact is the UN can't authorize such an action anyways.

So, the UN couldn't authorise a regime change in Pol Pot's Cambodia? How quaint. How... useless.

And people go on and on and onnnnn about how the UN, or the UN's rules, are the end of discussion. End of discussion in what rose coloured world?

Kuciwalker · January 4, 2005, 00:54

Originally posted by techumseh
Do you really think that the Arab "man on the street" feels more comfortable that Israel has the bomb than IF Saddam did?

Do you really I care about what the "men on the street" think, or believe that to be an accurate evaluation of reality?

Berzerker · January 4, 2005, 03:18

So, the UN couldn't authorise a regime change in Pol Pot's Cambodia? How quaint. How... useless.

And people go on and on and onnnnn about how the UN, or the UN's rules, are the end of discussion. End of discussion in what rose coloured world?

The UN Charter is an international treaty dealing with international affairs. The treaty's ratifiers including the US didn't want the UN to have the power to meddle in intranational affairs.