A different Iraq poll: How much is "completing the mission" worth to YOU?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
The re-election of the regime that fooled you into this war stands as a monument of the stupidity of America.

I entered the OT forum to protest against the upcoming war, 3 years ago. One thing I remember was Ted posting "Britney with an American flag" pictures in every Iraq thread, and I think that symbolizes the average American view back then: "Let's go kick some ass, just because we can". I told you that you could clearly see on the facial expression of Colin Powel that he did not belive his own words when he spoke to the UN about the "evidence". A whole bunch of Americans told me I was wrong. Now we know the truth.

Told you so. You f*cked up. You pay, in blood and dollars.

While what you say about us in paticular may be true, I would caution the happy gloating, because it's not just Americans dying, most of the misery is unfairly being heaped upon the lives of the innocent Iraqis.

Regarding Britney, that wasn't an Iraq specific thing.

Britney was for bragging about the USA in general.

[MOBIUS]

No happy gloating here - we're only one death away from the magic '100' after today...

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Britney was for bragging about the USA in general.

You brag about the US with britney!!?

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Me too. Been saying this **** all along...

That's funny -- I seem to recall that your main argument against the war was the UN prediction that half a million civilians were going to die because of it; and you were having an argument with the pro-war folks' where you kept on saying how US had no right to invade Iraq just because Saddam had WMD's since US itself had them. I also seem to remember how you speculated that the then upcoming invasion was all about oil and the objective was to lower oil prices.

Now my memory isn't perfect: I could be wrong. Feel free to prove me wrong by giving us links to archived threads where you argumented against the war before it on the basis that there would be no WMD and no gain for either the people of Iraq or the US'.

Before the war there were some people who were against the war because they thought Iraq would never use it's non-existant WMD's, but they were certainly not the majority. I personally can only recall DinoDoc, Chemical Ollie and KrazyHorse.

[Ted Striker]

You brag about the US with britney!!?

I used to.

Britney (at least her faked image), much like our country, was alot different in 1999.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by VJ

That's funny -- I seem to recall that your main argument against the war was the UN prediction that half a million civilians were going to die because of it; and you were having an argument with the pro-war folks' where you kept on saying how US had no right to invade Iraq just because Saddam had WMD's since US itself had them. I also seem to remember how you speculated that the then upcoming invasion was all about oil and the objective was to lower oil prices.

Absolute hogwash!

My major argument was that the US had no right to attack a country without provocation - plain and simple.

Now my memory isn't perfect: I could be wrong. Feel free to prove me wrong by giving us links to archived threads where you argumented against the war before it on the basis that there would be no WMD and no gain for either the people of Iraq or the US'.

Yeah, basically you're making stuff up and you and me both know that the archived threads can't be searched properly otherwise I'd disprove this **** in 2 seconds flat...

Before the war there were some people who were against the war because they thought Iraq would never use it's non-existant WMD's, but they were certainly not the majority. I personally can only recall DinoDoc, Chemical Ollie and KrazyHorse.

Actually IIRC the majority of the people (outside of the US) were against the war because it was unlawful...

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
My major argument was that the US had no right to attack a country without provocation - plain and simple.

So we both agree that you lied when you just boasted around that you had, to quote, "been saying this **** all along"?

Consider the context of "****":

I entered the OT forum to protest against the upcoming war, 3 years ago. One thing I remember was Ted posting "Britney with an American flag" pictures in every Iraq thread, and I think that symbolizes the average American view back then: "Let's go kick some ass, just because we can". I told you that you could clearly see on the facial expression of Colin Powel that he did not belive his own words when he spoke to the UN about the "evidence". A whole bunch of Americans told me I was wrong. Now we know the truth.

Actually IIRC the majority of the people (outside of the US) were against the war because it was unlawful...

So you agree with me that very few were against the war because they thought that "Iraq wouldn't use it's non-existant WMD's" like I said? That's great.

Btw, I tried to search the archives, and you're correct. It seems that all threads older than x months have been deleted since MarkG has probably been spending the $$$ he has collected by polyPLUS and ad revenue on beer and hookers instead of better servers (compare and contrast this to CFC archiving policy). Meh. Does JohnT or any other HC archivist have the "UN predicts 500 000 civilian casualties because of the Iraq war" thread stored anywhere? I found it a pretty historical place of hysteria even before the war.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by VJ
since MarkG has probably been spending the $$$ he has collected by polyPLUS and ad revenue on beer and hookers

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by VJ
So we both agree that you lied when you just boasted around that you had, to quote, "been saying this **** all along"?

Consider the context of "****":

Man you must be desperate...

My context is "...protest against the upcoming war, 3 years ago... ...the average American view back then: "Let's go kick some ass, just because we can". ...Colin Powel [...] did not [seem to] belive his own words when he spoke to the UN about the "evidence". A whole bunch of Americans told me I was wrong. Now we know the truth.

So broadly speaking yes I have been saying and agreeing with this **** all along...

If you want to argue semantics, about exactly which person said what then feel free to look like a jackass...

So you agree with me that very few were against the war because they thought that "Iraq wouldn't use it's non-existant WMD's" like I said? That's great.

If you would care to read my statement again, that is not what I said - the majority of worldwide opinion at the time was against the war. Full-stop. Period.

Can I make that position any simpler!?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Actually IIRC the majority of the people (outside of the US) were against the war because it was unlawful...

I actually found those arguements the least convincing on the merrits.

[PLATO]

The issue of right or wrong for the war is a completely different issue than "what is the mission". Personally, I have spent most of my life watching the Middle East deteriorate into the mass of fundamentalism that it is today. I still say that something needed to be done. As any of you will recall, my main arguments for the war were to change the balance of power in the Middle East. To date, I do not believe this has been accomplished.

Further, the issue at hand is now mission definement and the decision to carry out that mission. Bush was correct in saying "Mission Accomplished" two years ago. That mission was to defeat the Iraqi military and remove Sadaam from power. That happened. The problem is that the next mission was never clearly defined or planned for. The US has haphazardly been trying to institute some measure of control there every since.

The time has come (actually the time has long since come) to define what we wish to accomplish in Iraq in specific terms. Then an honest debate on weather or not it is worth the cost can ensue. At this point we all seem to be just debating weather or not the status quo should continue.

There are 3 options in my opinion...and two of them are bad...
1.) Leave immediately and let the power vacuum be filled by whoever has the strength (most likely this would be an Iranian supported ****e Theocracy IMO)
2.) Continue with the status quo until such time that the new regime has enough trained troops to maintain control (on paper anyway...this has the strong possibility to deteriorate into option one)
3.) Set clearly defined goals for the situation and base them on the political realities of the ME not DC. Determine the assetts needed to accomplish them, establish a timetable to reach benchmarks, and have a reevaluation model in place for each benchmark.

There is still time for this intervention in the ME to be a success, but the clock is ticking and the window is closing. Action is needed now by the administration and the Congress.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I actually found those arguements the least convincing on the merrits.

Indeed. It is quite clear that the intent of 1441 was to authorize military action in the event of non-compliance. The Cheif weapons inspector detailed several instances of non-compliance to the Security Council.

The French position that another resolution was need to actually start the war was far more based in Global power politics than illegality.

To debate weather or not the war was a good move is legitamate...to debate weather or not it was legal is a demonstration of not having read 1441.

[DinoDoc]

More an ignorance of history.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


Indeed. It is quite clear that the intent of 1441 was to authorize military action in the event of non-compliance. The Cheif weapons inspector detailed several instances of non-compliance to the Security Council.

The French position that another resolution was need to actually start the war was far more based in Global power politics than illegality.

To debate weather or not the war was a good move is legitamate...to debate weather or not it was legal is a demonstration of not having read 1441.

The problem being that Iraq DID comply. After all, how could they possibly give the US and UK the information on their weapons programs, since that information did not exist??

So when the Iraqis said they had no mobile biological labs, no drones, no nuclear program, that all thier stockpiles had been destroyed....they were sort of telling the truth.

Meaning that even if the French position was not correct (thought it was probably far more correct than the US-UK position, since even if the council says that non-complience would have "serious consequences", given those consequences had NOT been spelled out, and given that fact that the UNSC must vote before force is used, for sole member states to decide amongst themselves what those serious consequences would be and use direct military aggression against another member state makes no sense), this war was still a legal boodogle.

[Drake Tungsten]

I've been seriously thinking about signing up for the service when I get back to the US next summer, so maybe I'm willing to give up my life to serve my country. It's questionable whether I would qualify physically though (didn't coming out of high school when I was thinking of going to a service academy), so I'll probably have to serve my country another way. Was thinking the CIA would be the way to go, but I don't know anymore with all the bull**** going on over at Langley.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Was thinking the CIA would be the way to go, but I don't know anymore with all the bull**** going on over at Langley.

You wanted to end up in jail for torturing people?