For those of you who are adamently opposed to the Iraq war and feel we didn't take enough time to allow sanctions/inspectors/UN resolutions/planetary alignment to work their magic, just how long would you have been prepared to let the situation remain as it was? Indefinitely? 12 more years? Till Kerry gets in office should he eke out an unlikely victory? I'd appreciate it if you could give a specific date or timeline.
Meanwhile, I will take potshots at each of you.
Totem
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- About those UN inspectors...
About those UN inspectors...Follow
They did work, actually. Are you looking for a negative time table at which point there were no WMD in Iraq?
I'd say probably some time in '95.
I'd say probably some time in '95.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
15,724,800 seconds, give or take 864,000.
Ok, so Smash was willing to go invade Iraq in '95. Got it.
/marks that down
Totem
/marks that down
Totem
Ok, so Smash was willing to go invade Iraq in '95. Got it.
It sure would have been much more justified and valid. Invading in 2001 was like invading Mexico in 1950 because of the Alamo.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Alrighty, RPZip would invaded in 6.06 months, give or take 10 days.
/marks that down
Totem
/marks that down
Totem
Is there somewhere aside from your warped litttle mind that made invading a forgone conclusion?
Stopped beating your wife yet? Amature hour.
Stopped beating your wife yet? Amature hour.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Should have appended "and then seen what they found", but meh.
I'm actually suprised you did the calculations, I just figured you'd be far too lazy to work it out.
I'm actually suprised you did the calculations, I just figured you'd be far too lazy to work it out.
anyone with half a brain could give you a time line.
how about untill we were done with afganistan? the taliban is still staging large scale attacks dailey. you remember them? the people who actually attacked us?
we could have sat on iraq indefinatly, untill dealing with them was convienient.
we could be mopping up afganistan for the next few years, press a hard line with iran, and get a bit more serious with N.Korea right now with some credability.......if the whole world didnt know we were stretched to capacity in iraq.
bad timing. really really bad timing.
we could have given the U.N. all the time they wanted, and then some, and let Iraq be their desicion instead of denying them the time they requested and going in against their judgment.
Iraq was not going anywhere. and the U.N. would have found out, compliance or no complaince, Iraq wasnt a threat to anyone much less a super power half a world away form them.
if hussin really needed to go, then take him out at OUR convience. not when we just started a war with people who really did attack us. Iraq is the reason the taliban are still killing people in afganistan. Iraq is the reason the people who DID attack us are STILL attacking us.
how about untill we were done with afganistan? the taliban is still staging large scale attacks dailey. you remember them? the people who actually attacked us?
we could have sat on iraq indefinatly, untill dealing with them was convienient.
we could be mopping up afganistan for the next few years, press a hard line with iran, and get a bit more serious with N.Korea right now with some credability.......if the whole world didnt know we were stretched to capacity in iraq.
bad timing. really really bad timing.
we could have given the U.N. all the time they wanted, and then some, and let Iraq be their desicion instead of denying them the time they requested and going in against their judgment.
Iraq was not going anywhere. and the U.N. would have found out, compliance or no complaince, Iraq wasnt a threat to anyone much less a super power half a world away form them.
if hussin really needed to go, then take him out at OUR convience. not when we just started a war with people who really did attack us. Iraq is the reason the taliban are still killing people in afganistan. Iraq is the reason the people who DID attack us are STILL attacking us.
Actually, I didn't mention an invasion in my OP. I just asked how long all of you would be willing to sit on the situation as it was in November 2000. Shadowrelm says indefinitely, so he was fine with Saddam tweaking our nose every six months or so. And since we didn't have the HUMINT incountry to determine if Saddam was telling the truth and the inspection teams were being physically prevented from inspecting, I suppose he's telling the truth from his perspective.
Smash says he'd have gone in in '95, something I can respect since that was the point at which the unconditional surrender terms had been definitively broken. I'd amend it to say that gives us license to invade at any point beyond that, but that's a matter of discussion for another time.
RPZip's answer, though tongue-in-cheek, doesn't substantially change the situation from what we have today, except maybe more heat exhaustion injuries to the soldiers.
Totem
Smash says he'd have gone in in '95, something I can respect since that was the point at which the unconditional surrender terms had been definitively broken. I'd amend it to say that gives us license to invade at any point beyond that, but that's a matter of discussion for another time.
RPZip's answer, though tongue-in-cheek, doesn't substantially change the situation from what we have today, except maybe more heat exhaustion injuries to the soldiers.
Totem
Hmm... If I remember correctly, the UN inspectors didn't find anything 2-3 years ago and, surprise surprise... now it's generally accepted that there really wasn't any WMDs in Iraq.
I'd say the inspectors had already done their job; Bush just didn't listen.
Edited, Sat Oct 9 04:58:04 2004 by Clim
I'd say the inspectors had already done their job; Bush just didn't listen.
Edited, Sat Oct 9 04:58:04 2004 by Clim
Actually, I didn't mention an invasion in my OP. I just asked how long all of you would be willing to sit on the situation as it was in November 2000. Shadowrelm says indefinitely
----------------------------------------------------------------
no, i did not say indefinatly.
what i said was plain.
afganistan first. then the greater threats, Iran and N.Korea.
Iraq at a more convienent time for our military, and absolutly not at all without U.N. support in all aspects of the confrontation.
Iraq was NEVER, repeat, NEVER our problem. it was a middle east problem. a U.N. problem. Saudi Arabia,s problem. Jordans problem. Syeria,s problem.
Bush made Iraq our problem number one, when there were and are greater threats facing our country.
it was absolute stupidity to go in there without the world behind us. and guess what? the world didnt see a problem. and suprise suprise surprise, it turns out THERE WAS NO PROBLEM that could not have waited.
you guys keep trying to let this addministraition off the hook. they KNEW BEFORE they went to Iraq they did not have any substantial evidence to support their suspicions. they trumped up the tid bits they did have to get in there while this country was still in a blood lust state looking for revenge.
and they did it on purpose.
Iraq was never about their potential security threat. it was and is about our energy policy.
the three top leader in our county, Bush, Rice, and Cheney are all from big oil. we attack a country with the second largest supply of sweet crude on the planet that wsa not a threat to anyone, much less a super power half a word away.
do the math people. pull your heads out of the sand and look at what is staring back at you. all politicians lie. do a logic check.
no weapons
no chemicals
no threat
lots of oil
oil biggies running the country
oil policy made by oil lobbiest, including enron, and haliburton
big profits for haliburton in a no bid contract
these are the facts. everything you get from the white house is spinn. ray charles could see what happened here. any third world tyrant could have told you he would have donethe same. hell, hussin tried to do the same with kuwait.
doesnt take a genious, just takes someone to plug their ears whenever apolitician speaks and put the pieces together themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------
no, i did not say indefinatly.
what i said was plain.
afganistan first. then the greater threats, Iran and N.Korea.
Iraq at a more convienent time for our military, and absolutly not at all without U.N. support in all aspects of the confrontation.
Iraq was NEVER, repeat, NEVER our problem. it was a middle east problem. a U.N. problem. Saudi Arabia,s problem. Jordans problem. Syeria,s problem.
Bush made Iraq our problem number one, when there were and are greater threats facing our country.
it was absolute stupidity to go in there without the world behind us. and guess what? the world didnt see a problem. and suprise suprise surprise, it turns out THERE WAS NO PROBLEM that could not have waited.
you guys keep trying to let this addministraition off the hook. they KNEW BEFORE they went to Iraq they did not have any substantial evidence to support their suspicions. they trumped up the tid bits they did have to get in there while this country was still in a blood lust state looking for revenge.
and they did it on purpose.
Iraq was never about their potential security threat. it was and is about our energy policy.
the three top leader in our county, Bush, Rice, and Cheney are all from big oil. we attack a country with the second largest supply of sweet crude on the planet that wsa not a threat to anyone, much less a super power half a word away.
do the math people. pull your heads out of the sand and look at what is staring back at you. all politicians lie. do a logic check.
no weapons
no chemicals
no threat
lots of oil
oil biggies running the country
oil policy made by oil lobbiest, including enron, and haliburton
big profits for haliburton in a no bid contract
these are the facts. everything you get from the white house is spinn. ray charles could see what happened here. any third world tyrant could have told you he would have donethe same. hell, hussin tried to do the same with kuwait.
doesnt take a genious, just takes someone to plug their ears whenever apolitician speaks and put the pieces together themselves.
The Bush supporters have this all wrong. They bend logic to make their case sound as though it were valid. They create a fact, saying Saddam had weapons (until recently, but they somehow still use this logic) and base the rest of their argument on that supposition.
Dittohead: I know for a fact that Saddam has WMDs.
Realist: But the inspectors can't find anything.
Dittohead: That means that Saddam is systematicaly fooling the inspectors and is therefor a much worse threat and an evil man full of hate.
Dittohead: I know for a fact that Saddam has WMDs.
Realist: But the inspectors can't find anything.
Dittohead: That means that Saddam is systematicaly fooling the inspectors and is therefor a much worse threat and an evil man full of hate.
Quote:
how about untill we were done with afganistan? the taliban is still staging large scale attacks dailey. you remember them? the people who actually attacked us?
The problem with your argument Clim and shadowrelm, is that you ignore the obvious. Let's look at this, shall we?
Pre 1990: Hussein gasses the Kurds. Hussein attempts to procure nuclear materials. Hussein obtains materials which can be used for biological weapon making. Iraqi scientists escape and tell the world about this.
1990: Hussein invades Kuwait under the justification that it was Iraq's historical land and that they were stealing Iraq's oil.
1991: Iraq surrenders unconditionally. The rules are laid out in writing and are signed by all involved parties.
1991-2003: Iraq breaks those rules agreed to in the surrender under Hussein's direction. Inspectors who were sent in look for CBR were kicked out. Inspectors were not allowed to inspect sites without prior notification. No-fly zones are violated. Iraqi military is mobilized and exercises are performed at the Kuwaiti border in violation of the surrender terms. Iraqi missles are shot at US warplanes. An assassination attempt is made on a US ex-president.
2004: Bush has had enough, decides to rid the world of this problem based on Hussein's prior record and the intelligence given him, faulty as it was.
Your blindness occurs at the point where you believe that somehow based on very spotty inspections that Iraq was adhering to the terms of the surrender agreement, despite all the obsfucation, foot dragging, and complications involving possible French inspectors tipping the Iraqis off of impending inspections and belligerent behavior by Iraqi troops.
So whose fault is it then that Iraq was thought to have WMD and CBR materials? The UN's? Whose sole purpose was to verify that Iraq was living up to the terms of the unconditional surrender but was being prevented from doing so by Hussein? The US? Whose sole purpose was to strategically enforce the terms of the surrender and give the UN inspectors the freedom to do the inspecting they were being prevented from doing? Or was it Hussein's fault for not complying with the terms of the surrender?
You tell me, Mr. Know-it-alls-with-20/20-hindsight. But like I said, since inspections weren't being allowed, apparently you were fine with the status quo, where Iraq did as they pleased.
Totem
Pre 1990: Hussein gasses the Kurds. Hussein attempts to procure nuclear materials. Hussein obtains materials which can be used for biological weapon making. Iraqi scientists escape and tell the world about this.
1990: Hussein invades Kuwait under the justification that it was Iraq's historical land and that they were stealing Iraq's oil.
1991: Iraq surrenders unconditionally. The rules are laid out in writing and are signed by all involved parties.
1991-2003: Iraq breaks those rules agreed to in the surrender under Hussein's direction. Inspectors who were sent in look for CBR were kicked out. Inspectors were not allowed to inspect sites without prior notification. No-fly zones are violated. Iraqi military is mobilized and exercises are performed at the Kuwaiti border in violation of the surrender terms. Iraqi missles are shot at US warplanes. An assassination attempt is made on a US ex-president.
2004: Bush has had enough, decides to rid the world of this problem based on Hussein's prior record and the intelligence given him, faulty as it was.
Your blindness occurs at the point where you believe that somehow based on very spotty inspections that Iraq was adhering to the terms of the surrender agreement, despite all the obsfucation, foot dragging, and complications involving possible French inspectors tipping the Iraqis off of impending inspections and belligerent behavior by Iraqi troops.
So whose fault is it then that Iraq was thought to have WMD and CBR materials? The UN's? Whose sole purpose was to verify that Iraq was living up to the terms of the unconditional surrender but was being prevented from doing so by Hussein? The US? Whose sole purpose was to strategically enforce the terms of the surrender and give the UN inspectors the freedom to do the inspecting they were being prevented from doing? Or was it Hussein's fault for not complying with the terms of the surrender?
You tell me, Mr. Know-it-alls-with-20/20-hindsight. But like I said, since inspections weren't being allowed, apparently you were fine with the status quo, where Iraq did as they pleased.
Totem
As long as it would take to gather countires actually capable of fighting, not just some two bit coutnry who says they support us but doesn't send anything.
And shadowrelm, are you really so naive to think Iraq was strictly the Middle East's problem? That Saudi, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, and Iran's problem? Strange isn't it that these are the very nations-- with the exception of Iran and Syria --who asked us to stick around and keep a lid on Iraq.
And are you so naive to think that the Middle East's problems are soley the Middle East's concerns? Your Pollyanna view of the world is shocking to me for it's childlike wishful thinking. Yeah, and maybe Santa Claus will bring all the good boys and girls toys and presents again this Christmas...
Totem
And are you so naive to think that the Middle East's problems are soley the Middle East's concerns? Your Pollyanna view of the world is shocking to me for it's childlike wishful thinking. Yeah, and maybe Santa Claus will bring all the good boys and girls toys and presents again this Christmas...
Totem
Totem wrote:
Strange isn't it that these are the very nations-- with the exception of Iran and Syria --who asked us to stick around and keep a lid on Iraq.
Did it occur to you that the countries asking did it simply so that *they* did not have to?
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam
Sedao
Sedao
Just like in '91, right, Pieman? When all those countries were so integral to the success of Desert Storm, huh? Let me clue you in here. It was the Brits back then too who did any substantial fighting alongside the US. This myth of togetherness where all these countries lined up side by side and we frontal assaulted Kuwait hand-in-hand is just that: a myth. The US did the vast majority of the fighting. Period. Nearly every other nation on this planet doesn't have the capability to quell internal dissention, much less field a fighting force capable of desert operations. It was their political support and some slight logistical support which was their ante in the pot.
Totem
Totem
Certainly, Kastigir. These countries don't have a military capable of dealing with Iraq. Back in '91 Iraq had the world's fourth or fifth largest army. What, is Bahrain expected to hold the peace around there? There is no one else able to deal with threats like Iraq, either back in '91 or today.
We and the Brits are it.
Totem
Editted to add a thought: And GB is losing it's capability as well. Defense budgets for materials and personnel are being slashed for domestic issues. The Brit's army is being downsized to 118,000 troops according to Aviation Week. Based on that, they will barely be able to project any force beyond their borders.
Totem
Edited, Sat Oct 9 15:11:33 2004 by Totem
We and the Brits are it.
Totem
Editted to add a thought: And GB is losing it's capability as well. Defense budgets for materials and personnel are being slashed for domestic issues. The Brit's army is being downsized to 118,000 troops according to Aviation Week. Based on that, they will barely be able to project any force beyond their borders.
Totem
Edited, Sat Oct 9 15:11:33 2004 by Totem
Totem, don't you feel dirty making up all these excuses for Bush and company? I feel soiled just reading your frantic defensive posts, sad to 'cause I didn't think you would let yourself fall into such a trap.
Totem wrote:
So whose fault is it then that Iraq was thought to have WMD and CBR materials? The UN's? Whose sole purpose was to verify that Iraq was living up to the terms of the unconditional surrender but was being prevented from doing so by Hussein? The US? Whose sole purpose was to strategically enforce the terms of the surrender and give the UN inspectors the freedom to do the inspecting they were being prevented from doing? Or was it Hussein's fault for not complying with the terms of the surrender?
That's kind of like someone verbally harrassing you, shooting him in the head, then saying it was his fault. Sure, something should be done, but you can't expect people to accept your over-reaction to the situation as the only way it could've been done.
The U.S. is not the world's judge, jury, and executioner...
Edited, Sat Oct 9 16:01:55 2004 by Clim
But he wasn't verbally harassing us, he was shooting missles, provocating with troop buildups, preventing the inspectors from inspecting, which leads one to the understandable conclusion he is hiding something. So between the egregious violations of the unconditional surrender terms and the furtive behavior of the soldiers and scientists at inspection sites, coupled with no inside intelligence of the Hussein regime, what other conclusion could anybody come to?
While you can say we should have waited for whatever amount of time you choose, you can't say with any degree of seriousness that Saddam's behavior was innocent or non-provacative. His were the actions of a man trying desperately to hide something. Now in hindsight if those were actions of a man trying to bolster his image among other Arab nations or among his own countrymen, does it matter? We still wouldn't have known that he didn't have WMD or CBR capability based on prior experiences with him.
The onus for proving he was clean lay with Hussein. Pure and simple.
Totem
While you can say we should have waited for whatever amount of time you choose, you can't say with any degree of seriousness that Saddam's behavior was innocent or non-provacative. His were the actions of a man trying desperately to hide something. Now in hindsight if those were actions of a man trying to bolster his image among other Arab nations or among his own countrymen, does it matter? We still wouldn't have known that he didn't have WMD or CBR capability based on prior experiences with him.
The onus for proving he was clean lay with Hussein. Pure and simple.
Totem
Quote:
The U.S. is not the world's judge, jury, and executioner...
Then who is supposed to take the lead in the world? France? or better yet Kim Jong Il. Some of these people just aren't happy unless the US is the bad guy. Remember the US is responsible for all the world's ills, but we aren't supposed to take the lead. Fu[i][/i]cked up liberal points of view.
Until Bush started his willy-waving, all of the security council (bar USA) were satisfied with Blix's estimate of 'a few weeks, perhaps months' before he would produce a confident statement regarding WMD. If, on publication, his report stated there were WMD or could not confidently deny them, China, Russia and France would have supported a war, bringing in a wider coalition. (find the sources yourself; they're all available)
Jack Straw (supported by bLiar) crumpled and backed the USA.
Blix turned out to be right.
So in answer to your question, on the basis that Blix had more knowledge than you or I, my answer is As long as Blix asked for.
Bush was wrong.
bLiar was wrong.
The UK Parliament didn't vote on a war to remove Saddam. The UK Parliament didn't vote on a war to damage a mythical connection between Saddam and Al Q'aeda. They voted on a war to remove the WMD.
Bush didn't ask for support for a war to remove Saddam. Bush didn't ask for support for a war to damage a mythical connection between Saddam and Al Q'aeda. Bush asked for support for a war to remove the WMD.
We were lied to.
(I would've supported a war to remove Saddam if that was what was cited as grounds for war and if there was an exit strategy.
I don't give a sh[i][/i]it how many people denounce the legitimacy of a comparison with Vietnam. The 'war' is over, but the conflict rage for years before the USA and UK crawl home with their tails between their legs.
Jack Straw (supported by bLiar) crumpled and backed the USA.
Blix turned out to be right.
So in answer to your question, on the basis that Blix had more knowledge than you or I, my answer is As long as Blix asked for.
Bush was wrong.
bLiar was wrong.
We were lied to.
(I would've supported a war to remove Saddam if that was what was cited as grounds for war and if there was an exit strategy.
I don't give a sh[i][/i]it how many people denounce the legitimacy of a comparison with Vietnam. The 'war' is over, but the conflict rage for years before the USA and UK crawl home with their tails between their legs.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
No, Git, I am in complete agreement with Bush. In fact, it was my contention that back in '91 when Hussein broke the unconditional surrender for the first time we should have gone in and changed the regime. Unconditional means unconditional. What part of that is unclear to the losing country? As it is, especially in view of the continued Iraqi violations, regime change was a foregone conclusion that anybody can see was going to happen, sooner or later. Had this all occured during the Clinton administration, I'm certain we wouldn't be having this discussion. And, yes, I'd've backed Billy C. 110% for doing so.
Totem
Totem
Recent Visitors: 243
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (243)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- About those UN inspectors...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC