flav

Nice! 40 replies before I get to check this one out.

I got to start getting ready for work pretty quick so there's not much time for a lengthy response. I'll try to put something down though.

Gonz - First of all you pose the question as if we're back to this being all about WMD's. We seem to keep changing the reason we're there as if the governement is just throwing any reason they can think of out just hoping something will stick. Is it about WMD's, or helping these poor Iraqis, or are we going to see how many people we can fool into thinking Iraq and Al Queada are the same thing?

You say WMDs. Ok then, maybe they have them. If they have them, why can't we take the time to put together a rock-solid case to get the support of the rest of the world? The presentation I was waiting for that Powell made to the UN was flimsy at best.

One of the biggest problems has been the way this whole mess has been handled. Bush is a poor excuse for a diplomat. A better one should have easily been able to get more support and thus gather less anti-American sentiment around the world. Bush can't even get Canada on his side. The repercussions from our mismanagement are going to last a long time.

That's about all I have time for at the moment.
 
Flav, where is the solution in that statement? That's a question you pose there. Not a solution tot he current issue.

how exactly would you propose we solve this dilemma?
Click to expand...

That was the original question. What you are saying here has no bearing on the question put forth to you by Gonzo.
 
It's a solution in the form of "Why not do this?" where this would be the solution.

Gonz said:
After 12+ years of unsuccesful, nay, failed, diplomacy, the regime of saddam hussein still has, according to multiple countries intel, WMDs and other weapons deemed illegal to possess by his agreement with the UN, some of which he claimed he didn't have & yet used in this war...
Click to expand...

Establish a solid case that he these WMD's and poses a threat because of them thus getting the support and justification that you need.

If you can't do that you have no business invading a country.
 
Are all of you going to gang up on flav before he has a chance to answer? He said he would answer. Give him the opportunity.
 
flavio said:
Establish a solid case that he these WMD's and poses a threat because of them thus getting the support and justification that you need.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's use that.

How many more times can he kick inspectors out before it's enough? Once, twice, 5 times? How many more weapons do we need to find to make it rock solid? He violated 1441 (among others) at least 3 times, that we know. Jesus christ flavio, he's using banned weapons (SCUDS) on our troops right fucking NOW! Sometimes, even when people are being shit on, they ignore it. Enough is enough.

Do you need to have another building full of innocent working class civilians blown to the ground before it becomes apparent that we don't live in that world anymore? These people brought the war to us. saddam was at the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong things. It's only going to get nastier from here. Iraq is not the only country on the USA's shit list. It happens to be the most expedient at the moment.

Please, wake up & see what's happening. We are the target. We have the strength & fortitude to take care of business. If not us, who?
 
Gonz said:
How many more times can he kick inspectors out before it's enough? Once, twice, 5 times? How many more weapons do we need to find to make it rock solid? He violated 1441 (among others) at least 3 times, that we know. Jesus christ flavio, he's using banned weapons (SCUDS) on our troops right fucking NOW! Sometimes, even when people are being shit on, they ignore it. Enough is enough.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll use that. We pulled our inspectors out prematurely this last time because we were impatient to invade.

I haven't heard definitavely one way or another whether these were SCUDS. If they are could he have launched them at the United States? ...and isn't this after the fact?

You don't invade and then try to find a reason for invading.

Gonz said:
Do you need to have another building full of innocent working class civilians blown to the ground
Click to expand...

...and there you go with the Iraq = Al Queada crap...weak.
 
flavio said:
...and there you go with the Iraq = Al Queada crap...weak.
Click to expand...
He wasn't referring to that. Quote the full sentence.
Gonz said:
Do you need to have another building full of innocent working class civilians blown to the ground before it becomes apparent that we don't live in that world anymore?
Click to expand...
Note the bolded part. Doesn't look like he's making any references to either Iraq or Al Qaeuauueuaeuauda.
 
Well, Bush couldn't really wait too much longer. Elections are right around the corner, and a war can't be won so quickly as they would have us believe. The economy isn't too hot, so how's he supposed to get reelected if he waits another year for the UN to make a decision. That would mean turning over powe to the Democrats almost certainly. He couldn't have that. he wants a second term after all. All presidents do! Nah, we could have waited, this was politically motivated. He doesn't have much to run a reelection campaign on without doing something. All studies point to the fact that the incument is fighting an uphill battle in a reelection campaign when the economy is shit. You think he doesn't realize this? The economy isn't comming around either, so he needs something to justify 4 more years. We could have waited for more evidence, Bush however, could not! Times running out for him. He needed to do something quickly before people start turning against him because of the economy. I know, I know, its not his fault, and I agree 100% with that argument, but voters will not. He will however be responsible for the disaster that follows in the coming decades if he passes his short-sighted reelect me the economy is fine for now stimulus package!

It all comes down to politics as usual. Its nothing to do with WMDs or liberating the suffering people. Its about reelection, it always is, so why do we keep pretending. If it was Clinton instead of Bush, you guys would agree with that statement, I'm sure!
 
flavio said:
We pulled our inspectors out prematurely this last time because we were impatient to invade.
Click to expand...

We pulled the inspectors because they were failing to live up to thier jobs. Hans Blix, in the last straw, finding a (remote control airplane thingy) didn't say a word about it to the Security Council. It was in his written report, handed out AFTER the meeting. It was another violation.

flavio said:
You don't invade and then try to find a reason for invading.
Click to expand...

We had reasons to re-start agressions in 1995.
 
:disgust2: fury, that was a reference to Iraq having something to do with 9/11 which would be equating them to or identifying them as Alqueada.

oli, ask the parents of the dead Americans that question...

Gonz, I'm starting to think that you don't care who we kill as long as we do it now. You are completely blind to the fact that we are reigning terror on virtually defensless people. The very thing that you accuse them of.
 
Al Quauauaueuaeuaeuaueada or not, Saddam's regime is still bad news. It was building up to be a situation that would present a danger to the entire world. Have you asked the Iraqi people how they feel about it lately? I don't know about you, but if I were one of them, I'd gladly be one of the nameless faces that got flattened in the name of ridding my country of a heartless executor and his men.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top