Machiavellian
New member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 6
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Did I not already address this? I am pretty sure that I did... it was the failure to comply COUPLED with the inherent danger to America that was the drive.I think it is pathetic US is picking and choosing which nations to invade just because of UN resolution.
Did I not already address this? I am pretty sure that I did... it was the failure to comply COUPLED with the inherent danger to America that was the drive.
It's overwhelmingly unsound to argue that, since we invaded one country because of UN violations, we are somehow bound to invade them all.I think it is pathetic US is picking and choosing which nations to invade just because of UN resolution.
The UN itself described Iraq and his behavior as a threat to the security of the region.There was no danger! It was paranoia on US's behalf
...and as I stated, you referred to two wars; I cited 9/11 as the impetus for the Afghanistan war and Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions tied with the threat he posed if he had WMDs.
All of a sudden, the Iraq war is the only war you seem to point out and take the specific cause for the Afghan war as the specific cause for the Iraq war – perhaps you are just confused… or perhaps you are trying to mislead.
The UN itself described Iraq and his behavior as a threat to the security of the region.
It's overwhelmingly unsound to argue that, since we invaded one country because of UN violations, we are somehow bound to invade them all.
How does that change what I said?US and UK argued differently, Bliar in particular argued there was a imminent danger from WMD.
You not caring doesnt in any way change the validity of the action.And lets say Bush was correct (which he weren't) and it was a threat to ME. Was i supposed to care anyway?
Again:If US is claiming to use UN violations as a justification for war.
Well, there are alot of UN violators in this world, US should get suited and booted to invade them too :roll:
How does that change what I said?
You argued that there was no threat from Iraq. The UN, according to the language of its own resolutions, disagreed.
It is no surprise at all.
However, I am sure it comes as great shock to Dear Leader's deluded disciples who believed he could work miracles, turn water into wine, walk on water, heal the sick, make the blind see, raise the dead, and tell really funny jokes on the Tonight Show.
(The last bit is why he's often referred to as Prez Doofus)
Again:
Using your logic, since you painted one room blue because you didnt like the old color, you must then paint blue ALL the rooms that you don't like the old color.
The logic is -exactly- the same -- it either works for them both or it doesn't work for either.Colours/wars does not mix.
If "WE would have let the UN do its damn job?" Are you serious? Was it the US that told Saddam not to comply or was it Saddam that did not comply?There was no danger! It was paranoia on US's behalf
If we had let the UN do its damn job, it would have confirmed what we found. Nada. Zilch.
And even so, it described Iraq as a threat.The UN did not complete its own weapons inspection, it left months early unable to confirm and be assured there were WMD's.
What is it about liberals, that they seem to always look to blame America first... yet, ironically, are among the first to psuh for bigger government?
Until it was clear that GWB was actually going to do something about it, there was never any question from anyone as to the threat that was Iraq.If "WE would have let the UN do its damn job?" Are you serious? Was it the US that told Saddam not to comply or was it Saddam that did not comply?
So, the UN "doing its job" consists wholly of passing resolutions and doing nothing to back them up.
Aside from the fact that your post does nothing to address what I said...US seems to be making up a new threat every couple of years. Russia, Cuba, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Syria seems to be the new focus
If the US is the biggest problem the world has, the world is in pretty good shape.
Really, how many men does it take to find a needle in a haystack? Moreover, Obama has sent more troops… and the result is ostensibly the bloodiest month, in terms of casualties for, us in Afghanistan [hmm, one wonders why the press is not covering the loss of so many casualties now that Obama is in office?]Dub-yah took his eye off the prize. Plain and simple. Had he remained focused on the War on Terror in Afghanistan instead of tinkering around in Iraq w/WMDs that just weren't there our troops in Afghanistan would be far more successful today.
Wow, you make it seem as if poor Saddam was complying completely with the UN and big, bad America attacked out of the blue for no reason whatsoever. Unfortunately, for you, this is not the way things were. Saddam was not complying and that represent a threat.The man created problems where none existed beforehand.
That is because that is irrelevant– what you know AFTERWARDS does not in any way affect what you knew BEFORE.But nobody on the other side of politics wants to admit that. All they can talk about is "if" this or "if" that, but to date NOBODY HAS FOUND WMDs in Iraq - NOBODY!
Lol, even she admitted that she was wrong… LMAO and you consider yourself a moderate – LOL!!And Liala's right! If I remember the head-count correctly, 8 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Not one was from Iraq!
Actually, in a way [that you did not intend] you are right, they are both threats, but since Clinton dropped the ball – it is too late to deal with Kim Jong Ill in a safe manner, since he is now nuclear. However, America had to act before Saddam went nuclear… believe it or not, sometimes it is better to stop a cancer BEFORE it goes critical – not after.Saddam was no more a threat to this country or its national security than Kim Jung Ill (or whoever is N. Korea's president).
I disagree on both counts. By not complying with the UN and making it seem as if he had/was developing WMDs he was making himself a threat to the US. He could have easily given WMD to terrorists for example, if he had them or was allowed to develop them.But he didn't threaten the U.S. in any way that required going to war. And even if the U.N. believed military force was necessary which many including myself contend they did not, it was still a U.N. issue, not a U.S.A. issue.
Actually, it was already has… but, in a more insidious way – for example, Obama raised taxes on tobacco which affects millions of working class families far more than the wealthy. The wealthy, can afford to buy cigarettes abroad, but the poor cannot and thus they are stuck paying for the cost.On this issue of potentially raising taxes on the middle class...key word here "potential"...it hasn't happened yet. So, until it does I really don't think there's anything to get all up in arms about.
Lol, how nice of you, but many Americans rightly believe that the government is wasting money at an unprecedented rate and I, as an American, do not want to have my hard earned tax money wastefully spent finding ACORN for example.I do think that if the ecomony doesn't shake loose from it's slumber soon - and all signs indicated that things are starting to slowly turn around - then taxes would have to be raised. It would be a shame, but as an American I'd be willing to pay my fair share, and so should everyone else.
What does big govt. have to do with liberals blaming US?
Ahh, you are in London... I see. Liberals here, in the states, profess to distrust their governement so much that some even argue that 9/11 was done by America to America... ironically, these many of these same fools, support liberal politicians who want expand the government.
Hmm, "a war that didn't need to be fought..." This same argument could have been made if the US and the UK would have acted against Hitler BEFORE he was fully remilitarized.Blame US for everything?
No ofc not
I blame Blair, the dumb ****tard who dragged us along and lied to us with US into a war that didn't need to be fought.
Lol, we agree on something!!That is one thing i never pay attention to.
We have the same nuts here, 7/7 was planned. Yeah right, Government can't even do healthcare right and we expect them to mastermind a terrorist plot? Hah
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?