AK_Conservative
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2005
- Messages
- 499
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Eagle River, Alaska
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
AK_Conservative said:We first went into iraq with the U.N. Saddam denied access to the investigators in many locations! what does that suggest to US intelligence?
AK_Conservative said:Clinton stated that Iraq did have WMD's (sorry to use propaganda words) and MUST get rid of them. Secondly, IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED, there are terrorists camps in Iraq!
AK_Conservative said:Saddam clearly stated that he would pay an amount, equivalent to U.S. dollars, $10,000 to anyone's family where a member of the proceeding family killed any US or Israeli men! (if that is not terrorism, i dont know what is! )
AK_Conservative said:One of my last points i shall include (though there is more) that democracy in the iraq is ONE step closer to FUTURE peace!
AK_Conservative said:Now dont get my logic wrong here. I know the war is not flowing as well as it could. Though, this is a new enemy with not as much understand as we have had in the past, though our knowledge on the subject is growing and we are continueing to improve, whether you want to believe that or not!
AK_Conservative said:Those who compare this to vietnam, in my honest opinion, are mistaken. We have already overthrown the regime and are currently structuring the new democracy in Iraq, unlike vietnam, where 60,000 U.S. forces were killed, unlike iraq, though one death of an american soldier is a sad thing!
Who said it? When? And a source, please?
Yeah Iraq is a good place nowadays. In fact I'm moving there, packing my bags, with the wind in my face and a pocketful of dreams.
You forget that the Sunnis will most likely reject the constitution.
Saddam was a bad man, shocker. There are lots of bad men in the world, the US going to get rid of them all?
That suggested US intelligence ASSUMED he had WMD's. Are assumptions a basis for waging war nowadays?
The intelligence used was in fact 12 years old, when the first gulf war ended. I would have thought that they would have used more up-to-date intelligence when about to send young Americans to war.
Article 51 does not state the conditions permissable for war, it merely says that any state has a right to defend itself.Billo_Really said:If you freely choose to belong to an organization, then you also agree to follow that organizations' rules. The US is a "member" state of the United Nations and thereby obligated to follow its rules (resolutions, charter, etc). Article 51 of the UN Charter allows only two ways a country can legally attack another country. We didn't have either one.
Yes, the U.S. went ahead with the war without the blessing of the Security Council and with only 36 other members of the U.N.. It was a "coalition of the willing". Coalition of the willing is a phrase coined by former President Clinton to justify his use of force in Kosovo without full Security Council approval. NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations to use force in Yugoslavia but justified its actions on the basis of an "international humanitarian emergency". hmmm... don't those folks at Wikipedia know that a period comes before a quotation mark at the end of a sentence? - oh, well OT...Billo_Really said:But we did try to get UN approvel several times and when that failed, we start trashing them with stories like OFF. Although the scandel was definately wrong, as a permenant member of the Security Councel, we knew what was going on for at least four years and chose to look the other way. In spite of the fact that a majority of the money used was ours.
No. We could have let him continue to torture, murder and rape and it would have been less expensive in dollars and soldiers lives.Billo_Really said:We knew all about Hussein 20 years ago. And we waited until now to do something? I mention this not as an endorsment of the war, but to show that this arguement about him being a bad guy so we had to attack is bullshit. But he was definately a bad guy. No doubt about that. But we didn't have to attack.
Documented human rights violations 1979-2003Billo_Really said:In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law". The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its "summary and arbitrary executions... the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances".
We should have gone all the way to Baghdad in the first Gulf War. One of two wars ever sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council. And we didn't do that because...?Billo_Really said:When you look at this in light of DSM, we were going to attack all along.
Gulf WarA peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters — and much of the Iraqi armed forces — were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops.
Impeaching Bush wouldn't prove that Americans care about anything except welfare increases. It is a moot point anyway, since it won't happen.Billo_Really said:Send a message to the rest of the world that Americans do care. Impeach Bush.
Billo_Really said:Send a message to the rest of the world that Americans do care. Impeach Bush.
Coalition forces have found alive and well key terrorists who enjoyed Hussein's hospitality. Among them was Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Manhattan retiree who Abbas's men rolled, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 (259 killed on board, 11 dead on the ground), also lived in Baathist Iraq.
Before fatally shooting himself four times in the head on August 16, 2002, as Baghdad claimed, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal had resided in Iraq since 1999. As the AP's Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the Abu Nidal Organization said he entered Iraq "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities." Nidal's attacks in 20 countries killed at least 275 people and wounded some 625 others. Among other atrocities, ANO henchmen bombed a TWA airliner over the Aegean Sea in 1974, killing all 88 people on board.
OK AK, if you would just google Lieutenant-General Moseley's statements on Iraq you will find that Bush started the war months before receiving authorization from Congress. Which is a crime and an impeachable offense.Originally Posted by AK_Conservative:
Apparently, Billo here does not know what an impeachment is nor knows the reasons for an impeachment to stir up! Has the president done ANYTHING illegal.. NO! therefore can he be eligible for impeachment? Absolutely not! Now, if he was impeached, he would still be in office, he would ahve to be convicted! This again is impossible b/c there is absolutely no true facts that support any so called criminal behaviors he puts on!
Stop trying to further the Liberal political agenda Billo_Really, and start looking at the facts of life, not the rhetoric you want to believe!
The "...right to defend itself" are "...the conditions permissable for war".Originally posted by Occam's Butter Knife:
Article 51 does not state the conditions permissable for war, it merely says that any state has a right to defend itself.
Billo_Really said:OK AK, if you would just google Lieutenant-General Moseley's statements on Iraq you will find that Bush started the war months before receiving authorization from Congress. Which is a crime and an impeachable offense.
Billo_Really said:OK AK, if you would just google Lieutenant-General Moseley's statements on Iraq you will find that Bush started the war months before receiving authorization from Congress. Which is a crime and an impeachable offense.
MrFungus420 said:Started it, or started planning it? Two very different propositions.
It wasn't just "one man's opinion", it was the man who's job it was to order the sorties. He was the one in charge of the air wing. If he didn't know what he was talking about, then no one does.Originally Posted by AK_Conservative:
From what I was able to find on this matter, there was not much to it! The way i read this article was that preperation for a war was planning before Bush sent in the UN, which in my honest opinion is a smart thing to do! Do correct me if i am wrong: Everyone speculated from evidance that saddam would not be fully cooperative! We had to be fully prepared to our extent of knowledge of every circumstance that could have durived from this, including war. You can not go in blind folded.. correct? Preperation is a necessity! Now it refers to the DSM. I read this when it first came out and it had no substantial evidance within it! therefore, i never took it as being true! Democrats and republicans alike have both thought the same thing, but then there were those few radical liberals in congress who did! Go figure!
Though this is one man's opinion, take it as you wish!
General admits to secret air war
Michael Smith
THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 “carefully selected targets” before the war officially started.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html
Your argueing semantics. This...Originally Posted by MrFungus420:
Started it, or started planning it? Two very different propositions.
...would not have happened if they didn't have the OK from Washington.21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 “carefully selected targets”
Billo_Really said:The "...right to defend itself" are "...the conditions permissable for war".
Billo_Really said:Your argueing semantics.
Billo_Really said:This......would not have happened if they didn't have the OK from Washington.
Billo_Really said:Send a message to the rest of the world that Americans do care. Impeach Bush.
That's the best arguement for not impeaching Bush. I shiver just thinking about it. I kinda hoped we could impeach them both at the same time. But your right, Chaney's no prize.Originally posted by shakenbake19:
and then we get Dick Cheney as president. Is that what you want?
You don't consider the amount of ordinance that was used went a little beyond "no-fly" enforcement?Originally Posted by MrFungus420:
The article also pointed out: "If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq,"
I'm not making a claim one way or the other. But, based on the article, it's not a sure thing.
Billo_Really said:That's the best arguement for not impeaching Bush. I shiver just thinking about it. I kinda hoped we could impeach them both at the same time. But your right, Chaney's no prize.
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?