bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 You mean like Bill Clinton in 1998? And Hillary Clinton in 2001? And John Kerry in 2002? Attacking Iraq for WMDs OK for Bill Clinton....not George Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 YES! The US to enforce the ceasefire. The US. Again you don't see the stupidity in this statement "Breaking the terms of ceasefire is such a horrible act that we will cause a war which will kill 150,000 people to do it"................."We will enforce this ceasefire by breaking the terms of the cease fire!" That is some straight up 1984 logic right there Shady. All this for what? Well of course for WMDs that didn't exist because Iraq kept to the terms of the cease fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 You mean like Bill Clinton in 1998? And Hillary Clinton in 2001? And John Kerry in 2002? Yes I am sure they all learned not to listen to Republicans after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 You sure he wasn't just wrong? Considering we know what Intel they had at the time from Blix and others yes I am sure he just wasn't wrong. BTW you don't get to be "just wrong" about a 6 trillion dollar war which kills 150,000 people Shady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Yes I am sure they all learned not to listen to Republicans after that. In 1998 and 1999 huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 ..... All this for what? Well of course for WMDs that didn't exist because Iraq kept to the terms of the cease fire. No, clearly Saddam violated the cease fire terms. UNMOVIC proved this, and a proof was proven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 In 1998 and 1999 huh? They knew they weren't 100% sure they would find them, they didn't want to go to war over something that wasn't there which is more then I can say about Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 No, clearly Saddam violated the cease fire terms. UNMOVIC proved this, and a proof was proven. So in order to enforce the ceasefire between the UN and Iraq the US would need UN approval. Want to hit me up with that resolution? Again they broke the terms of the ceasefire to enforce the ceasefire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Where did Bill Clinton get his information in 1998 and 1999? Also, why did he sign the Iraqi Liberation Act? don't know - don't care... as much as you're really, really trying to make it so, this isn't a discussion/rehash of Gulf War I, Shady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) don't know - don't care... as much as you're really, really trying to make it so, this isn't a discussion/rehash of Gulf War I, Shady. Not GW1 at all....Clinton and Blair bombed the crap out of Iraq in Decemebr 1998 (Operation Desert Fox).....over WMDs. Edited March 20, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Not GW1 at all....Clinton and Blair bombed the crap out of Iraq in Decemebr 1998 (Operation Desert Fox).....over WMDs. And how many people died? 150,000? Nope thought so. How much did it cost? 6 Trillion? Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) Then that was awfully dumb of Saddam to violate the ceasefire agreement. People might not have as much of a problem with things if our politicians were at least up front about it all. The only reason it got any real support because the memory of a couple buildings coming down in NYC were still fresh in peoples minds. The Bush Regime used that to it's full advantage. Call it a new Pearl Harbor if you will. Sure Bush did not say those things, but did it in a way that would make anyone make the connection themselves. Maybe ol monkey boy is not as dumb as he really looks. But then again, he was in school that day doing read along with a bunch of grade school kids. Wonder if he learned anything ... let's take a look. If 9/11 did not happen, do you think the public would have been in such an uproar to invade another country? Edited March 20, 2013 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Where did Bill Clinton get his information in 1998 and 1999? Also, why did he sign the Iraqi Liberation Act?don't know - don't care... as much as you're really, really trying to make it so, this isn't a discussion/rehash of Gulf War I, Shady. Not GW1 at all....Clinton and Blair bombed the crap out of Iraq in Decemebr 1998 (Operation Desert Fox).....over WMDs. no - the internal U.S. "Iraqi Liberation Act", crafted as a catch-all substantiation for a blanket U.S. policy of regime change, covers a period all the way back to 1980... just more of the same from a rogue country intent on ignoring the need for a UN sanctioning of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 And how many people died? 150,000? Nope thought so. How much did it cost? 6 Trillion? Nope. So how many people is it OK to kill...how much is OK to spend. Remember, the USA has a much bigger wallet and credit limit than Canada, so don't be miserly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 no - the internal U.S. "Iraqi Liberation Act", crafted as a catch-all substantiation for a blanket U.S. policy of regime change, covers a period all the way back to 1980... just more of the same from a rogue country intent on ignoring the need for a UN sanctioning of war. Works for me....and the US/UK/AUS/ "et al". I can't wait for the movie.....oh wait...there was The Hurt Locker....right ? It won an Academy Award. America....what a country !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) shame is a most fitting word, it's one I'm reading and hearing much of this last week, directly from Americans via American media sources/outlets. You really should own it, rather than trying to keep perpetuating a false equivalency of other country's degrees of support/engagement. I do own what my country did. Time for you to own what yours did. If the U.S. is to be "shamed," so is Canada. You can quote some Americans all you like, but that doesn't speak for the whole - and while we're at it, I can quote Canadians regarding what they perceive to be Canada's "shame" regarding Iraq. But bottom line - I'd much rather my country own up to its actions than pretend to be something it's not/be secretly be involved. of course, all you have to fall back on is the only remaining talking point - 'regime change... ding-dong, Hussein is dead'. Of course, that preemptive regime change go-to sets your country up for perpetual war... a lot of regimes to change out there, hey? And, again, Hussein presented no imminent threat to your country's national security. I'm not "falling back" on anything. I clearly stated that I didn't support going into Iraq, but at the same time, I think Saddam no longer being in power is a good thing. Do you feel otherwise? what? No miraculous overnight turnaround??? No neocon flavoured "American's will be greeted as liberators"... "the war will pay for itself through oil"... "moral clarity backed by military strength"... Some did greet the U.S. et al as liberators. When has everyone anywhere in any situation all been on the same page? Interesting how it all has to be good to everyone everywhere in order for any good to be recognized when it comes to the U.S. But even as I hoped for the best, I never thought it would happen overnight. Such things take time. Do you think otherwise? you can keep hoping for the best - I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's killed and the millions forced to relocate thank you for their country's devastation. I'm sure Iran also relishes its new-found close ties. I most definitely will be hoping for the best. Are you hoping for the worst? Edited March 20, 2013 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 So how many people is it OK to kill...how much is OK to spend. Remember, the USA has a much bigger wallet and credit limit than Canada, so don't be miserly.Yah so big they are from getting right now to cut those war trillion from seniors and the poor. If they were so rich they wouldn't be having that conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Works for me....and the US/UK/AUS/ "et al". I can't wait for the movie.....oh wait...there was The Hurt Locker....right ? It won an Academy Award. America....what a country !! sure, sure... tried and true - when you can't actually argue a/the point, resort to your curt nothingness and trivializations. It's what you do - it's what you're (all) about! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 no - the internal U.S. "Iraqi Liberation Act", crafted as a catch-all substantiation for a blanket U.S. policy of regime change, covers a period all the way back to 1980... just more of the same from a rogue country intent on ignoring the need for a UN sanctioning of war. The UN doesn't sanction or not sanction war. War happens, regardless of the UN. Anyways, where do you think Bill Clinton got the intelligence back in 1998 and 1999? Was he also lying? Was he also going along with the neocon scheme? Why did Saddam contribute to the charade by not allowing back inspectors for several years? Was he part of the scheme too? Inquiring minds want to know!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 I do own what my country did. Time for you to own what yours did. If the U.S. is to be "shamed," so is Canada. You can quote some Americans all you like, but that doesn't speak for the whole - and while we're at it, I can quote Canadians regarding what they perceive to be Canada's "shame" regarding Iraq. But bottom line - I'd much rather my country own up to its actions than pretend to be something it's not/be secretly be involved. no - again, you can keep making whatever false equivalencies you want. There is nothing you can say that can equate, on even the remotest of levels, Canada's minimal contribution/participation to your country's actions. You embarrass yourself by even trying... that's certainly not you "owning it". . I'm not "falling back" on anything. I clearly stated that I didn't support going into Iraq, but at the same time, I think Saddam no longer being in power is a good thing. Do you feel otherwise? yes, in balance I most certainly do. I look at the lies, the dead, the wounded, the devastation, the waste, the cost, the continued internal daily fighting and bombing, the failed reconstruction, the overall destabilization, the strengthened ties with Iran, the coincident dropped ball in Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc. I look at all that, and more, and also factor in how your country found it accepting and worthwhile to prop-up Hussein for all those years... to give him false suggestion in terms of invading Kuwait... I look at it all... and more. I'm not so accepting as you in reaching for the only thing left that you have to latch onto... "regime change, ding-dong, Hussein is dead"! Somehow your country found a way to accept and work with Hussein... until George W. Bush and Dick Cheney rode into town! . I most definitely will be hoping for the best. Are you hoping for the worst? I'm accepting to the worst. Do you think your country, your country's leaders have learned anything from this fiasco? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 The UN doesn't sanction or not sanction war. they're called UN resolutions... the second of which the U.S./UK couldn't get from the UN to support the military invasion of Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) no - again, you can keep making whatever false equivalencies you want. There is nothing you can say that can equate, on even the remotest of levels, Canada's minimal contribution/participation to your country's actions. You embarrass yourself by even trying... that's certainly not you "owning it". I'm not making any kind of equivalencies; I'm stating facts. I wouldn't try to equate Canada's contribution to the U.S.'s as Canada didn't come close to having what the U.S. had to contribute. Canada did give all that it had to give, however, while pretending otherwise; until contract time came along, that is - then Canada was quite forthcoming regarding its contribution. Try owning that. . yes, in balance I most certainly do. I look at the lies, the dead, the wounded, the devastation, the waste, the cost, the continued internal daily fighting and bombing, the failed reconstruction, the overall destabilization, the strengthened ties with Iran, the coincident dropped ball in Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc. I look at all that, and more, and also factor in how your country found it accepting and worthwhile to prop-up Hussein for all those years... to give him false suggestion in terms of invading Kuwait... I look at it all... and more. I'm not so accepting as you in reaching for the only thing left that you have to latch onto... "regime change, ding-dong, Hussein is dead"! Somehow your country found a way to accept and work with Hussein... until George W. Bush and Dick Cheney rode into town! I would wager that most people who didn't support the war at least have the presence of mind to admit that Saddam being gone is a good thing. Your position regarding that tells me a lot. I'm accepting to the worst. Do you think your country, your country's leaders have learned anything from this fiasco? That doesn't answer the question, does it? On second thought, perhaps it does. Edited March 20, 2013 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) ... I look at it all... and more. I'm not so accepting as you in reaching for the only thing left that you have to latch onto... "regime change, ding-dong, Hussein is dead"! Somehow your country found a way to accept and work with Hussein... until George W. Bush and Dick Cheney rode into town! No, your looks are very selective...ignoring 12 years of killer sanctions (supported and enforced by Canada), no-fly zone enforcement, Desert Fox, etc., etc. as if George W. Bush and Gang invented it all in January 2001. I'm accepting to the worst. Do you think your country, your country's leaders have learned anything from this fiasco? . Yes.....use more troops and bombs ! Edited March 20, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 No, your looks are very selective...ignoring 12 years of killer sanctions (supported and enforced by Canada), no-fly zone enforcement, Desert Fox, etc., etc. as if George W. Bush and Gang invented it all in January 2001. Selective, indeed. I was going to point all of that out, but sometimes one gets the feeling that it's not worth the effort when knowing it's going to fall on deaf ears. Life under Saddam was no bed of roses, and the death toll was high. I certainly hope that in time things will be better, while under Saddam, nothing was going to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Selective, indeed. I was going to point all of that out, but sometimes one gets the feeling that it's not worth the effort when knowing it's going to fall on deaf ears. Life under Saddam was no bed of roses, and the death toll was high. I certainly hope that in time things will be better, while under Saddam, nothing was going to change. The history books are already being written, with most coming down in the middle with pros and cons resulting from the Iraq War. The military outcome was never in doubt, but that is never a substitute for longer term political stability. Canada's complicity is also well documented by now, and PM Chretien would have joined the war with a UNSC resolution as well...so much for the poor men, women and children killed before or after the invasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.