648 Dead, 322 Hurt in Iraq Bridge Stampede

[Commissar]

They didn't have to be a threat to the US.  12 years of UN Security Resolutions said we had a right to go in, and the UN validated the war anyway.

 

What about Saddam being a threat to his people?

 

Should 30 million lives not count for anything?

 

And if 9/11 taught us anything, it is that people who attack our country likely won't with ICBMs.  When leaders of nations openly support terrorism, as Saddam did, I think they have to be prepared for consequences.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, come on. If you're going to use the UNSC stuff, then you have to point out that we kinda failed the vote on the whole invasion thing. Just because certain state laws can provide the death sentence for capital crimes doesn't mean I can go around shooting murderers.

 

Saddam was certainly a threat to his people. As are plenty of other rulers and situations around the world that we don't even blink at. We picked out Saddam because we thought it'd be an easy fight and because he's close to our oil.

 

Anyway, you're missing the point. Iraq going fundamentalist would not only make us look monumentally stupid, it simply wouldn't be allowed to happen.

[EnderAndrew]

We never failed the vote on the invasion since it wasn't put to a vote. France and China said they'd veto it if it went to a vote, so we didn't put it to one.

 

We haven't taken one drop of Iraq's oil. However, this war is costing us near 200 billion dollars. Saying that we did this for money or oil is pure stupidity. I expect better from you.

 

The point was to give Iraq a democracy. If the majority in Iraq decides to go fundamentalist, so be it. But a democracy is better than tyranny.

[Walsingham]

That's a false premise, Commissar (Never thought I'd say that either, kumquat). The resolutions said Iraq had to comply or face the consequences. The French and Russians vetoed the consequences because they were making money from Saddam.

 

I can forgive you for not knowing about Saddam's support of Hamas and other anti-Israeli groups (currying favour with the arab man in the street), but it did happen. This was one reason why 'Gorgeous' George Galloway was schmoozing the bastard.

 

 

And if you think all fundamentalist states are the same then you are guilty of the very black and white thinking you have criticised in the past.

[Commissar]

We never failed the vote on the invasion since it wasn't put to a vote.  France and China said they'd veto it if it went to a vote, so we didn't put it to one.

 

We haven't taken one drop of Iraq's oil.  However, this war is costing us near 200 billion dollars.  Saying that we did this for money or oil is pure stupidity.  I expect better from you.

 

The point was to give Iraq a democracy.  If the majority in Iraq decides to go fundamentalist, so be it.  But a democracy is better than tyranny.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You think our intervention and continued military presence in the Middle East is purely altruistic? Suggesting it's about anything but the oil is pure stupidity. We'd be in plenty of other places if we just cared about saving folks.

 

Given our past experience with Islamic fundamentalism, you really think a fundamentalist government in Iraq is going to be anything but tyrannical?

 

Oh, and as for the vote thing...if a student decides not to take an exam because he hasn't been to class all semester, I suppose he wouldn't technically fail it, either.

[Commissar]

That's a false premise, Commissar (Never thought I'd say that either, kumquat). The resolutions said Iraq had to comply or face the consequences. The French and Russians vetoed the consequences because they were making money from Saddam.

 

I can forgive you for not knowing about Saddam's support of Hamas and other anti-Israeli groups (currying favour with the arab man in the street), but it did happen. This was one reason why 'Gorgeous' George Galloway was schmoozing the bastard.

 

 

And if you think all fundamentalist states are the same then you are guilty of the very black and white thinking you have criticised in the past.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Show me the resolution that unequivocally says Iraq will be invaded and nothing less if it fails to comply.

 

And I know about Saddam's support of Hamas - his monetary contributions. Hamas, to my knowledge, hasn't ever attacked America. Once again, this war wasn't sold as being vital to Israeli security, but to American security. And I've said it before, I thought at the time that Iraq had WMD, too. Everyone did. So why not just say, "Hey, we got it wrong,"? Nah, can't do that, so we have to go on and on about spreading freedom dust, which was never the objective until the initial objective turned out to never have existed.

 

Show me a fundamentalist state anywhere that's in favor of full freedoms for its people and I'll retract my statement.

[EnderAndrew]

The once that gave us the right to move in 1991.

 

The cease-fire said that we would cease military operations based solely on their complete complicity. Then the UN passed over 75 resolutions saying they weren't complying. Then they passed another right after 9/11 saying comply immediately or else.

 

Add those up and tell me what you've got.

[Walsingham]

I apologise, but i haven't time to go through the current state of Iran at this time. Find some Iranians and ask them about home. Find some Afghans and ask them about home under the Taliban.

 

Iraq isn't only about oil, either. There are cheaper ways to get oil than war. If we didn't care about freedom we could have done what the French did and just buy the stuff. Moreover there are plenty of weaker countries than Iraq with oil which we could have invaded.

[EnderAndrew]

Like Canada! Alberta has tons of oil these days!

[Walsingham]

The once that gave us the right to move in 1991.

 

The cease-fire said that we would cease military operations based solely on their complete complicity.  Then the UN passed over 75 resolutions saying they weren't complying.  Then they passed another right after 9/11 saying comply immediately or else.

 

Add those up and tell me what you've got.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The fact that the French attempted to get an amendment passed to change the original statement sews it up for me. They knew the resolution obliged action, and were trying to avoid it.

[Commissar]

The once that gave us the right to move in 1991.

 

The cease-fire said that we would cease military operations based solely on their complete complicity.  Then the UN passed over 75 resolutions saying they weren't complying.  Then they passed another right after 9/11 saying comply immediately or else.

 

Add those up and tell me what you've got.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You keep saying, "or else." I doubt that's the language of the resolution, so why not just give me the official language?

 

Is it because it doesn't specify invasion?

[EnderAndrew]

The cease-fire said that if they didn't comply we could resume military actions. We didn't need anything other than that.

[Commissar]

The cease-fire said that if they didn't comply we could resume military actions.  We didn't need anything other than that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you're wrong, so I'm going to see if I can dig up the actual resolution.

[EnderAndrew]

Colin Powell quoted the resolution word-for-word.

[Walsingham]

You can go looking for it, but I was reading a copy of the original resolution when I mae my mind up on this.

 

For fairness sake the UK Attorney General felt the resolution did not provide sufficient case in its own right. However, in the same report he said that intervention would be legal in th event of a humanitarian crisis, but knew of no reason that Iraq could be called a humanitarian crisis. I found this amusing.

 

 

 

(Man checking remains recovered from mass grave)

[Walsingham]

Like Canada!  Alberta has tons of oil these days!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

http://www.oxan.com/display.aspx?StoryDate...B&StoryNumber=1