Parallel Thread - Dems vs. Maynard
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
H
Heretic
Guest
Excellent response Dems.
Maynard I did a little research on the 1998 bombing of Iraq and I can find no mention of UN approval.
Maynard I did a little research on the 1998 bombing of Iraq and I can find no mention of UN approval.
That was pretty good, Dems. 
I'm glad to hear a liberal finally say that and draw the parallel to what's going on in Iraq and some of these other fascist countries..
Way to go Demsformd. Good points.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Maybe I'm excessively ignorant, but since when is war illegal? War can be conducted at any time by any country. What we're really talking about is getting the UN to sanction this war to give it a false sense of credibility, not to make the war legal.
Let's be honest... nobody gave a tinker's dang about the UN until the Dems and the folks on the left made UN approval an issue. The media followed suit as they always do, and before you know it were beseiged with public opinion polls showing we need a UN stamp of approval. Notice that the media didn't press the issue with our attacks on Serbia, and there were no glut of polls showing the majority demanded UN approval.
The UN has no real power and no real authority, anymore than the World Court does.
Let's be honest... nobody gave a tinker's dang about the UN until the Dems and the folks on the left made UN approval an issue. The media followed suit as they always do, and before you know it were beseiged with public opinion polls showing we need a UN stamp of approval. Notice that the media didn't press the issue with our attacks on Serbia, and there were no glut of polls showing the majority demanded UN approval.
The UN has no real power and no real authority, anymore than the World Court does.
Bru,
You are right in that the UN is a pretty toothless organization and with so many viewpoints and individual agendas, there certainly is no NEED for us to wait for their approval before acting.
However I think the idea of gaining international support for waging a war (which is currently unpopular with some heavy hitters) would be found when we look to them in the near future to help us with other issues (war on terror, n. korea etc.). We are going to be looking to a lot of these countries for help in dealing with these situations and if we shun them in this and decide to go it alone, will we lose the support we actually DO need from them?
You are right in that the UN is a pretty toothless organization and with so many viewpoints and individual agendas, there certainly is no NEED for us to wait for their approval before acting.
However I think the idea of gaining international support for waging a war (which is currently unpopular with some heavy hitters) would be found when we look to them in the near future to help us with other issues (war on terror, n. korea etc.). We are going to be looking to a lot of these countries for help in dealing with these situations and if we shun them in this and decide to go it alone, will we lose the support we actually DO need from them?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
MG...
The "imagine" analogy was purely to point out that Bonior et al, Penn, Daschle, Dean and oh so many others have no problem reflexively attacking fellow citizens, THEIR President and protecting, making excuses for someone who is a threat to our nation.
We pulled them out??? You want to argue semantics? Yes, we "pulled" them out so they would be safe while we bombed Iraq for awhile because they were not being allowed the do the UN mandated job. You know that. That's like saying the Police ACTUALLY put so and so in jail, nevermind so and so just commited a crime. Jeez. Do you ever really read what you write?
The bottom line is most people who've been following the facts for awhile consider Iraq currently a severe threat to the US; either to the free flow of oil at market prices or supplying/supporting terrorists or the UN violations as evidenced by the OBVIOUS violations in terms of weapons the inspecters have all ready inspected, or a combination of all.
The UN, absent us, would continue to DO NOTHING. You know that as well because thats what they did for almost 12 years. Either way, UN or not, we are acting in OUR own best interests and a mob of people just don't or won't admit to that because of their blind hatred of a decent man and so far, an above average President.
That's why I consider you all so un patriotic, our national interest loses to false cries of "we need more evidence, the President needs to make a better case, let the inspectors work". Just to let you know, I haven't got one damn thing I know about Iraq from George Bush.
You protesting now at the Iraqi whatever in Atlanta is absurd and an admission you have no idea what you are talking about. ALL of this has been going on since Clinton took office. Why care now?
Have you ever looked at it from another view? Why is it so important for some of the French and Germans and Russians that we not make Hussein conform to the UN resolutions?
You'll find THEIR national interests at heart. THEIR weapons sales to Iraq. THEIR oil deals with Iraq. THEIR science and technology profiting from work with Iraq. You are taking their side, crying "peace" in regards to a mass murderer who is only improving his abilities every day while we sit and argue with our own fellow citizens.
The "imagine" analogy was purely to point out that Bonior et al, Penn, Daschle, Dean and oh so many others have no problem reflexively attacking fellow citizens, THEIR President and protecting, making excuses for someone who is a threat to our nation.
We pulled them out??? You want to argue semantics? Yes, we "pulled" them out so they would be safe while we bombed Iraq for awhile because they were not being allowed the do the UN mandated job. You know that. That's like saying the Police ACTUALLY put so and so in jail, nevermind so and so just commited a crime. Jeez. Do you ever really read what you write?
The bottom line is most people who've been following the facts for awhile consider Iraq currently a severe threat to the US; either to the free flow of oil at market prices or supplying/supporting terrorists or the UN violations as evidenced by the OBVIOUS violations in terms of weapons the inspecters have all ready inspected, or a combination of all.
The UN, absent us, would continue to DO NOTHING. You know that as well because thats what they did for almost 12 years. Either way, UN or not, we are acting in OUR own best interests and a mob of people just don't or won't admit to that because of their blind hatred of a decent man and so far, an above average President.
That's why I consider you all so un patriotic, our national interest loses to false cries of "we need more evidence, the President needs to make a better case, let the inspectors work". Just to let you know, I haven't got one damn thing I know about Iraq from George Bush.
You protesting now at the Iraqi whatever in Atlanta is absurd and an admission you have no idea what you are talking about. ALL of this has been going on since Clinton took office. Why care now?
Have you ever looked at it from another view? Why is it so important for some of the French and Germans and Russians that we not make Hussein conform to the UN resolutions?
You'll find THEIR national interests at heart. THEIR weapons sales to Iraq. THEIR oil deals with Iraq. THEIR science and technology profiting from work with Iraq. You are taking their side, crying "peace" in regards to a mass murderer who is only improving his abilities every day while we sit and argue with our own fellow citizens.
HAH! I TOLD you!
Larry, u r so full of sh*t
it's ruining my dinner.
We pulled them out??? You want to argue semantics?
Hey! YOU were the one that chose to take liberties with the facts bubba.
The bottom line is most people who've been following the facts for awhile consider Iraq currently a severe threat to the US
I don't buy this. This is your opinion. Mine is different. But whatever.
; either to the free flow of oil at market prices
Oh OK, so if Saudi, (not madmen?) just decide that they don't want to sell us oil anymore at a price we like, we get to attack them?
or supplying/supporting terrorists
Bombing Baghdad has almost nothing to do with preventing terrorism.
or the UN violations as evidenced by the OBVIOUS violations in terms of weapons the inspecters have all ready inspected,
If they are violating UN resolutions, I would think the UN (!!!) would get to decide what to do about it.
The UN, absent us, would continue to DO NOTHING.
Absolute BS. You are delusional if you believe the UN is doing nothing.
Why care now?
Because we are practically promising to start a war no matter what the rest of the world thinks?
You'll find THEIR national interests at heart. THEIR weapons sales to Iraq. THEIR oil deals with Iraq. THEIR science and technology profiting from work with Iraq.
What national interest could they possibly have that would outweigh p*ssing us off? We can do more damage to those countries than Iraq EVER will. And by the way,we have plenty of weapons sales and oil deals with Iraq too. You probably put Iraqi oil in your car every time you fill up.
it's ruining my dinner.
We pulled them out??? You want to argue semantics?
Hey! YOU were the one that chose to take liberties with the facts bubba.
The bottom line is most people who've been following the facts for awhile consider Iraq currently a severe threat to the US
I don't buy this. This is your opinion. Mine is different. But whatever.
; either to the free flow of oil at market prices
Oh OK, so if Saudi, (not madmen?) just decide that they don't want to sell us oil anymore at a price we like, we get to attack them?
or supplying/supporting terrorists
Bombing Baghdad has almost nothing to do with preventing terrorism.
or the UN violations as evidenced by the OBVIOUS violations in terms of weapons the inspecters have all ready inspected,
If they are violating UN resolutions, I would think the UN (!!!) would get to decide what to do about it.
The UN, absent us, would continue to DO NOTHING.
Absolute BS. You are delusional if you believe the UN is doing nothing.
Why care now?
Because we are practically promising to start a war no matter what the rest of the world thinks?
You'll find THEIR national interests at heart. THEIR weapons sales to Iraq. THEIR oil deals with Iraq. THEIR science and technology profiting from work with Iraq.
What national interest could they possibly have that would outweigh p*ssing us off? We can do more damage to those countries than Iraq EVER will. And by the way,we have plenty of weapons sales and oil deals with Iraq too. You probably put Iraqi oil in your car every time you fill up.
Dems has obviously got you on the ropes, Maynard. You're starting to sputter and not make sense. You're also starting to say goofy things like "So now the US is going to attack a country for being Socialist?" when you know as well as I do that the last time that happened was when the Kennedy boys tried to have Castro assassinated.
And PS, if you try to bring up Reagan as a response to my Kennedy comment, I'm going to call you on it. Check your history before you go there.
And PS, if you try to bring up Reagan as a response to my Kennedy comment, I'm going to call you on it. Check your history before you go there.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
OMG
We "pulled" them out because Iraq was not letting them do their JOB. (Sorry about your dinner...just kidding)
Again, I say it is exactly blaming the authorities for the bahvior of the convict.
It's not an opinion; economic stability IS a national interest of the US. Iraq threatened it in 1990 and intends to do it again by dominating the region, thus the oil flow.
Limiting the weapons abilities of a nation hostile to us IS in our national interest. They are NOT Canada. They aren't even France. Damn, man, they tried to assassinate Bush the Elder. Doubt that concerns you either. An "opinion" right?
You're all for handgun control, right? Controls against citizens who've done NOTHING illegal, right? So, we know you can at least understand the principle even if you choose to keep your eyes closed.
You can compare Saudi to Iraq if you want and thus illustrate that you CAN, if you try, see evil. I'd think you'd make the case that Saudi poses a larger, more present threat. They may, but then you'd have to stand for defending us against them, right? Can't have that.
Do you know that if the citizens of the US would unite, for 5 minutes, Iraq would do as they agreed and no bombs would fly? People like you are his refuge, the hope providers for getting away with defying the UN. You're wrong about the terror aspect anyway. With Hussein gone, we are safer.
The UN has decided what to do for 11 years: Nothing unless the US insists to act in it's own national interest. You're high. The UN has allowed Iraq to defy them since the end of the '91 war. You KNOW that.
Why does the US unilaterally acting in our own interest upset you so? Iraq is in material breach since 1991. The UN has done nothing about it but pass 16 more resolutions. At some point, a relationship may fail and you can either protect yourself or be a victim. The UN may still do the right thing (Tuesday vote, I think?) and insist Iraq comply.
Finally,
Pissing us off??? Most of the people who still don't understand our own elction rules just LOVE France because they are screwing their real enemy: W.
Check an editorial page. France is LOVED by many in this nation.
As far as oil, you again prove you can string some thoughts together rationally. No, we don't get much oil direct from Iraq but it is all of the same market and DOES directly affect what happens at my car, supply and demand. Have you been to a damn gas station in the last 3 months???? Why you suppose that is? $$$
Also, when Iraq was a friend we did sell them arms. They became hositle to us. No more weapons. Notice all the Soviet military harware that went up in smoke??? No, wait! I know! Rummy sold it to 'em right?
We "pulled" them out because Iraq was not letting them do their JOB. (Sorry about your dinner...just kidding)
Again, I say it is exactly blaming the authorities for the bahvior of the convict.
It's not an opinion; economic stability IS a national interest of the US. Iraq threatened it in 1990 and intends to do it again by dominating the region, thus the oil flow.
Limiting the weapons abilities of a nation hostile to us IS in our national interest. They are NOT Canada. They aren't even France. Damn, man, they tried to assassinate Bush the Elder. Doubt that concerns you either. An "opinion" right?
You're all for handgun control, right? Controls against citizens who've done NOTHING illegal, right? So, we know you can at least understand the principle even if you choose to keep your eyes closed.
You can compare Saudi to Iraq if you want and thus illustrate that you CAN, if you try, see evil. I'd think you'd make the case that Saudi poses a larger, more present threat. They may, but then you'd have to stand for defending us against them, right? Can't have that.
Do you know that if the citizens of the US would unite, for 5 minutes, Iraq would do as they agreed and no bombs would fly? People like you are his refuge, the hope providers for getting away with defying the UN. You're wrong about the terror aspect anyway. With Hussein gone, we are safer.
The UN has decided what to do for 11 years: Nothing unless the US insists to act in it's own national interest. You're high. The UN has allowed Iraq to defy them since the end of the '91 war. You KNOW that.
Why does the US unilaterally acting in our own interest upset you so? Iraq is in material breach since 1991. The UN has done nothing about it but pass 16 more resolutions. At some point, a relationship may fail and you can either protect yourself or be a victim. The UN may still do the right thing (Tuesday vote, I think?) and insist Iraq comply.
Finally,
Pissing us off??? Most of the people who still don't understand our own elction rules just LOVE France because they are screwing their real enemy: W.
Check an editorial page. France is LOVED by many in this nation.
As far as oil, you again prove you can string some thoughts together rationally. No, we don't get much oil direct from Iraq but it is all of the same market and DOES directly affect what happens at my car, supply and demand. Have you been to a damn gas station in the last 3 months???? Why you suppose that is? $$$
Also, when Iraq was a friend we did sell them arms. They became hositle to us. No more weapons. Notice all the Soviet military harware that went up in smoke??? No, wait! I know! Rummy sold it to 'em right?
H
Heretic
Guest
Its obvious Krebs isnt going to believe anything unless it comes from some very liberal source, so why bother.
Actually, I've been thinking. Some of what follows is speculation, but it's pretty obvious how we got here.
I think it is probable Bush could have gotten what he wants (assuming what he wants is disarmament and saddam gone) if he had approached it differently.
Bush could have and should have gone to the other members of the Sec. Council and other leaders in the theater and others in the UN, and made his case, relatively quietly- getting their reactions, assessing the hurdles and roadblocks, and developing responses. At some point, he very likely would have been able to convince the Sec. Council in particular to to be more forceful than they had been in the past; set specific goals and deadlines, and perhaps even specific responses.
Instead, he has given an ultimatum and made everybody take sides. We have committed huge resources to a particular path, and no other option is acceptable. Now, even if the UN finds some way to achieve the goals short of war, it will be vetoed and ridiculed.
And I see this as symptomatic, and why I don't trust Bush in general. He seems to think that he can do whatever he wants, and everybody else will just go along because we are the USA and he is the President, and if they don't, the h*ell with 'em. I think he is in over his head and does not recognize the complexity of a lot of the issues he must deal with. He just may be, as Helen Thomas said, the worst President ever.
I think it is probable Bush could have gotten what he wants (assuming what he wants is disarmament and saddam gone) if he had approached it differently.
Bush could have and should have gone to the other members of the Sec. Council and other leaders in the theater and others in the UN, and made his case, relatively quietly- getting their reactions, assessing the hurdles and roadblocks, and developing responses. At some point, he very likely would have been able to convince the Sec. Council in particular to to be more forceful than they had been in the past; set specific goals and deadlines, and perhaps even specific responses.
Instead, he has given an ultimatum and made everybody take sides. We have committed huge resources to a particular path, and no other option is acceptable. Now, even if the UN finds some way to achieve the goals short of war, it will be vetoed and ridiculed.
And I see this as symptomatic, and why I don't trust Bush in general. He seems to think that he can do whatever he wants, and everybody else will just go along because we are the USA and he is the President, and if they don't, the h*ell with 'em. I think he is in over his head and does not recognize the complexity of a lot of the issues he must deal with. He just may be, as Helen Thomas said, the worst President ever.
H
Heretic
Guest
Maybe he did, they were unresponsive so he put public pressure on them. That is in general how bills go before congress.
It's possible,
I just don't see it. I've been around long enough to see how things generally work. Even if there aren't dramatic public statements about a particular thing, we get hints. And especially now with the internet, we have so many sources available to get those hints from. Look at North Korea. Not a lot of dramatic public statements (well, aside from repositioning the bombers), but we are getting clues that they are talking at some level and trying to work things out. This is an exception to the Bush habit.
I just don't see it. I've been around long enough to see how things generally work. Even if there aren't dramatic public statements about a particular thing, we get hints. And especially now with the internet, we have so many sources available to get those hints from. Look at North Korea. Not a lot of dramatic public statements (well, aside from repositioning the bombers), but we are getting clues that they are talking at some level and trying to work things out. This is an exception to the Bush habit.
So here goes the Pope on TV, saying that war with Iraq is an international crime.
Maynard, is it that you all don't really think Saddam has weapons (even though there is real evidence to the contrary)? Is it that you don't think he'd ever use them (even though he has a history of doing just that)? Now we've got the reports that the UN inspectors found drones and other means to distribute chemical weapons, yet they (the inspectors) buried it.
I truly do not understand all this anti-Americanism and sympathy for terrorists. I wish someone would explain it to me. The problem is simple: Iraq was told to disarm after their little Kuwait fiasco. They didn't do it. We piddled with them for 12 years. They thumbed their nose at us. At what point do we enforce the UN resolutions?
There is a segment of our society that keeps saying that Bush is only trying to avenge his Daddy. Did it ever occur to any of them that Saddam is trying to avenge his Gulf War loss? Or is it just Bush who's the bad guy and Saddam is an innocent?
Maynard, is it that you all don't really think Saddam has weapons (even though there is real evidence to the contrary)? Is it that you don't think he'd ever use them (even though he has a history of doing just that)? Now we've got the reports that the UN inspectors found drones and other means to distribute chemical weapons, yet they (the inspectors) buried it.
I truly do not understand all this anti-Americanism and sympathy for terrorists. I wish someone would explain it to me. The problem is simple: Iraq was told to disarm after their little Kuwait fiasco. They didn't do it. We piddled with them for 12 years. They thumbed their nose at us. At what point do we enforce the UN resolutions?
There is a segment of our society that keeps saying that Bush is only trying to avenge his Daddy. Did it ever occur to any of them that Saddam is trying to avenge his Gulf War loss? Or is it just Bush who's the bad guy and Saddam is an innocent?
Originally posted by vraiblonde
So here goes the Pope on TV, saying that war with Iraq is an international crime.
Maynard, is it that you all don't really think Saddam has weapons (even though there is real evidence to the contrary)?
What evidence of weapons?
Even if he does, bombing Iraq will not find them. Give me YOUR plan. How do we get the weapons.
Is it that you don't think he'd ever use them (even though he has a history of doing just that)? Now we've got the reports that the UN inspectors found drones and other means to distribute chemical weapons, yet they (the inspectors) buried it.
Not familiar with that report, but... 1. He used them on Iran with our encouragment. Hell, we sold them to him. How do you seperate him from us?
2. He used them on the Kurds. We were supporting the Kurds in trying to overthrow the government. Would it be better for you if he just shot everybody there? And why does this have anything to do with the USA?
I truly do not understand all this anti-Americanism and sympathy for terrorists. I wish someone would explain it to me.
IT IS NOT ANTIAMERICANISM AND IT IS NOT SYMPATHY FOR TERRORISTS. There is STILL NO EVIDENCE that saddam supports terrorism. This is a whole different conflict. I love the USA and I don't want to see us killing thousands uneccesarily and becoming a pariah among the community of nations. If I thought invading iraq would do ANYTHING to reduce terrorism, I would most likely support it. I happen to believe that invading Iraq will make terrorism worse. We should MOST DEFINITELY be fighting terrorism on a large scale, but bombing Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. If you believe otherwise, I think you are speculating , and killing thousands and attacking a foreign country are too serious for speculation.
The problem is simple: Iraq was told to disarm after their little Kuwait fiasco. They didn't do it. We piddled with them for 12 years. They thumbed their nose at us. At what point do we enforce the UN resolutions?
I wish I could find a new way to say it, but I can't... even if i were to agree with your premise that Iraq has not disarmed, you assume that the only possible response is massive attack. i think the goals can be achieved without that. You might think that all other options have been tried, but they haven't. Tighter embargos, more "inspector-enforcers", get more consensus on a plan (ANY plan that is more stringent than the past) and almost anything can be done. We can collectively decide to divide up Iraq if we thought that would help.
There is a segment of our society that keeps saying that Bush is only trying to avenge his Daddy. Did it ever occur to any of them that Saddam is trying to avenge his Gulf War loss? Or is it just Bush who's the bad guy and Saddam is an innocent?
I don't know what Bush's motivation is, although my belief is that it is based in the National Security Strategy that was publicized last fall. And i don't care what saddam's motivation is. If he keeps to himself, and his neighbors don't get too freaked out, he can continue to live in palaces and shoot his political enemies. But if he strays from his borders, or is caught supplying terrorists, or becomes an imminent threat in any way, I am confident that the community he is in, whether it be the Arab League, or the UN, or OPEC, will slap him down, and they might even ask for our help in doing so.
So here goes the Pope on TV, saying that war with Iraq is an international crime.
Maynard, is it that you all don't really think Saddam has weapons (even though there is real evidence to the contrary)?
What evidence of weapons?
Even if he does, bombing Iraq will not find them. Give me YOUR plan. How do we get the weapons.
Is it that you don't think he'd ever use them (even though he has a history of doing just that)? Now we've got the reports that the UN inspectors found drones and other means to distribute chemical weapons, yet they (the inspectors) buried it.
Not familiar with that report, but... 1. He used them on Iran with our encouragment. Hell, we sold them to him. How do you seperate him from us?
2. He used them on the Kurds. We were supporting the Kurds in trying to overthrow the government. Would it be better for you if he just shot everybody there? And why does this have anything to do with the USA?
I truly do not understand all this anti-Americanism and sympathy for terrorists. I wish someone would explain it to me.
IT IS NOT ANTIAMERICANISM AND IT IS NOT SYMPATHY FOR TERRORISTS. There is STILL NO EVIDENCE that saddam supports terrorism. This is a whole different conflict. I love the USA and I don't want to see us killing thousands uneccesarily and becoming a pariah among the community of nations. If I thought invading iraq would do ANYTHING to reduce terrorism, I would most likely support it. I happen to believe that invading Iraq will make terrorism worse. We should MOST DEFINITELY be fighting terrorism on a large scale, but bombing Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. If you believe otherwise, I think you are speculating , and killing thousands and attacking a foreign country are too serious for speculation.
The problem is simple: Iraq was told to disarm after their little Kuwait fiasco. They didn't do it. We piddled with them for 12 years. They thumbed their nose at us. At what point do we enforce the UN resolutions?
I wish I could find a new way to say it, but I can't... even if i were to agree with your premise that Iraq has not disarmed, you assume that the only possible response is massive attack. i think the goals can be achieved without that. You might think that all other options have been tried, but they haven't. Tighter embargos, more "inspector-enforcers", get more consensus on a plan (ANY plan that is more stringent than the past) and almost anything can be done. We can collectively decide to divide up Iraq if we thought that would help.
There is a segment of our society that keeps saying that Bush is only trying to avenge his Daddy. Did it ever occur to any of them that Saddam is trying to avenge his Gulf War loss? Or is it just Bush who's the bad guy and Saddam is an innocent?
I don't know what Bush's motivation is, although my belief is that it is based in the National Security Strategy that was publicized last fall. And i don't care what saddam's motivation is. If he keeps to himself, and his neighbors don't get too freaked out, he can continue to live in palaces and shoot his political enemies. But if he strays from his borders, or is caught supplying terrorists, or becomes an imminent threat in any way, I am confident that the community he is in, whether it be the Arab League, or the UN, or OPEC, will slap him down, and they might even ask for our help in doing so.
Last edited: