I believe you're missing the point on this one.Agreed, Saddam was an evil, murderous dictator, however the invasion of Iraq was illegal - America acted of it's own accord, without the approval of the United Nations. Do you remember why America invaded? Something to do with WMDs?
America has done nothing but make the entire area a haven for terrorists. Saddam wasn't a good man, but Bush is no better in any way, shape or form.
Also, it is actually possible to hate Bush without hating America.
(America has done nothing but make the entire area a haven for terrorists. Saddam wasn't a good man, but Bush is no better in any way, shape or form.
Also, it is actually possible to hate Bush without hating America.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:27,
archived)
Was it something to do with WMDs at all?The way I remember it, only Blair cited WMDs as the reason for going to war. Bush merely mentioned them incidentally.
"Make" the region a haven for terrorists is a bit rich, seeing as Saddam didn't exactly exclude them and was probably likely to give them help, particularly if they were going in the direction of israel.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:30,
archived)
"Make" the region a haven for terrorists is a bit rich, seeing as Saddam didn't exactly exclude them and was probably likely to give them help, particularly if they were going in the direction of israel.
I'm not saying that there weren't any terrorists before America invaded,But now, there is no real infrastructure, a whole heap of extra available weaponry (new and used), and some extremely pissed off people. Some might call that a haven for terrorists.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:36,
archived)
It does have people in it trying to stop terrorists, though.Which it didn't before.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:43,
archived)
There were at least six different reasons for invading Iraqbut America-haters have rewritten history to suit themselves.
As I said, it's depressing that so many people have been conned into thinking that democracy is somehow worse than fascism or theocracy.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:32,
archived)
As I said, it's depressing that so many people have been conned into thinking that democracy is somehow worse than fascism or theocracy.
Has anyone here spoken out against Democracy?I haven't read any posts like that.
What were the other reasons for invading Iraq? The only ones I remember were mentioned after America invaded.
(What were the other reasons for invading Iraq? The only ones I remember were mentioned after America invaded.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:34,
archived)
Here are the reasons given before the invasionIt helps to be well informed. Don't believe what you see in the Guardian or on the BBC.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:41,
archived)
Are you claimingsome kind of conspiracy by the guardian, and international press against america?
I've seen alot more evidence to suggest that there exists alot of collusion between fox and the republican party and many other entities considered by fox to be of financial interest.
I wouldn't take a government press release alone as proof of fact. Not from any country, including my own (so rightly proven with the "children overboard affair")
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:44,
archived)
I've seen alot more evidence to suggest that there exists alot of collusion between fox and the republican party and many other entities considered by fox to be of financial interest.
I wouldn't take a government press release alone as proof of fact. Not from any country, including my own (so rightly proven with the "children overboard affair")
All three of us are Australian.This really is quite a silly argument...
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:46,
archived)
Not that sillysince our country is an ally of the US, it does concern us.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:48,
archived)
:)I'm glad there's enough of you around at the same time to have one. Usually it's dead at this hour.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:50,
archived)
It's proof of the factthat the government gave a number of reasons other than WMD for the invasion of Iraq.
That is all it's required to prove.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:47,
archived)
That is all it's required to prove.
Which reasons?The only ones I saw were either about WMDs or weapons inspectors.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:48,
archived)
That's becauseyour sources were not telling the whole truth. I have helpfully provided a link to an original source, so you can compare the reality with what you have been told.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:49,
archived)
Why can't you tell me what these reasons are?Surely if you are as educated as you make out, you'd be able to rattle these off from the top of your head, rather than post some legalese from the white house, and keep referring back to it without so much as a quote.
TELL ME WHAT THESE OTHER REASONS WERE.
(TELL ME WHAT THESE OTHER REASONS WERE.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:52,
archived)
Okay, since you evidently can't understand big words:* Saddam had WMD
* Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda
* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush
* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire
* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture
See, it's not that difficult if you're literate.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:57,
archived)
* Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda
* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush
* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire
* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture
See, it's not that difficult if you're literate.
And how many of these were presented to the UN?One: WMD's.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:59,
archived)
Ummcan you provide us with this literature?
We're not convinced... and you can't "prove us wrong" in an argument till you do that (unless mathimatically).
I mean the american explinations for war changed so much that it was laughable at times.
There were no WMD's found
It's VERY hard to move WMD's without detection, or leaving evidence... even during a war.
There's still no sadam to al-queda link... not unless you believe that SCO has nothing to do with microsoft and it owns all linux software ever made and that can fesably ever be though of :)
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:22,
archived)
We're not convinced... and you can't "prove us wrong" in an argument till you do that (unless mathimatically).
I mean the american explinations for war changed so much that it was laughable at times.
There were no WMD's found
It's VERY hard to move WMD's without detection, or leaving evidence... even during a war.
There's still no sadam to al-queda link... not unless you believe that SCO has nothing to do with microsoft and it owns all linux software ever made and that can fesably ever be though of :)
Sorry mate,but when the argument consists of "The Americans only ever gave ONE reason for the invasion of Iraq", then it is indeed mathematically possible to prove it wrong -- simply by proving that there was more than one reason. QED.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:35,
archived)
Actually, as mentioned above,They only presented one LEGAL reason for invasion to the UN, and it wasn't true.
Take your QED elsewhere (especially considering that this was originally an argument about the separation of church and state). You've proven nothing.
(Take your QED elsewhere (especially considering that this was originally an argument about the separation of church and state). You've proven nothing.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:38,
archived)
I suspect that was the only one the UN would listen to.Having faffed around over Iraq for ages.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:03,
archived)
It was the only one the UN would listen to,because it was the only viable, legal reason for invasion that america had. Strangely, it wasn't even true.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:08,
archived)
Fool. Carlyle Group - bin Laden - al-Qaeda.
"* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush"
President Bush has attempted to assassinate Saddam.
"* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire"
The US has failed to abide by many UN agreements.
"* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors"
That is a lie, as there were actually inspectors on the ground. Bush refused to cooperate with UN inspectors, in truth, just prior to the (second Bush) invasion.
"* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture"
The US oppresses Iraqis with murder and torture. In the same prisons, like Abu Ghraib, no less!
"See, it's not that difficult if you're literate."
Must be eminently difficult for you then. Why DO you despise reality so very very much?
You've become tiresome; and your bullshit, trite, weather-thinned and vacuous. Our patience wears thin.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:38,
archived)
"* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush"
President Bush has attempted to assassinate Saddam.
"* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire"
The US has failed to abide by many UN agreements.
"* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors"
That is a lie, as there were actually inspectors on the ground. Bush refused to cooperate with UN inspectors, in truth, just prior to the (second Bush) invasion.
"* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture"
The US oppresses Iraqis with murder and torture. In the same prisons, like Abu Ghraib, no less!
"See, it's not that difficult if you're literate."
Must be eminently difficult for you then. Why DO you despise reality so very very much?
You've become tiresome; and your bullshit, trite, weather-thinned and vacuous. Our patience wears thin.
Why not summarise it for me?Let me know you understand it.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:45,
archived)
I'm not convinced you have read it either.www.b3ta.com/board/4317746
If you can't even tell me what your six reasons were, you obviously aren't as 'in the now' as you'd like people to think.
(If you can't even tell me what your six reasons were, you obviously aren't as 'in the now' as you'd like people to think.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:49,
archived)
No, they weren't.Just give me one reason other than WMDs.
One.
Or would you rather us think that you're just parrotting someone else's opinions?
(One.
Or would you rather us think that you're just parrotting someone else's opinions?
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:54,
archived)
I've read it.Reasons:
Thwarting weapons inspections,
continuing weapons programs,
aspiring to nuclear weapons,
threatening national security,
threatening peace and security of the region,
brutal repression of its civilian population.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:57,
archived)
Thwarting weapons inspections,
continuing weapons programs,
aspiring to nuclear weapons,
threatening national security,
threatening peace and security of the region,
brutal repression of its civilian population.
So have I -What reasons did you get out of it? Other than weapons inspectors being obstructed?
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:58,
archived)
You should improve your reading skillsand stop getting your "news" from useless sources like the ABC.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:59,
archived)
What's wrong with weapons inspectors being obstructed as a reason?
I believe that you were arguing that there were more reasons thanjust WMDs. The obstruction of weapons inspectors is just another facet of the WMD issue, not a whole new reason for invasion.
( gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:07,
archived)
But the point of this- I'm guessing - is to say "the war was a mistake". Which only works for the specific reason of WMDs existing in Iraq, since there apparently weren't any. But reasons like thwarting inspections remain valid. Iraq was being aggressive and totalitarian.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:12,
archived)
I have mentioned above that I do not deny Saddam's pre-war behaviour,But this does not give America the right to step in.
Similarly, If I see someone in the pub that looks like they might be able to beat me up, I am not allowed to make a pre-emptive strike.
(Similarly, If I see someone in the pub that looks like they might be able to beat me up, I am not allowed to make a pre-emptive strike.
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:15,
archived)
This post is very hard to readlots of vertical single word lines of text :)
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:35,
archived)
SeirouslyDon't worry about it man.
You would be very supprised how little the opinions surrounding the Iraq war affect business.
I do have a problem with the war though, from a personal point of view. I earn RMB which is pegged to the dollar. The Iraq war caused the dollar to fall, dragging the RMB down a whole two points with it against the pound. Since my money eventually goes back to England, it's now worth over seven percent less than it was before the Iraq war. Those US troops and planes wern't bombing buildings and people over there - they were boming MY bank balance.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:37,
archived)
You would be very supprised how little the opinions surrounding the Iraq war affect business.
I do have a problem with the war though, from a personal point of view. I earn RMB which is pegged to the dollar. The Iraq war caused the dollar to fall, dragging the RMB down a whole two points with it against the pound. Since my money eventually goes back to England, it's now worth over seven percent less than it was before the Iraq war. Those US troops and planes wern't bombing buildings and people over there - they were boming MY bank balance.
Well I realise that now, butI must have sent George Bush a hundred letters before the war, begging him not to invade Iraq. I now reluctently concede that an enormous loss of life, the spending of a few billion dollars and the ongoing trauma of a fifteen year war, are more important than me having to buy a slightly cheaper car - BUT NOT BY MUCH.
Next time I would like the USA as a nation, to show a little more consideration, and think about the knock on finacial effects to others, and more specifically me.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:45,
archived)
Next time I would like the USA as a nation, to show a little more consideration, and think about the knock on finacial effects to others, and more specifically me.