Hussein draws red line around Baghdad... - Page 2

That is a very apt quote!!

Not true. From 12th March...

<a href="http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030311/140/dv8hj.html" target="_blank">Full Story</a>

This was taken in the UK as a pretty blatant attempt to light a fire under Blair's ass and force him to jump aboard the war train and stop trying to get a second UN resolution. Having set ourselves aside from the rest of Europe, we desperately need our "special relationship" with the US in order to have any relevance at all in international politics. In other words, if the US says "jump", Blair asks "How high?"

"The U.N. is the parent who disciplines their child by saying "No," and then caving in when they whine and cry. Ineffectual, and supporting tyrants."

I hate how many people have been describing the UN lately. The UN is not some silly foreign organizaiton that does whatever it wants...it is the world. Don't blame the United Nations for not being strict when it comes to Saddam, blame the world community. You may not realize it, but there are other soverign nations that do not want Saddam Hussein ousted. It's that simple. These resolutions mean dick, if they had any merit Israel would no longer be settling Palestinian land. But wait...the US is strict on Iraq...but seems to forget completely about Israel. The truth is that most nations including our own could care less about cooperating, working out things together. Every country wants what is best for itself, its people. They ignore what may be best for the group, for humanity. Its sad, because the ideal that was the UN is now gone...The hope that the entire world would come together as a community, that nationalism would dissapear and globalism would arise was a great notion. I hope you people that bad mouth it are happy with what will come.

Maybe if we have been as strict as we are on Israel as we have been with Iraq, Arab nations would have taken this current situation a lot more seriously.

</strong>

Huh? Did you not read where I clearly stated "you AND pro-war individuals"? I'm not lumping anybody. I'm not calling you pro-war. I AM saying that on this one aspect of this one issue, you both happen to be saying the same thing, so only in that regard am I addressing you simultaneously.

</strong>

Alternate timeline? I'm just scratching my head here. I just referred to factual events that have already happened in our dealing with Iraq. In this timeline. Facts. We DID call Iraq "evil." We DID try (and fail) to establish a credible link to Al-Queda. We DID say they could unload their weapons to terrorists. We DID say we were going to "liberate" Iraq. Bush DID say he would not see America held hostage by Hussein's arsenal. and finally, he did say "Disarmament means regime change."

These are all facts in this timeline. And none of them have anything to do with the UN whatsoever. The UN does not liberate countries. The UN does not call countries evil. The UN does not institute regime changes. The UN is not fighting terrorism anywhere. The UN is not anymore concerned about the American people than it is the people of Germany or France. All facts.

All you have to do is show me where I err in referring to them as such.

Don't be melodramatic. All I said is that the focus on the UN's culpability in this fiasco is irrelevant because no amount of action or inaction on their part would've changed any of those factual events I referred to above.

I'm fascinated that the same people who will basically say that we can't believe a thing our government has said are quick to point out that our government said things that would support their own arguments. I understand what Bush said, I understand the links he made, I have not disputed any of that. My dispute is that none of this becomes fact until it comes to pass. I believe that the UN had the opportunity to head this off. Should the UN be put in that position? No. That's on Bush. Unfortunately, the UN was put in that position and wasn't up to the task. That's my opinion. As I've stated multiple times before, things still may have worked out the same way. I'm just not 100% convinced they would have.

Wait. You're giving 'proof' that the US would invade without Blair's support by linking an article that states the US hints that it may go it alone?
Yeesh, I've admitted that things may have gone the same regardless but let's get serious. It's fine if people believe differently than I do on this, I'm really not going to get my panties in a bunch over it. That being said, how in the world does this even scratch the surface of proving your point? Supposition does not become fact when it helps our point.

Where did I say this was "proof" of anything? For somebody who isn't getting their "panties in a bunch", you're sure coming out with some wild swings here. It's a point for discussion, a story that probably didn't get half the coverage over there as it did here.

You said that you didn't think the US would think of entering this war without Blair. I pointed out a story in which Rumsfeld said that they could do just that. Ergo, it was considered as an option.

Do I think that Rumsfeld was serious? No, like I said, it was a last-minute kick in Blair's pants to get him to drop any pretence of seeking UN approval and hitch his wagon to the Bush train, or be left high and dry with neither Europe or the US on his side.

<a href="http://www.fair.org/activism/scuds.html" target="_blank">Scuds? What Scuds? Iraq launched Scuds? Then this bigshot military guy is a goddamn liar and should be executed for treason...</a>

That's fucking amazing.

Crash-Man, why are you trusting 'Saddam' and not the Americans? Oh, wait....

Wow, the "liberal media" sure have a strange way of showing it...

This is one of those threads that will now be devoid of pro-war people.

I've known this for about 2 days now, but your acceptance of it had me doubting myself. Had to go find an official source again.

You disappointed me...buck up fella.

Because I hate America you idiot!

Look where I'm from...we hate Freedom down here!!

Here is what I said:
...the fact is there is no way the US would have gone in had the rest of the world been against it. I doubt the US would have gone in without Blair on their side, actually.

Your exact response was "not true". Is there a way for me to construe what you said otherwise? I doubted the US would go in without Blair, you told me that was not true. You then provided a link to prove your point (apparently) which is filled with supposition. If this is swinging wildly, I guess I'll take that.

They're all going to be off searching for evidence to refute this.

Yeah, like the UK & the US did for how many years?

That argument has been had a million times.

I want to hear some pro-war people talk about these disappearing Scud attacks.

Shouldn't we be worrying more about the range of the missile than its name? He could call it Peter for all I care, but if it's got a range of over 95 miles, he's in violation.

Actually, as someone who has a LOT of family down there in TnT (and in fact my mother is from there) I can attest that many Trinis DO indeed hate the U.S.

Can you give us some figures?

And wait...the US government has never been involved in killing and torturing its own citizens?

Let's not derail this. The pro-war people are introducing arguments that have nothing to do with the weapons in question.

As for Poxy's question: They have not been identified as missiles that have a range of more than 95 miles.

Actually, yes... they were.

And you'd be 100% correct too.

Many Trinidadians are ignorant, uneducated, Christian fundamentalist bigots.

For the record, I'm not one of them.

I spend as much time trying to give people correct information about this War as I do encouraging them not to hate the US and wish ill on innocent American people.

Carl, please save this sort of unfounded bs for a proper thread. Please stop derailing this one.

Are you claiming that there were not many people (in the U.S. and elsewhere) that were against our getting involved in WWII??

really, what was their exuse or reason...?

The same people? Give me a break.

This thread is fucking doomed. The conservos refuse to discuss a point where they are wrong.

Carl you are so naive.

It's absolutely incredible how Pro-War people can just veer from the topic at hand.

We were talking about non-existent Scud missiles that are being used as justification for a War TODAY...not protesters in a War that took place before an of us here were evn born.

1. The memory of the carnage of World War I.

2. The fact we were in a depression and didn't feel the need to get involved in problems overseas until our own were solved.

Seriously, why all the conspiracy theories about FDR allowing Pearl Harbor to happen in order to force us into the war if there wasn't public opposition to our getting involved.

Of course not the same people. Where did I say that?

You can sidestep the point (that there ARE people opposed to ANY U.S. action... ever) all you want. And it has NOTHING to do with "Conservos vs Libs'.

No one said that there wasn't public opposition. But THE SAME PEOPLE? Come on?

The US right wing was significantly isolationist at that time - a good many people who were anti-war were in fact quite right wing.

It's even MORE incredible that you, Devin, and your ilk automatically assume that I among the PRO-War contingent in this case.

I reiterate.

Just stop talking about WW2 and see where the thread goes. It's that simple.

It takes two to tango. Don't take the bait.

Ok, please point out to me the people on this message board that support Saddam and his regime.

The rampant stupidity being displayed "by some people" in this thread is nauseating.

But this is my point, Devin. That there will ALWAYS be a group of people opposed to ANY war. It's not a Left/Right thing at all... and I'm not saying which side is "wrong" and which is "right". It's just a simple FACT that as long as there are wars there will be war protestors. So their existence does NOT automatically or arbitrarly make one war more "just" than another.