Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
How Bush will steal the 2004 Election...
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&c=1&s=dugger Read this article. It's 9 pages, but you must read it. This is how President Bush is going to steal the election to be re-elected this November. By using faulty touch-screen electronic voting machines that leave no paper record so there can be no record. These machines are also easily hackable. All of the data disks that store the votes to be sent to central computers have the same password (1111). All 22,000 of them. And, Diebold [One of the companies that makes these machines] has posted the source code for the machines on an unprotected FTP site. President Bush can't win the good 'ole fashion way by getting more votes than John Kerry, so he's going to use Republican-controlled voting machine companies and disenfranchise thousands and thousands of black voters.
I haven't read the article yet because I don't have the time to at the moment, so excuse any ignorance on my part here: People seem to think of Bush as someone with a moral code comparable to that of bloody Hitler. I've heard people say that he authorized 911 indirectly by not pre-empting it, and just used it as an excuse to get some black gold overseas. Personally, when I think of someone who wants to be president of the most "successful" country in the world, I have to believe that he has a moral code that at least respects the humanity of the people around him. The way this kind of propaganda comes off as is pretty unrealistic, considering Bush is a devout Methodist. Look, I don't know exactly what happened in Flordia four years ago, and I don't think electronic balletting exclusively is a good call. If he wanted accurate statistics, there should be two: The paper ballot, and the electronic one. I'm sorry, I still believe that people are born with a conscience, just like I believe that Bush earnestly believes that he is doing the right thing in Iraq.
But Java, Bush might also earnestly believe he's the best candidate for President. And even if he has a conscience, he might think he's on a "mission from God" or something, and that would probably justify something as extreme as rigging an election. Bush isn't the only one who might rig an election though. Here's just a few potential culprits: - Bush - Kerry - any member of either campaign - any member of either party - foreign countries - the US military or Secret Service or FBI or whatever - pretty much any special interest group
I know what you mean, but look at the war for example: I can't speak exactly for Bush, but I would think that he believes that ridding the world of Saddam and liberating the Iraqis as a good thing. But you know, if someone breaks into my house, threatens my family with lethal weaponary, and I have a chance to actually STOP him, it would be morally right for me to protect my family. Unfortunately, the law doesn't agree with this morality. This is the way I see it. I know what happened with the UN might seem minor to many Americans, but being one of the countries being "betrayed" by the actions thereafter, even in the name of mortality, I can't feel safe here. I'm not American, so I can't vote, but I don't want to be on the wrong end (or even a part of) of the next "Moral war" when I'm innocent. I know what you're getting at when you say he might believe he is the best canditate, but you know, so does Kerry and Nader, and all the rest. Frankly, I trust none of them. But stooping to cheating (and to the Dems, a second time) would not go over well for him. Remember how everyone is saying how polarized this electon is? Well, just think of the massive negative reprocussions that might happen if the Dems thought Bush was cheating. And vise versa.
Quote: he believes that ridding the world of Saddam and liberating the Iraqis as a good thing. How could it not be a good thing?
Thousands and thousands of people could die, including over 900 of our soldiers...
SuperFlyingEngi Thousands and thousands of people could die, including over 900 of our soldiers... Ya and? 3,000 French civilians were killed the first 15 min of D-day. And according to the French, that was acceptable.
Nodbugger How could it not be a good thing? I didn't say it was a good thing. I didn't say it was a bad thing, either. Quote: Ya and? 3,000 French civilians were killed the first 15 min of D-day. And according to the French, that was acceptable. I wouldn't speak for anyone if I were you. What is acceptable to one person differs from what is acceptable to another.
Nodbugger SuperFlyingEngi Thousands and thousands of people could die, including over 900 of our soldiers... Ya and? 3,000 French civilians were killed the first 15 min of D-day. And according to the French, that was acceptable. And that justifies 900 American lives...how?
Nodbugger Ya and? 3,000 French civilians were killed the first 15 min of D-day. And according to the French, that was acceptable. Iraq is not comparable to WWII. In WWII we went to war to stop a mass genocide across the whole of Europe, while the whole of Europe was being conquered by an evil dictator. We went to war with Iraq to...uh, well, we were going to prevent the imminent threat his WMDs presented us, but then there were no WMDs, so then we were freeing the Iraqi people, but they don't want us there... And Saddam isn't causing a genocide or conquering the whole of Europe.
SuperFlyingEngi so then we were freeing the Iraqi people, but they don't want us there... *Some* of the Iraqi people don't want America there.
SEAL Nodbugger SuperFlyingEngi Thousands and thousands of people could die, including over 900 of our soldiers... Ya and? 3,000 French civilians were killed the first 15 min of D-day. And according to the French, that was acceptable. And that justifies 900 American lives...how? You cannot expect to have a war with no casualties.
Javaxcx Nodbugger How could it not be a good thing? I didn't say it was a good thing. I didn't say it was a bad thing, either. Quote: Ya and? 3,000 French civilians were killed the first 15 min of D-day. And according to the French, that was acceptable. I wouldn't speak for anyone if I were you. What is acceptable to one person differs from what is acceptable to another. The French at the time saw it as acceptable. If they didn't, why did they great us with open arms?
SuperFlyingEngi Nodbugger Ya and? 3,000 French civilians were killed the first 15 min of D-day. And according to the French, that was acceptable. Iraq is not comparable to WWII. In WWII we went to war to stop a mass genocide across the whole of Europe, while the whole of Europe was being conquered by an evil dictator. We went to war with Iraq to...uh, well, we were going to prevent the imminent threat his WMDs presented us, but then there were no WMDs, so then we were freeing the Iraqi people, but they don't want us there... And Saddam isn't causing a genocide or conquering the whole of Europe. Iraq is comparable to world war 2. Genocide, evil dictator, invades his neighbors. Took it easy in the beginning. The only part that isn't like World War 2 is that now there are people like you who don't care that any of those things were happening. I've always wondered if the anti-war crowd was conscious during the months leading up to the war. WMD was one of the reasons. One of the most dangerous reasons. To think we were going in just for that is crazy. The many other reasons were given since the beginning. You just tend to hype on the parts that are a little shady at the moment. Keep in mind WMD have not been ruled out yet, it may take a while to find out the whole truth about them. But at this point in time you cannot make a decision either way. If you did it would be like saying that there is/isn't a cure for cancer. Just because we haven't found it does not mean it doesn't exist. Besides, the humanitarian reasons are a given. You do not need to tell someone Saddam is an evil bastard that deserves a hell of a lot worse of what he is getting. I want you to tell the Iraqi people that they don't want us there. That is simply false. Every poll ever has said the Iraqis do not want us to leave, and they just want their government in place. I know tons of soldiers that have spent a year or more in Iraq. Every Iraqi they have met is very happy about getting rid of Saddam. There is no way you cannot justify taking out Saddam.
Nodbugger There is no way you cannot justify taking out Saddam. Hmmm. The UN, in their infinite wisdom, somehow saw things differently... EDIT: People want to say that this Iraq thing is like WWII. (I think that's total BS though...) But instead let's look at WWI. Germany was crushed, but the situation wasn't handled properly, and it led to Hitler's Nazi Germany. Destroying Iraq and getting rid of Saddam might just lead to something even worse.
Nodbugger WMD was one of the reasons. One of the most dangerous reasons. Particularly dangerous in the fact that we have demonstrated that Saddam has no WMDs and was disarmed. He also had practically no army. Nodbugger To think we were going in just for that is crazy. The many other reasons were given since the beginning. You just tend to hype on the parts that are a little shady at the moment. Keep in mind WMD have not been ruled out yet, it may take a while to find out the whole truth about them. But at this point in time you cannot make a decision either way. If you did it would be like saying that there is/isn't a cure for cancer. Just because we haven't found it does not mean it doesn't exist. Using the same argument, check inside your laundry hamper and see if there are any WMDs. Let me know if you find any. Nodbugger Besides, the humanitarian reasons are a given. You do not need to tell someone Saddam is an evil bastard that deserves a hell of a lot worse of what he is getting. I assume that you want to go into Darfur, Sudan and resolve that crisis immediately, and that you will then choose to solve the starvation crisis in Africa, which on a humanitarian scale is between 100 to 1,000 times worse than Saddam, including how everyone in Africa will in fact die, instead of just be oppresed. Nodbugger I want you to tell the Iraqi people that they don't want us there. That is simply false. Every poll ever has said the Iraqis do not want us to leave, and they just want their government in place. Can I ask where you found your data, because reality seems to be quite the opposite. Falls Church News Press Also prior to Falluja came a scientific CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of the Iraqi people, the results of which were reported last night. The poll shows that a solid majority of Iraqis think the U.S. operation in Iraq has been "unjustified," and that 57% believe the U.S. forces should leave the country "immediately." Nodbugger I know tons of soldiers that have spent a year or more in Iraq. Every Iraqi they have met is very happy about getting rid of Saddam. There are over 900 dead U.S. soldiers who won't agree with that. Nodbugger There is no way you cannot justify taking out Saddam. Well, international law is one way to justify it, seeing as how Saddam was the head of a sovereign nation. The cost of 270 billion dollars for the U.S. is another way to justify it. And if we have to occupy for five years, as some generals believe, let's call it an even trillion. 900 dead and 8,000 wounded would be justification for some others. Some would justify it with 13,000 dead Iraqis. The near universal condemnation of the civilized world also carries some weight in some places.
Nodbugger The French at the time saw it as acceptable. If they didn't, why did they great us with open arms? No, you are avoiding some key text there, friend. I didn't say all that everyone deemed it unacceptable. Nor did I state that all of them said it WAS acceptable. I said that it differed from person to person. Your logic is flawed, yet again. Quote: The only part that isn't like World War 2 is that now there are people like you who don't care that any of those things were happening. When did he say he didn't care? I don't understand how you people jump to these conclusions and base entire arguments off them. I don't support this war because it was not legal to begin with. That does NOT mean I do not care. Nor does it mean I condone Saddam Hussein. SuperFlyingEngi has his own reasons for whether or not he supports this war or not. If one of them is that he doesn't care, my sincerest apologies. I somewhat doubt that, though. Quote: WMD was one of the reasons. One of the most dangerous reasons. To think we were going in just for that is crazy. The many other reasons were given since the beginning I find this funny. Read this. Where in that speech ANNOUNCING THAT THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO WAR does it give mention to ANY other reasons then WMD? He mentions terrorist ties, yes, but that at no point equates to "terrorists in Iraq? GO GO GO!" If there were other reasons to go to Iraq, don't you think your president would be kind enough to tell the world what they are? I mean, what possible harm is there in saying "Well, we want to liberate the Iraq people from this bad guy." I'll do you another favour, read this. Now, before you go on one of your trademark emotional tirades, I'll pre-empt that for you: Quote: Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties, it's a country with wealth, it's a country that trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists. And our fellow Americans must understand, in this new war against terror, that we not only must chase down al Qaeda terrorists, we must deal with weapons of mass destruction as well. I know Bush is beating around the issue there, but terrorism was NOT the reason (or any reason) to go to war. It was a supposed pre-emptive strike into Iraq to prevent terrorists from getting weaponary and training, as Bush kindly put it. Now that we know those weapons were never confirmed to have existed (from ALL fronts, mind you), you have some technical problems to deal with. So I'm going to challenge you; where, ANYWHERE before the Shock and Awe campaign, did PRESIDENT BUSH (the one who'se in question here) give ANY constitutional (legal) reasons to go to Iraq for anything other than WMD. Before you post, I suggest you carefully read what you're reading to understand the context. Remember, there is a difference between a reason and a reprecussion. I'll show you a good example taken from that question period: Quote: (question): What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq? BUSH: It's a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. ^^ REASON. And the next line: Quote: In order to disarm, it will mean regime change. I'm confident that we'll be able to achieve that objective in a way that minimizes the loss of life. ^^ REPRECUSSION Quote: Keep in mind WMD have not been ruled out yet, it may take a while to find out the whole truth about them. But at this point in time you cannot make a decision either way. You're absolutely right, HOWEVER, when your president says they no doubt DO exist, and use that as a reason for going to war and risking thousands of lives, you have a problem. That's what I mean when I say that Bush went to war on shakey grounds. There was no concrete evidence of Saddam's "stockpiles" of weapons, and the CIA report confirms this. (BTW, have you read it? It's a good read.) Ultimately, regardless of whether or not it was Bush's fault that Iraq had confirmed WMD when they did not (personally, I don't think it is his fault and he was just going off information given to him) is irrelevant. It looks bad for Bush. Welcome to politics, children. Quote: Besides, the humanitarian reasons are a given. No, they are not. If they are, I want to see an invasion into China sometime in the future with no reasons given to the public. Beacuse, you know, you inferred it was a given that communism isn't for everyone. Quote: I want you to tell the Iraqi people that they don't want us there. That is simply false. Every poll ever has said the Iraqis do not want us to leave, and they just want their government in place. Here you go with your generalizations again. The very fact there was a poll proves my point. NOT EVERY IRAQI CITIZEN WANTS AMERICA ON THEIR TURF. Quote: There is no way you cannot justify taking out Saddam. The international law does not justify it. [/quote]
mahkra Nodbugger There is no way you cannot justify taking out Saddam. Hmmm. The UN, in their infinite wisdom, somehow saw things differently... EDIT: People want to say that this Iraq thing is like WWII. (I think that's total BS though...) But instead let's look at WWI. Germany was crushed, but the situation wasn't handled properly, and it led to Hitler's Nazi Germany. Destroying Iraq and getting rid of Saddam might just lead to something even worse. the UN never voted on it. and France was the only country voting 'no' that actually mattered.
International law is slanted towards nations that allow wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians for absolutely no reason beyond "We're making deals with them, so they can do whatever they want to." International law means about as much as a burrito you ate last year.
Or international law is: international law n. A set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and nations. The fact of the matter is that your country agreed to the terms of the UN. If they did not want to be subject to them, then the Unites States should not be part of the UN. You may consider international law to be nothing important, but fortunately a decent portion of the rest of the world disagrees.
Quote: Particularly dangerous in the fact that we have demonstrated that Saddam has no WMDs and was disarmed. He also had practically no army. Prove Saddam does not have WMD. And who disarmed him? Do you seriously think he did it out of the goodness of his heart? What do you mean he had practically no Army? They all surrendered. At the POW camp my dad was at at one point they had over 10,000k Military prisoners. the British Camp down the road was stocked with over 15,000. And thousands were coming in and leaving every day. I think he said there were over 100,000 total prisoners processed while at his camp while he was Quote: Using the same argument, check inside your laundry hamper and see if there are any WMDs. Let me know if you find any. What the hell is your point here? My laundry hamper has never gassed its own clothing, or invaded another laundry hamper to steal it's baking soda. [quote]I assume that you want to go into Darfur, Sudan and resolve that crisis immediately, and that you will then choose to solve the starvation crisis in Africa, which on a humanitarian scale is between 100 to 1,000 times worse than Saddam, including how everyone in Africa will in fact die, instead of just be oppresed.[quote] Now this is funny, I have mentioned the Genocide going on in Sudan for the past 3 years, And no one on any forum cared about it or looked into it. Yet when the news finally starts reporting on it people come out and say Bush is evil for not going there. Well guess what. The UN was put in place to stop Genocides. 2 Genocides are going on under the UNs watch. And they have not done anything about them. It just proves once again the UN is pointless. And another point I would like to make. You say the war in Iraq is not justified. And you are saying if you do one you HAVE to do them all. Doesn't that sound stupid do you? you are against any military action, yet you complain when we don't attack other countries? Am I getting this through to you? We don't have to invade them all in a 2 year period to still do something good. We cannot rid the worlds problems in a few years by ourselves. We do our part. We do what we can. Just because we cannot do us all, according to you makes us bad? What have you been smoking. Quote: Can I ask where you found your data, because reality seems to be quite the opposite. Actually, no reality is exactly what i said. http://www.n00bstories.com/image.fetch.php?id=1140856674 http://www.n00bstories.com/image.fetch.php?id=1403533929 These Iraqi kids look really sad. This Iraqis blog, which would never have existed without this war, Shows how happy he is. http://iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/ Here are some polls. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes%3Bread=34383 Quote: There are over 900 dead U.S. soldiers who won't agree with that. I can guarantee you that every soldier that has gone to Iraq, been killed or injured are very proud of what they have done there. Ever watch Oprah? She went to a military hospital expecting something completely opposite of what they heard. She interviewed soldiers injured in Iraq. One guy lost both legs, another guys entire body was burned. Another guy lost sight in is one eye. Every single one of them said they would go right back to Iraq if they could and they all said they are very proud of what they were part of. Quote: Well, international law is one way to justify it, seeing as how Saddam was the head of a sovereign nation. The cost of 270 billion dollars for the U.S. is another way to justify it. And if we have to occupy for five years, as some generals believe, let's call it an even trillion. 900 dead and 8,000 wounded would be justification for some others. Some would justify it with 13,000 dead Iraqis. The near universal condemnation of the civilized world also carries some weight in some places. 11 Security resolutions are international law. International law calls for the removal of Saddam if any of them were broken. Every single one was broken.
Javaxcx Nodbugger The French at the time saw it as acceptable. If they didn't, why did they great us with open arms? No, you are avoiding some key text there, friend. I didn't say all that everyone deemed it unacceptable. Nor did I state that all of them said it WAS acceptable. I said that it differed from person to person. Your logic is flawed, yet again. Quote: The only part that isn't like World War 2 is that now there are people like you who don't care that any of those things were happening. When did he say he didn't care? I don't understand how you people jump to these conclusions and base entire arguments off them. I don't support this war because it was not legal to begin with. That does NOT mean I do not care. Nor does it mean I condone Saddam Hussein. SuperFlyingEngi has his own reasons for whether or not he supports this war or not. If one of them is that he doesn't care, my sincerest apologies. I somewhat doubt that, though. Quote: WMD was one of the reasons. One of the most dangerous reasons. To think we were going in just for that is crazy. The many other reasons were given since the beginning I find this funny. Read this. Where in that speech ANNOUNCING THAT THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO WAR does it give mention to ANY other reasons then WMD? He mentions terrorist ties, yes, but that at no point equates to "terrorists in Iraq? GO GO GO!" If there were other reasons to go to Iraq, don't you think your president would be kind enough to tell the world what they are? I mean, what possible harm is there in saying "Well, we want to liberate the Iraq people from this bad guy." I'll do you another favour, read this. Now, before you go on one of your trademark emotional tirades, I'll pre-empt that for you: Quote: Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties, it's a country with wealth, it's a country that trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists. And our fellow Americans must understand, in this new war against terror, that we not only must chase down al Qaeda terrorists, we must deal with weapons of mass destruction as well. I know Bush is beating around the issue there, but terrorism was NOT the reason (or any reason) to go to war. It was a supposed pre-emptive strike into Iraq to prevent terrorists from getting weaponary and training, as Bush kindly put it. Now that we know those weapons were never confirmed to have existed (from ALL fronts, mind you), you have some technical problems to deal with. So I'm going to challenge you; where, ANYWHERE before the Shock and Awe campaign, did PRESIDENT BUSH (the one who'se in question here) give ANY constitutional (legal) reasons to go to Iraq for anything other than WMD. Before you post, I suggest you carefully read what you're reading to understand the context. Remember, there is a difference between a reason and a reprecussion. I'll show you a good example taken from that question period: Quote: (question): What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq? BUSH: It's a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. ^^ REASON. And the next line: Quote: In order to disarm, it will mean regime change. I'm confident that we'll be able to achieve that objective in a way that minimizes the loss of life. ^^ REPRECUSSION Quote: Keep in mind WMD have not been ruled out yet, it may take a while to find out the whole truth about them. But at this point in time you cannot make a decision either way. You're absolutely right, HOWEVER, when your president says they no doubt DO exist, and use that as a reason for going to war and risking thousands of lives, you have a problem. That's what I mean when I say that Bush went to war on shakey grounds. There was no concrete evidence of Saddam's "stockpiles" of weapons, and the CIA report confirms this. (BTW, have you read it? It's a good read.) Ultimately, regardless of whether or not it was Bush's fault that Iraq had confirmed WMD when they did not (personally, I don't think it is his fault and he was just going off information given to him) is irrelevant. It looks bad for Bush. Welcome to politics, children. Quote: Besides, the humanitarian reasons are a given. No, they are not. If they are, I want to see an invasion into China sometime in the future with no reasons given to the public. Beacuse, you know, you inferred it was a given that communism isn't for everyone. Quote: I want you to tell the Iraqi people that they don't want us there. That is simply false. Every poll ever has said the Iraqis do not want us to leave, and they just want their government in place. Here you go with your generalizations again. The very fact there was a poll proves my point. NOT EVERY IRAQI CITIZEN WANTS AMERICA ON THEIR TURF. Quote: There is no way you cannot justify taking out Saddam. The international law does not justify it. [/quote] How is it flawed? If we gave up on the first 15 min of d-day because of some casualties Europe would be one big Nazi love fest. Actually no it wasn't "against the law", it was perfectly within the law. 11 Security resolutions. Remember those? Every one broken? Every one calling for severe and immediate action against Saddam? Quote: This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. Quote: Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. Quote: As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near. It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed. Quote: Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation. Quote: The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose. Quote: Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility. Good night, and may God continue to bless America. Ya...that speech mentions NOTHING about liberating the Iraqi people.... How is terrorism not the reason? You don't need to be al-qeda to be a terrorist. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. Saddam was most definitely a terrorist. What do you mean by legal reasons? There are tons of them that you just like to skip overt. In no way was it illegal. No where in American or UN law does it say war is illegal. There is no law anywhere, that the US adheres to, that says you cannot pre-emptively attack a country. We had information, we acted on it. It may be bad but we don't know. As president you simply cannot ignore that information. Especially when you have several countries telling you the same exact things. everything down from that is just bull.
Quote: The fact of the matter is that your country agreed to the terms of the UN. If they did not want to be subject to them, then the Unites States should not be part of the UN. http://www.getusout.org
Wow, I misjudged your ignorance. I really didn't think that you would not be able to comprehend the difference between LAW and MORALITY. Nodbugger How is it flawed? If we gave up on the first 15 min of d-day because of some casualties Europe would be one big Nazi love fest. Don't speak for the French, or anyone for that matter. Any objecters are entitled to their reasons. You CANNOT just say "Yeah, the French (meaning ALL the French) said it was acceptable" because you do not speak for an entire population. You speak for ONE person, yourself. Quote: Actually no it wasn't "against the law", it was perfectly within the law. 11 Security resolutions. Remember those? Every one broken? Every one calling for severe and immediate action against Saddam? It was against the law. Read the UN Charter: The Charter of the United Nations Just because Saddam Hussein violated the 11 Security resolutions you keep bringing up DOES NOT GIVE THE UNITED STATES THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. This is a concept that you cannot seem to grasp. When the police pull you over for speeding and decide to give you a warning instead of a ticket, does that mean that a civilian can legally flag you down and force the ticket on you? It might surprise you, but the United States is NOT the legal police authority of the world just because they have the biggest army. Quote: This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. Remember what I told you to watch for when I said context? Can't you read or comprehend? This is NOT a reason for war. Quote: Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. This is NOT a reason for going to war, either. Quote: As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. Remember what the difference between REASON and REPERCUSSION is? This is a REPERCUSSION, not a REASON. THINK, KID! Quote: In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. These are not REASONS for going to war, either! These are the REPERCUSSIONS of removing Saddam from power. Quote: The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near. Should I be surprised? This is a repercussion as well. Quote: It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed. My God, THIS PROVES MY POINT INSTEAD! Quote: Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation. This too, is NOT a reason for going to war. This is a belief that your government has NO authority to impress on any other nation. As cold as it sounds, THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS. This is just one example of morality and law conflicting. Even more so, these are REPERCUSSIONS to removing Saddam from power, not justification. Quote: The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose. Where is the reasoning? These are goals, not reasons. There is a key difference. Quote: Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility. This isn't a reason for going to war either! Hell, this is just a reiteration of "We are going to protect ourselves". Oh, which by the way is NOT a reason for going to war on shakey grounds. Quote: Ya...that speech mentions NOTHING about liberating the Iraqi people.... Too bad the challange wasn't to find quotes of reference to the reprecussions of going to war. I asked you to find REASONS for war that were not WMD. You failed. Quote: How is terrorism not the reason? You don't need to be al-qeda to be a terrorist. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. Saddam was most definitely a terrorist. Terrorism is not a reason because it was never stated that terrorism was the reason to go to war. Oh, and are you enjoying being force fed what FOXnews tells you? Saddam Hussein is not a terrorist. He is a heartless, remorseless, cruel person and dictator, but he is not a terrorist. ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Saddam Hussein, whether to want to believe it or not, was the LEGAL head of the sovreignty of Iraq. Anything he does in the context of "coercing societies or governments" is an act of the government of Iraq, not of "Saddam Hussein" exclusively. Notice how Bin Laden was not the ruler of any nation but used unlawful force and violence against GOVERNMENTS for his own idelogical reasons? Quote: What do you mean by legal reasons? There are tons of them that you just like to skip overt. In no way was it illegal. No where in American or UN law does it say war is illegal. There is no law anywhere, that the US adheres to, that says you cannot pre-emptively attack a country. The Charter of the United Nations says otherwise. The link is provided for you above. Oh, and it might startle you, but the US is supposed to adhere to the UN Charter. I mean, they DID agree to it, afterall. Quote: We had information, we acted on it. It may be bad but we don't know. As president you simply cannot ignore that information. Especially when you have several countries telling you the same exact things. I am not debating who's to blame for the misinformation. I'm telling you that the action was illegal. And according to international law, it was. Quote: everything down from that is just bull. lol. And you're the one saying that I skip over facts. Tell you what, why don't you try not bouncing around an issue with your "UR RONG BUT I WONT SAY Y" logic.
Aircraftkiller Quote: The fact of the matter is that your country agreed to the terms of the UN. If they did not want to be subject to them, then the Unites States should not be part of the UN. http://www.getusout.org Good luck with that.
Javaxcx Wow, I misjudged your ignorance. I really didn't think that you would not be able to comprehend the difference between LAW and MORALITY. Nodbugger How is it flawed? If we gave up on the first 15 min of d-day because of some casualties Europe would be one big Nazi love fest. Don't speak for the French, or anyone for that matter. Any objecters are entitled to their reasons. You CANNOT just say "Yeah, the French (meaning ALL the French) said it was acceptable" because you do not speak for an entire population. You speak for ONE person, yourself. Quote: Actually no it wasn't "against the law", it was perfectly within the law. 11 Security resolutions. Remember those? Every one broken? Every one calling for severe and immediate action against Saddam? It was against the law. Read the UN Charter: The Charter of the United Nations Just because Saddam Hussein violated the 11 Security resolutions you keep bringing up DOES NOT GIVE THE UNITED STATES THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. This is a concept that you cannot seem to grasp. When the police pull you over for speeding and decide to give you a warning instead of a ticket, does that mean that a civilian can legally flag you down and force the ticket on you? It might surprise you, but the United States is NOT the legal police authority of the world just because they have the biggest army. Quote: This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. Remember what I told you to watch for when I said context? Can't you read or comprehend? This is NOT a reason for war. Quote: Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. This is NOT a reason for going to war, either. Quote: As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. Remember what the difference between REASON and REPERCUSSION is? This is a REPERCUSSION, not a REASON. THINK, KID! Quote: In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. These are not REASONS for going to war, either! These are the REPERCUSSIONS of removing Saddam from power. Quote: The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near. Should I be surprised? This is a repercussion as well. Quote: It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed. My God, THIS PROVES MY POINT INSTEAD! Quote: Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation. This too, is NOT a reason for going to war. This is a belief that your government has NO authority to impress on any other nation. As cold as it sounds, THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS. This is just one example of morality and law conflicting. Even more so, these are REPERCUSSIONS to removing Saddam from power, not justification. Quote: The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose. Where is the reasoning? These are goals, not reasons. There is a key difference. Quote: Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility. This isn't a reason for going to war either! Hell, this is just a reiteration of "We are going to protect ourselves". Oh, which by the way is NOT a reason for going to war on shakey grounds. Quote: Ya...that speech mentions NOTHING about liberating the Iraqi people.... Too bad the challange wasn't to find quotes of reference to the reprecussions of going to war. I asked you to find REASONS for war that were not WMD. You failed. Quote: How is terrorism not the reason? You don't need to be al-qeda to be a terrorist. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. Saddam was most definitely a terrorist. Terrorism is not a reason because it was never stated that terrorism was the reason to go to war. Oh, and are you enjoying being force fed what FOXnews tells you? Saddam Hussein is not a terrorist. He is a heartless, remorseless, cruel person and dictator, but he is not a terrorist. ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Saddam Hussein, whether to want to believe it or not, was the LEGAL head of the sovreignty of Iraq. Anything he does in the context of "coercing societies or governments" is an act of the government of Iraq, not of "Saddam Hussein" exclusively. Notice how Bin Laden was not the ruler of any nation but used unlawful force and violence against GOVERNMENTS for his own idelogical reasons? Quote: What do you mean by legal reasons? There are tons of them that you just like to skip overt. In no way was it illegal. No where in American or UN law does it say war is illegal. There is no law anywhere, that the US adheres to, that says you cannot pre-emptively attack a country. The Charter of the United Nations says otherwise. The link is provided for you above. Oh, and it might startle you, but the US is supposed to adhere to the UN Charter. I mean, they DID agree to it, afterall. Quote: We had information, we acted on it. It may be bad but we don't know. As president you simply cannot ignore that information. Especially when you have several countries telling you the same exact things. I am not debating who's to blame for the misinformation. I'm telling you that the action was illegal. And according to international law, it was. Quote: everything down from that is just bull. lol. And you're the one saying that I skip over facts. Tell you what, why don't you try not bouncing around an issue with your "UR RONG BUT I WONT SAY Y" logic. A 'repercussion' is a reason you jackass. If we go in this will happen. That is a reason. No you not fucking understand that? They are reasons whether you like it or not. Everyone knew Saddam did horrible things. He did not need to make that case as often. What many people did know his his use and willingness to use wmd. So that was pointed out many times. Like I said before, If you are a president and England, Russia, CIA, and many other countries tell you Saddam has wmd. Do you just ignore that?
re·per·cus·sion n. An often indirect effect, influence, or result that is produced by an event or action ^ That is not a reason. That is an effect to an act. The act must be justified with a reason. rea·son n. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction I've made it fairly clear that the act is not justified. It's not my fault that you don't understand that. But hey, you didn't know what "objective" meant either, so this is hardly surprising. Not only that, but I have never said that Saddam's actions were not horrible. You're still bouncing around the issue. Not only THAT, but I never blamed Bush for acting on misinformation. I said that I DIDN'T blame him. LEARN HOW TO READ.
So we then what is your problem?? what are you bitching about? Lets go back before we invaded. We know nothing about what is happening now. Many countries say Saddam has wmd, no evidence point opposite. Saddam is evil. We can liberate Iraqi people. What do you do? You have 3 reasons to go to war. 2 endanger you and the people you were hired to protect. The other is a good deed that will benefit millions of people. There is no way to not justify Iraq. And where are you getting this repercussion shit from. Liberating the Iraqi people is a reason to go to war. Same with freeing the French, Chinese, Austrians, Polish, Russians, Korean, Vietnamese and countless other countries taken over by Hitler. They were not just a bi-product. They were a reason to go to war.
Nodbugger So we then what is your problem?? what are you bitching about? Remember kid, you were the one who thought a reprecussion was a reason. I merely corrected you, as I've been doing all night. Quote: Lets go back before we invaded. We know nothing about what is happening now. Gladly. I'll go to March 17th, 2003. Quote: Many countries say Saddam has wmd, no evidence point opposite. I could argue that, but I'll humour you. Quote: Saddam is evil. Undisputable. But not a reason to go to war. It wasn't stated this was a reason to go to war on the 17th OR before. Quote: We can liberate Iraqi people. Again, not a reason to go to war. Read the transcripts. At no point does Bush even infer that "we are going to Iraq for the reason to liberate the people." Quote: What do you do? You have 3 reasons to go to war. I have "1" reason to go to war as of the 17th of March, 2003. Quote: 2 endanger you and the people you were hired to protect. The other is a good deed that will benefit millions of people. One reason endangers people. The other two "reasons" are repercussions of the first. Quote: There is no way to not justify Iraq. I've stated many times now that the International Law that the United States AGREED to proves this war is not justified. Also the lack of WMD that were promised in stockpiles, but I see no need to kick a dead horse. Quote: And where are you getting this repercussion shit from. Liberating the Iraqi people is a reason to go to war. No it was not. You are taking information from those speechs that was not ever there. Quote: Same with freeing the French, Chinese, Austrians, Polish, Russians, Korean, Vietnamese and countless other countries taken over by Hitler. The reasons for going to Iraq and the reasons for taking out Hitler are completely different. This point is moot. Quote: They were not just a bi-product. They were a reason to go to war. No, they were not. Stop arguing in a circle, it grows tiresome.
I'm going to stop arguing with you. You are just too stupid to realize that Liberating an oppressed people is a reason to go to war. And I pointed out to you several times bush said them as reasons. You are one of the reasons Canada can kiss my ass.
And people such as yourself are the reasons that Bush should not get a second term. Oh, and by the way, he didn't. You're making up information... again.
Javaxcx And people such as yourself are the reasons that Bush should not get a second term. Oh, and by the way, he didn't. You're making up information... again. Quote: This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. Quote: Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. Quote: As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near. It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed. Quote: Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation. Quote: The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose. Quote: Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility. Good night, and may God continue to bless America. Yep, Bush never mentioned liberating Iraq nor did he mention freeing them.... Are you really that stupid....?
First of all, you said you were going to stop arguing. Second of all, those are not reasons. Read the definition of reason that I so kindly provided and re-read what you've highlighted. They do not go hand in hand at all. They DO however, fit under the "reprecussion" category.
Quote: rea·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rzn) n. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because. See Usage Note at why. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence. Good judgment; sound sense. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason. Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument. We want to go to war. Why? To free Iraqis. It is a reason jackass. Quote: re·per·cus·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rpr-kshn, rpr-) n. An often indirect effect, influence, or result that is produced by an event or action. A recoil, rebounding, or reciprocal motion after impact. A reflection, especially of sound. The liberation of Iraqis is no no way indirect. Once again you lose.
He's got you there Nodbugger. Not once did any quote you provide state that the REASON for going to war was to free them. All that you quoted was him saying that because of the war, the Iraqi people would be free. Bush is basically saying "Saddam is a bad man, this war will remove him from power and you will be free". He did NOT say "We are going to war in order to free you from Saddams tyrrany". Had that been the case, any presumtions of WMD's, terrorist connections or whatever, would not have been needed. As for the whole "justification" of it, sure you can justify it, but most arguements of any value lean towards the side that it was an illegal war in the first place. I don't care how much you justify what was done, or the good that came out of it, it was still illegal. The UN said not to invade, yet America did it anyways. I could also care less if you agree with it or not. You're a part of the group, you obey their rules. Don't like it, leave. But until then, you have no choise. It's the same regardless of any group you belong to. You belong to these forums, you obey the rules. You live in America, you obey it's rules. You live in Iraq, you obey it's rules. Now that's not to say that rules can not be changed, but in order to do that you have to be in power. You can't just end up getting caught breaking the rules (lets say, creating a resistance in Iraq under Saddam), then state that "We had good intentions". I highly doubt that would have any chance of freeing you, even in America.
President Bush never inferred that "we are going to war to liberate Iraqi people". You're misundertanding those transcripts. The liberation of the Iraqi people is a REPERCUSSION of invading Iraq to disarm. The Bush ideology is here: "Saddam's weapons are a threat, and he refuses to disarm them. So we will disarm these weapons for him (<-- WARNING: REASON FOR WAR). By doing this, Saddam's regieme will be toppled because he will go down fighting. And because of that, the Iraqi people will be free." That does NOT mean that freeing the Iraqi people is a reason. It means that freeing the Iraqi people is an EFFECT from the CAUSE of going to war on the premise of finding weapons that Saddam is not supposed to have. I've proven myself logically, etymologically, and legally. You have done nothing but misinterpret information, misconstrued the meaning of simple words (even with definitions provided), and pertained to this awfully emotional stance to justify your leader's violation of international law. Let me put it in simple terms for you: YOU CANNOT BREAK LAWS BECAUSE YOU THINK THEY ARE UNJUST. IF YOU DO YOU WILL STILL SUFFER THE REPERCUSSIONS (OMG! There it is again!) OF VIOLATING SAID LAWS.
warranto He's got you there Nodbugger. Not once did any quote you provide state that the REASON for going to war was to free them. All that you quoted was him saying that because of the war, the Iraqi people would be free. Bush is basically saying "Saddam is a bad man, this war will remove him from power and you will be free". He did NOT say "We are going to war in order to free you from Saddams tyrrany". Had that been the case, any presumtions of WMD's, terrorist connections or whatever, would not have been needed. As for the whole "justification" of it, sure you can justify it, but most arguements of any value lean towards the side that it was an illegal war in the first place. I don't care how much you justify what was done, or the good that came out of it, it was still illegal. The UN said not to invade, yet America did it anyways. I could also care less if you agree with it or not. You're a part of the group, you obey their rules. Don't like it, leave. But until then, you have no choise. It's the same regardless of any group you belong to. You belong to these forums, you obey the rules. You live in America, you obey it's rules. You live in Iraq, you obey it's rules. Now that's not to say that rules can not be changed, but in order to do that you have to be in power. You can't just end up getting caught breaking the rules (lets say, creating a resistance in Iraq under Saddam), then state that "We had good intentions". I highly doubt that would have any chance of freeing you, even in America. The UN never voted, get your head out of your ass.
Javaxcx President Bush never inferred that "we are going to war to liberate Iraqi people". You're misundertanding those transcripts. The liberation of the Iraqi people is a REPERCUSSION of invading Iraq to disarm. The Bush ideology is here: "Saddam's weapons are a threat, and he refuses to disarm them. So we will disarm these weapons for him (<-- WARNING: REASON FOR WAR). By doing this, Saddam's regieme will be toppled because he will go down fighting. And because of that, the Iraqi people will be free." That does NOT mean that freeing the Iraqi people is a reason. It means that freeing the Iraqi people is an EFFECT from the CAUSE of going to war on the premise of finding weapons that Saddam is not supposed to have. I've proven myself logically, etymologically, and legally. You have done nothing but misinterpret information, misconstrued the meaning of simple words (even with definitions provided), and pertained to this awfully emotional stance to justify your leader's violation of international law. Let me put it in simple terms for you: YOU CANNOT BREAK LAWS BECAUSE YOU THINK THEY ARE UNJUST. IF YOU DO YOU WILL STILL SUFFER THE REPERCUSSIONS (OMG! There it is again!) OF VIOLATING SAID LAWS. No laws were broken, There were no laws saying though shalt not invade Iraq. And yes they were reasons. e want to free Iraqi people. That is a reason. You can argue that as a result of the invasion this will happen. Which is true. But it is not a repercussion as you state. It is a result, it is a product, and it is a reason.
The definition of "reason" says you are wrong. Your logic is flawed. Did you even read the UN Charter? I'm guessing you didn't, because you're still saying that there are no laws. Seeing how you didn't read that Quaterly Report I posted a while back either, I'll tell you what the charter says in laymen's terms: "You need our authorization before invading another country." No authorization was given.
So a reason for going to war was to free the Iraqi people. Interesting. Though I would have to see some proof to evaluate that statement. Oh, and don't bother quoting what you did before, because as Javaxcx and I have shown, those aren't reasons for going to war, but rather a side effect of it.
Interestingly enough, he agreed that it was a result as well. Too bad he doesn't want to acknowledge what "repercussion" means.
[01] <Javaxcx> Just post that Reason != repercussion Reason is not Repercussion.... SencneS
Javaxcx The definition of "reason" says you are wrong. Your logic is flawed. Did you even read the UN Charter? I'm guessing you didn't, because you're still saying that there are no laws. Seeing how you didn't read that Quaterly Report I posted a while back either, I'll tell you what the charter says in laymen's terms: "You need our authorization before invading another country." No authorization was given. How does the definition of reason prove me wrong. We want a free Iraqi people. So lets invade Iraq. If we want Iraq to be free, we must invade. In order to make Iraq free we must invade. No matter what your little mind comes up with, liberation of the Iraqi people is and was a reason. Security Council resolutions override the charter. Besides, they didn't seem to care when Clinton bombed Iraq or started a military campaign in Somalia. They didn't seem to care about Vietnam, they didn't seem to care about the Iraq-Iraq war. They didn't care about all those little skirmishes in Latin and African countries. The UN doesn't care most of the time. As you can see the UN has not condemned the attack. In fact they have added a section about it to their website. They even passed a new Resolution praising in the invasion and actually looking forward to a free Iraq. http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/381/16/PDF/N0438116.pdf?OpenElement
warranto So a reason for going to war was to free the Iraqi people. Interesting. Though I would have to see some proof to evaluate that statement. Oh, and don't bother quoting what you did before, because as Javaxcx and I have shown, those aren't reasons for going to war, but rather a side effect of it. Repercussion, the Freedom of Iraqis is not an in-direct affect.
Javaxcx Interestingly enough, he agreed that it was a result as well. Too bad he doesn't want to acknowledge what "repercussion" means. repercussion is not a result. Say you are baking a cake, you mix all the ingredients together. If they explode that is a repercussion if they make a cake that is a result.
Nodbugger How does the definition of reason prove me wrong. Because a reason and an indirect result are not the same thing. America went to war for the reason to disarm Iraq. That in NO way directly equates to freeing the Iraqi populas. Etymology proves you wrong. Quote: We want a free Iraqi people. So lets invade Iraq. That was not a reason. This has been proven all ready. Iraq was invaded for the reason to disarm Saddam's weapon arsonal. Because of this fact, (that everyone BUT you seems to unequivocally agree) the rest of your "liberation" points are moot. Quote: Security Council resolutions override the charter. I suggest you read Resolution 1441. The Unites States does not get the authority to override the Security Council. No member of the UN does. Thank God for oligarchies. Quote: Besides, they didn't seem to care when Clinton bombed Iraq or started a military campaign in Somalia. They didn't seem to care about Vietnam, they didn't seem to care about the Iraq-Iraq war. They didn't care about all those little skirmishes in Latin and African countries. The UN doesn't care most of the time. These are irrelevent. None of these have anything to do with the United States violating international law. Whats the solution if you're unhappy? Leave the UN. I for one, would feel safer. Quote: As you can see the UN has not condemned the attack. In fact they have added a section about it to their website. Would you condemn the actions of your biggest contributor? The UN is notorious for this. This doesn't change the fact that international law was agreed to. Quote: They even passed a new Resolution praising in the invasion and actually looking forward to a free Iraq. http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/381/16/PDF/N0438116.pdf?OpenElement Your link doesn't work.
I don't recall Bush saying "I as President, have ordered the immediate invasion of Iraq... but DEFINATELY NOT to free the Iraqi people. If that happens I'ma gonna go cry..." "I'm gonna go pick up a burger" "You got FRIES? YOU DID NOT MENTION THESE FRIES" "I didn't say I wouldn't get them" "YOU ONLY SAID BURGER... BURRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGEEEEERRRRR" *foaming* <Later at the Emergency Room> "What happened to this one?" "Heart attack induced by political angst over a misinformation on fast food" Or something...
Nodbugger warranto So a reason for going to war was to free the Iraqi people. Interesting. Though I would have to see some proof to evaluate that statement. Oh, and don't bother quoting what you did before, because as Javaxcx and I have shown, those aren't reasons for going to war, but rather a side effect of it. Repercussion, the Freedom of Iraqis is not an in-direct affect. And what does that have to do with my statement of wanting proof that the reason for going to war was so that the citezens of Iraq would be freed? I also never once mentioned the word "in-direct effect", I said side effect. These is a difference there. An In-direct effect would be one that occured where it was related to, but not as a result of the actions taken. An imaginary example would be, Because of the war on Iraq, the son of a freed citezen grows up to discover Cold-Fusion. It could of only happened because of the war, but was not a result of the war. A side effect on the other hand, is an expected result of an action taken. The next time you watch a comercial for a new type of medicine, listen to it. What phrase is uttered when they state things that could happen to you if you take it. That's right, "side effects may include..." They're expected to occure because of the action taken. In this case, the "War on Terrorism" (note not 'War to free Iraq') is to remove Saddam from power. A side effect (as it was not the initial reason for going to war [WMD's and terrorism were]) of this is that the Iraqi people will be free from Saddam.
[quote="Doitle"]I don't recall Bush saying "I as President, have ordered the immediate invasion of Iraq... but DEFINATELY NOT to free the Iraqi people. If that happens I'ma gonna go cry..."[quote] Except he didn't say that he DID go for the reason to liberate Iraq.
Exactly! He didn't say either way... After the press leaves on his War declaration day, he mighta spun around in his chair, looked out his window and said "I'm doin' this for you, 2-Pac".
I'd like to point out that if any country sends in troops and military to "Free its people from the current Govenment" is called a coup d'etat. Although its dictionary definition is coup d'é·tat ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k d-tä) n. pl. coups d'état (k) or coup d'états (d-täz) The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority. This is illegal for other countries to do. Samala (SP) is a sovran state of the United States of America. When Clinton sent troops over it was not an act of war but to protect agenst a Civil war or a coup d'etat. Iraq is not a sovran state of the USA non are it's residents. To sent military forces into another country to FREE it's citizen from the current govenment is no worse then a local group of Terroriest trying to overthrow the govenment. Bush and his military machine performed a coup d'etat on a another non-sovran state. THAT is illegal on so many signed documents and peace treadies that the entire world's govenments signed that now make up the UN. What Bush did was illegal on so many levels it's not funny. If anything he should be tried as a war criminal. SencneS
Javaxcx Nodbugger How does the definition of reason prove me wrong. Because a reason and an indirect result are not the same thing. America went to war for the reason to disarm Iraq. That in NO way directly equates to freeing the Iraqi populas. Etymology proves you wrong. Quote: We want a free Iraqi people. So lets invade Iraq. That was not a reason. This has been proven all ready. Iraq was invaded for the reason to disarm Saddam's weapon arsonal. Because of this fact, (that everyone BUT you seems to unequivocally agree) the rest of your "liberation" points are moot. Quote: Security Council resolutions override the charter. I suggest you read Resolution 1441. The Unites States does not get the authority to override the Security Council. No member of the UN does. Thank God for oligarchies. Quote: Besides, they didn't seem to care when Clinton bombed Iraq or started a military campaign in Somalia. They didn't seem to care about Vietnam, they didn't seem to care about the Iraq-Iraq war. They didn't care about all those little skirmishes in Latin and African countries. The UN doesn't care most of the time. These are irrelevent. None of these have anything to do with the United States violating international law. Whats the solution if you're unhappy? Leave the UN. I for one, would feel safer. Quote: As you can see the UN has not condemned the attack. In fact they have added a section about it to their website. Would you condemn the actions of your biggest contributor? The UN is notorious for this. This doesn't change the fact that international law was agreed to. Quote: They even passed a new Resolution praising in the invasion and actually looking forward to a free Iraq. http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/381/16/PDF/N0438116.pdf?OpenElement Your link doesn't work. Every thing I quoted Bush said, we will free Iraq and its people will be happy with democracy and no more torture. How the hell is that not a reason? I can't believe you are seriously this stupid. He said it it is right there. We want to invade to give Iraqis freedom and rights. He says it right there. Why the hell do you keep denying it? If you understood the English language, I said Security council resolutions over ride that charter. 1441 called for immediate action and severe consequences to be taken against Saddam Hussein. And his broke them we followed the law to the word. There is the UNs Iraq home page. http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect Res 1546. Every single one of those is examples of countries belong to the UN violating this so called UN charter. Yes Iraq is a member of the UN. Not so sure about Iran. But Iraq attacked. America attacked places. Never even telling the UN until it was on the news that night. Yet they didn't care then. And they don't care now. They are pointless.
So if he didn't say either way, how does that automatically equate to "We are going to Iraq for the reason to liberate the people"? But I'll play your logic here: Bush went to Iraq a while back to go and give the troops a moral boost. He didn't say that he was going there to find a really cool looking rock. But he never said that he was doing that, either. This was directed at Doitle, btw.
If bush wanted to go to Iraq for a really cool rock, I'd trust his leadership skills. I bet it'd be a really bitchin rock too. Especially if we were goin in for live rock ;P Nodbugger lol That one's pretty cool.
warranto Nodbugger warranto So a reason for going to war was to free the Iraqi people. Interesting. Though I would have to see some proof to evaluate that statement. Oh, and don't bother quoting what you did before, because as Javaxcx and I have shown, those aren't reasons for going to war, but rather a side effect of it. Repercussion, the Freedom of Iraqis is not an in-direct affect. And what does that have to do with my statement of wanting proof that the reason for going to war was so that the citezens of Iraq would be freed? I also never once mentioned the word "in-direct effect", I said side effect. These is a difference there. An In-direct effect would be one that occured where it was related to, but not as a result of the actions taken. An imaginary example would be, Because of the war on Iraq, the son of a freed citezen grows up to discover Cold-Fusion. It could of only happened because of the war, but was not a result of the war. A side effect on the other hand, is an expected result of an action taken. The next time you watch a comercial for a new type of medicine, listen to it. What phrase is uttered when they state things that could happen to you if you take it. That's right, "side effects may include..." They're expected to occure because of the action taken. In this case, the "War on Terrorism" (note not 'War to free Iraq') is to remove Saddam from power. A side effect (as it was not the initial reason for going to war [WMD's and terrorism were]) of this is that the Iraqi people will be free from Saddam. If you even read the definition of repercussion you would know what in-direct effect was. And the operation for Iraq was called Operation Iraqi freedom. If you paid any attention at all you would know this. they dubbed it this before we ever invaded. And no it is not a side effect. It is a reason. Our reason was that we can liberate the Iraqi people if we invade. It is a reason for the invasion and an accomplishment of the invasion.
SencneS I'd like to point out that if any country sends in troops and military to "Free its people from the current Govenment" is called a coup d'etat. Although its dictionary definition is coup d'é·tat ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k d-tä) n. pl. coups d'état (k) or coup d'états (d-täz) The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority. This is illegal for other countries to do. Samala (SP) is a sovran state of the United States of America. When Clinton sent troops over it was not an act of war but to protect agenst a Civil war or a coup d'etat. Iraq is not a sovran state of the USA non are it's residents. To sent military forces into another country to FREE it's citizen from the current govenment is no worse then a local group of Terroriest trying to overthrow the govenment. Bush and his military machine performed a coup d'etat on a another non-sovran state. THAT is illegal on so many signed documents and peace treadies that the entire world's govenments signed that now make up the UN. What Bush did was illegal on so many levels it's not funny. If anything he should be tried as a war criminal. SencneS And you sir are an idiot. If Hitler existed now we would have to leave him in power wouldn't we? We didn't need to leave Milosevic in power did we? Your little thing there is utter shit. When someone as bad as Saddam gets in power I do not care what the fuck some little asshole says. We needed to get rid of Saddam. And no way is getting rid of Saddam illegal. Only an ass rat like you would think so.
Nodbugger, what you quoted Bush saying was everything that would happen as a RESULT of the war. NOT ONCE did he say, "We are going to invade Iraq to free it's people!" -his regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. No reason for war stated... -Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. Nothing stated here about freeing the people as a reason for war, just that the peopel won't be targets.. -As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. 'During the war, we will help you', no reason for going to war stated here either. -In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. Here he states what will happen after the war, not the reason for going to war. -The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near. 'When Saddam is gone, and you'll be free' once again, not a statement for a reason of going to war, just a statement of what will happen as a result. -It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed. Nothing here as well. All he says is that Saddam will be removed. -Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation. Once again, what will happen after the war is over. Nothing stated as a reason for going to war. -The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose. This one would be the closest, but not quite. Oddly enough he doesn't specify the Iraqi people being saved, but rather "peace in that region". But considering it's a "War on Terrorism", all that could stand for is to get rid of all the terrorists "in that region" -Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility. Notice the "Our People"? Not once is it stated that Iraqi people are the reason, but rather to protect "Our People"
Nodbugger Every thing I quoted Bush said, we will free Iraq and its people will be happy with democracy and no more torture. How the hell is that not a reason? Because that is a REPERCUSSION OF DISARMING SADDAM. IT IS NOT A REASON. LOOK AT THE DEFINITION! Quote: He said it it is right there. We want to invade to give Iraqis freedom and rights. He says it right there. Why the hell do you keep denying it? I've denied nothing. I'm telling you that there is a difference between a reason and a repercussion. You're constantly beating around the bush and ignoring WHAT ETYMOLOGY TELLS YOU IS TRUE. I have addressed this and many other statements like this in almost every post of this discussion. I suggest you re-read some of the posts (even though you're likely not to, given this bloody arrogance you're plagued with) to clarify why you are WRONG. Quote: If you understood the English language, I said Security council resolutions over ride that charter. 1441 called for immediate action and severe consequences to be taken against Saddam Hussein. And his broke them we followed the law to the word. If you understood international law, you would know that the United States is not the "World Police". They had no authorization to do what they did. You obviously have STILL not read the charter. Why must you continue you argue in total ignorance? Quote: There is the UNs Iraq home page. http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect Thanks for posting that. I'm currently reading another document that disproves everything you have just said. Once I'm done, I'll post it. Quote: Every single one of those is examples of countries belong to the UN violating this so called UN charter. Yes Iraq is a member of the UN. Not so sure about Iran. But Iraq attacked. America attacked places. Never even telling the UN until it was on the news that night. Yet they didn't care then. And they don't care now. They are pointless. It is irrelevant to whether you think they care or not. Law is still the law.
Nodbugger you're the idiot.. I am not posting opinion I am posting what coup d'etat. You yourself said "The war was about free the people" Did you even look at the definition you stupid ass. :The sudden overthrow of a government: Does Saddam still control Iraq's govenment? No. Is Saddam still considered in the govenment? No. What happen to Saddam to lose his govenement? He was overthrow by the use of Military Force. Who controlled that military force? President and Commander and Chief of the United States of America. Who is the President and Commander and Chief of the United States of America? George W. Bush. As commander of a military force under current USA military code of conduct. Is said Commander responsible for any actions taken by anyone under his command? Yes Did the United States of America military force oversee or partake the military actions of Iraq on Iraq soil? Yes Was the outcome of the military task the result of Loss of current Govenment? Yes Was the loss of Current Govenment requested by the citizen of Iraq though proper channels or requested to the UN for assistance? No. hmmm.... Sounds like a coup d'etat and guess what - That's illegal. Ask any military personal over in Iraq. Is it your duty to perform your action as directed by your commanding officer? They will say "YES" Since the Commanding officer takes resposibility of the actions of his/her soldgers it leads back to Bush... HE is telling the troops to overthrow the Iraq govenment HE is responsible HE is a war ciminal. Plain and simple - if you think otherwise you're a moron.
warranto Nodbugger, what you quoted Bush saying was everything that would happen as a RESULT of the war. NOT ONCE did he say, "We are going to invade Iraq to free it's people!" -his regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. No reason for war stated... -Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. Nothing stated here about freeing the people as a reason for war, just that the peopel won't be targets.. -As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. 'During the war, we will help you', no reason for going to war stated here either. -In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. Here he states what will happen after the war, not the reason for going to war. -The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near. 'When Saddam is gone, and you'll be free' once again, not a statement for a reason of going to war, just a statement of what will happen as a result. -It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed. Nothing here as well. All he says is that Saddam will be removed. -Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, and when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation. Once again, what will happen after the war is over. Nothing stated as a reason for going to war. -The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land, and the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace. That is the future we choose. This one would be the closest, but not quite. Oddly enough he doesn't specify the Iraqi people being saved, but rather "peace in that region". But considering it's a "War on Terrorism", all that could stand for is to get rid of all the terrorists "in that region" -Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent, and tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility. Notice the "Our People"? Not once is it stated that Iraqi people are the reason, but rather to protect "Our People" I feel sorry for your mother. Every single one of those is a reason. Do you not understand that. Hey we want to free the Iraqis so we are going to invade and get rid of Saddam? You people are just bush haters, not matter how much evidence I give you you will never be satisfied because of your blind ideology.
What were the proper channels for getting help when a dictators killing people who oppose him? Are they supposed to stick a leaf blower and a toaster together, tape it to a fedora and wear it and use that to send telepathic messages to the UN? Telepathic messages through the right CHANNELS that follow proper regulations for oppressed peoples telepathic messages? I'm sorry but thats just not 23-Skiddooin...
Nodbugger If you even read the definition of repercussion you would know what in-direct effect was. And the operation for Iraq was called Operation Iraqi freedom. If you paid any attention at all you would know this. they dubbed it this before we ever invaded. And no it is not a side effect. It is a reason. Our reason was that we can liberate the Iraqi people if we invade. It is a reason for the invasion and an accomplishment of the invasion. Ah, ok, so your right about Javaxcx meaning indirect. It doesn't mean anything, as I SPECIFIED side-effect. Interesting how "Iraqi Freedom" Has everything to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorist ties. I'd think "Iraqi Freedom" would mean simply freeing a people..." Well, there's one person who passed among the top of his class in the school of Blind-Follower. As for your retort to Senc, it's complete garbage. If Hitler came into Pwer after the UN was formed, I'm sure the UN would have resolved that it was ok for the war to occur, if not, REGARDLESS OF THE REASON, it would still be illegal to go to war. Here is a question for you: A starving Child steals a loaf of bread to feed his equally starving family. Was it illegal for him to steal it or not?
Quote: Interesting how "Iraqi Freedom" Has everything to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorist ties. I'd think "Iraqi Freedom" would mean simply freeing a people..." Ok how about this, the Iraqi people are free from having the cloud over their head that if their "Cheery" leader happens to go chemical on the US that they wont be Blown the fuck up to the umpteenth grain of fused sand?
Javaxcx Nodbugger Every thing I quoted Bush said, we will free Iraq and its people will be happy with democracy and no more torture. How the hell is that not a reason? Because that is a REPERCUSSION OF DISARMING SADDAM. IT IS NOT A REASON. LOOK AT THE DEFINITION! Quote: He said it it is right there. We want to invade to give Iraqis freedom and rights. He says it right there. Why the hell do you keep denying it? I've denied nothing. I'm telling you that there is a difference between a reason and a repercussion. You're constantly beating around the bush and ignoring WHAT ETYMOLOGY TELLS YOU IS TRUE. I have addressed this and many other statements like this in almost every post of this discussion. I suggest you re-read some of the posts (even though you're likely not to, given this bloody arrogance you're plagued with) to clarify why you are WRONG. Quote: If you understood the English language, I said Security council resolutions over ride that charter. 1441 called for immediate action and severe consequences to be taken against Saddam Hussein. And his broke them we followed the law to the word. If you understood international law, you would know that the United States is not the "World Police". They had no authorization to do what they did. You obviously have STILL not read the charter. Why must you continue you argue in total ignorance? Quote: There is the UNs Iraq home page. http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect Thanks for posting that. I'm currently reading another document that disproves everything you have just said. Once I'm done, I'll post it. Quote: Every single one of those is examples of countries belong to the UN violating this so called UN charter. Yes Iraq is a member of the UN. Not so sure about Iran. But Iraq attacked. America attacked places. Never even telling the UN until it was on the news that night. Yet they didn't care then. And they don't care now. They are pointless. It is irrelevant to whether you think they care or not. Law is still the law. For the last fucking time 'An often indirect effect, influence, or result that is produced by an event or action.' The Liberation of the Iraqi people was not an indirect effect. It was not an influence. It was produced by an event or action. But that is not solely what a repercussion is. Our goal was to free the Iraqi people and get rid of Saddam. In order to do that we must invade. For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction. We invade they got liberated. One of our reasons for invasion was for the goal of liberation to be accomplished. I do not care what 'ETYMOLOGY' says. I am saying our goal in Iraq was to Get rid of Saddam and Liberate Iraqis. I also do not care what the charter says. As I have said before. A Security Resolution totally over rides everything else. a Vote is not necessary to enact on a Resolution. We just wanted to tell them our idea and we will do it if they vote or not. The UN failed to do their job. So we did it for them. In no way was it illegal. Saddam was illegal. Saddam is the one you should be protesting. He is the war criminal. Why don't you peace loving hippies go protest him? Oh ya, Republican are so much More evil than murderous genocidal dictators.
Nodbugger I feel sorry for your mother. Every single one of those is a reason. Do you not understand that. Hey we want to free the Iraqis so we are going to invade and get rid of Saddam? You people are just bush haters, not matter how much evidence I give you you will never be satisfied because of your blind ideology. Ah, can't think of anything better to say, so you attempt to insult my mother? If it were a REASON for going to war, Bush would have said "We are going to war to free the iraqi people!" Instead he stated. " We are going to war because Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction and ties to Terrorism!" Never ONCE in all the news I have read about it was "Freeing Iraq" a stated reason. Oh yes... Quote: You people are just bush haters, not matter how much evidence I give you you will never be satisfied because of your blind ideology. Crimson, Blazer, Aircraftkiller, Javaxcx and the rest of you, I hate you! I disagree with something you did, so I automatically hate you now! :rolleyes: I mean, grow up nodbugger. If you want to talk about blind ideologies, look at yourself. You read into whatever Someone says inorder for it to agree with your idea's. Look at it word for word and tell me it states that freeing iraq is a reason for going to war. NOWHERE does it say that. Not ONCE in ALL you quoted did it say "We are going to war to free you". ALL it states is that "Because of the war, you will be free". Thats a BIG difference.
warranto Nodbugger If you even read the definition of repercussion you would know what in-direct effect was. And the operation for Iraq was called Operation Iraqi freedom. If you paid any attention at all you would know this. they dubbed it this before we ever invaded. And no it is not a side effect. It is a reason. Our reason was that we can liberate the Iraqi people if we invade. It is a reason for the invasion and an accomplishment of the invasion. Ah, ok, so your right about Javaxcx meaning indirect. It doesn't mean anything, as I SPECIFIED side-effect. Interesting how "Iraqi Freedom" Has everything to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorist ties. I'd think "Iraqi Freedom" would mean simply freeing a people..." Well, there's one person who passed among the top of his class in the school of Blind-Follower. As for your retort to Senc, it's complete garbage. If Hitler came into Pwer after the UN was formed, I'm sure the UN would have resolved that it was ok for the war to occur, if not, REGARDLESS OF THE REASON, it would still be illegal to go to war. Here is a question for you: A starving Child steals a loaf of bread to feed his equally starving family. Was it illegal for him to steal it or not? Iraqi Freedom was the name of the operation. As operation Over lord d-day and Operation Desert Storm was the Gulf War. Bush did not name it. The military named it. I have 35 t-shirts my dad and other friends in Iraq bought there that say Operation Iraq Freedom on them. How in any way am I a blind follower? Who Am I following blindly? Saddam was an asshole. If any other president was in charge and did the same thing as Bush I would support that decision. I do not blindly follow people. Why would they vote for it? In 1933 if the UN was around Hitler hadn't done anything wrong yet. Fast Forward to 1939 and so far, what we know about, has has done exactly what Saddam has done. And that was enough to start a war. After that we found out he murdered 12 million people. If you knew were in charge in 1933 and you knew what Hitler was going to do would you pre-emptively attack him? Now after getting rid of Saddam we no longer have to wonder what he may do. The most he can do now is walk 4 week in any direction. And yes, stealing is stealing. how ever we did not break any law.
warranto Nodbugger I feel sorry for your mother. Every single one of those is a reason. Do you not understand that. Hey we want to free the Iraqis so we are going to invade and get rid of Saddam? You people are just bush haters, not matter how much evidence I give you you will never be satisfied because of your blind ideology. Ah, can't think of anything better to say, so you attempt to insult my mother? If it were a REASON for going to war, Bush would have said "We are going to war to free the iraqi people!" Instead he stated. " We are going to war because Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction and ties to Terrorism!" Never ONCE in all the news I have read about it was "Freeing Iraq" a stated reason. Oh yes... Quote: You people are just bush haters, not matter how much evidence I give you you will never be satisfied because of your blind ideology. Crimson, Blazer, Aircraftkiller, Javaxcx and the rest of you, I hate you! I disagree with something you did, so I automatically hate you now! :rolleyes: I mean, grow up nodbugger. If you want to talk about blind ideologies, look at yourself. You read into whatever Someone says inorder for it to agree with your idea's. Look at it word for word and tell me it states that freeing iraq is a reason for going to war. NOWHERE does it say that. Not ONCE in ALL you quoted did it say "We are going to war to free you". ALL it states is that "Because of the war, you will be free". Thats a BIG difference. If it was not a reason...why was it mentioned so many times. And for a big 'duh factor' here, in order for us the Free Iraq we had to invade. You could not flip that around. Liberation is a product of invasion. How ever our reason for invasion was the product of liberation. It goes back to my cake analogy. For you to get a cake you need to put ingredients together. You cannot flip it around. So in order to a get a cake you need to mix the ingredients. your reason for mixing the ingredients was to form a cake.
hmm.. now you've confused me. I though you were saying that the name was designed so because the purpose of the war was to free Iraq. So using that logic, "Operation Overlord" was an operation to... Over the Lord? Thats the only reason I could think of for you to make the connection between the two... Here's a hint: the name of the operation does not automatically mean it's the purpose of the Operation. Your right, in 1933 when Hitler was doing whatever, noone would have done anything. Infact, no one DID anything. Using the past "if you knew" doesn't hold any strength in any sort of arguement. But if you want to... Why didn't Bush go to war as soon as he came to office? I mean, Saddam had already been in power for a while, and everyone knew the stuff he had done. Infact, why didn't Bush Sr do something about it seeing as he was mere miles from his front door? Infact, if you want to argue semantics about Hitler, the US sat back and WATCHED Hitler murder thousands, only entering the war when Japan attacked, and Germany declared war on the US as a result of the two countries being allies. Millions of people dead, and the United States of America did absolutely nothing about it, even though they knew what was going on... stealing is stealing, and yes that means the thief broke the law. I'm glad you can see that. It's unfortunate however that you fail to see how it connects to the topic at hand. The UN had stated that the US could not enter Iraq (Bush even recognized this in one of his speaches [Javaxcx has it, perhaps he can enlighten you to it's content]), yes the chose to do so, Violating the UN's desicion... the law was broken right then and there, regardless of the "noble" and "Virtuous" reasons Bush had. Edit: as it's a short retort to what you just posted, I'll do this rather than make a new post. Since when did "outcome" automatically mean "reason" as you seem to suggest by your cake analogy? Just because 'freedom' was an outcome doesn't mean it was the reason for going in. As for the cake analogy, it's flawed in regards to this anyways. Look at it like this: I'm assuming cake=freedom here. Try baking a cake by puting a cake in first.. it doesn't work does it? Freedom was an outcome of the war (a side effect, but an outcome). It wasn't a reason for the war though, for the reasons I've given many times over.
Nodbugger 'An often indirect effect, influence, or result that is produced by an event or action.' The Liberation of the Iraqi people was not an indirect effect. It was not an influence. It was produced by an event or action. Yeah, too bad that is exactly what a repercussion is. And you've solidly disproven yourself and acknowlegded my point. The reason to go to war, as stated by your President, was to disarm Iraq. The REPERCUSSION (side-effect, indirect action, consequence, what have you!) of that disarmiment IS THAT IRAQ'S PEOPLE ARE FREE FROM SADDAM'S TYRANNY. You seem to be forgetting, and often misunderstanding, that your president did NOT say "we are going to Iraq to free the people". My God, he doesn't even infer that! Why is this so hard for you to grasp!? Quote: Our goal was to free the Iraqi people and get rid of Saddam. In order to do that we must invade. A goal and a reason are not the same thing. Goal n. The final purpose or aim; the end to which a design tends, or which a person aims to reach or attain. reason n. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction Your goal in school might be to get a high mark. That is not your reason you're going to school. Your reason might be any number of things: complete school, get a good job, etc. Stop arguing with words you don't even know how to use. Quote: For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction. We invade they got liberated. One of our reasons for invasion was for the goal of liberation to be accomplished. THAT IS A REPERCUSSION. Cause: Invade Iraq on pretense of disarmament. Effect: No weapons (at all, really) No Saddam Iraqi Freedom That does NOT equate to "liberation = reason". You are perverting the English language. Quote: I do not care what 'ETYMOLOGY' says. I am saying our goal in Iraq was to Get rid of Saddam and Liberate Iraqis. Etymology tells you how to use language. Something you obviously have difficulty with. YOU yourself can have goals of liberating Iraq, but they are not reasons to go to Iraq. Your President said that the weapons were the reason, not the people. Quote: I also do not care what the charter says. As I have said before. A Security Resolution totally over rides everything else. a Vote is not necessary to enact on a Resolution. We just wanted to tell them our idea and we will do it if they vote or not. Sorry friend, the law says otherwise. Stop ignoring the link to the Charter I provided. It will clarify everything for you. Quote: The UN failed to do their job. So we did it for them. You are not authorized by the laws you agreed to invade Iraq. The charter clarifies this, and so does this document I'm reading. It's pretty good. Quote: In no way was it illegal. Yes it was. You're pertaining to your ignorance again, kid. Quote: Saddam was illegal. Saddam is the one you should be protesting. He is the war criminal. I don't need to protest Saddam anymore. It is unequivocally agreed by a large majority (including myself) that Saddam was evil. Quote: Oh ya, Republican are so much More evil than murderous genocidal dictators. Nope, there you go with your generalizations again. Crimson is republican, and I don't think she is evil.
World War II Agreement (1942) - British landing in North Africa Alphabet - (year?) evacuation of British troops from Norway Ambassador (1940) - British commando raid on Guernsey Amherst (1945) - British airborne raid in the Netherlands Anvil (1944) - invasion of Southern France. Name later changed to Dragoon Anthropoid (1942) British assassination of Reinhard Heydrich. Archery (1941) - British commando raid on Maaloy, Norway Artur ("Arthur") (1941) - German plan to support IRA activities Attila (1940) - German seizure and occupation of Vichy France Avalanche (year?) - Allied landings near Salerno, Italy Boardman (year?) - deception operation for Avalanche Barbarossa (1941) - German invasion of the Soviet Union Platinfuchs ("Platinum Fox") (1941) - German attack towards Murmansk from Finnish Petsamo Polarfuchs ("Polar Fox") (1941) - German attack towards Kandalaksha from Finnish Lapland Basalt (1942) - British raid on Sark Baytown - Allied landings in Calabria, Italy Bertram - part of the Second Battle of El Alamein Begonia (1943) - British POW rescue in Italy Birke ("Birch") (1944) - German plan to withdraw from northern Finland prior to the Lapland War Birkhahn ("Black Cock") (1945) - German withdrawal from Norway Biting (1942) - Commando raid on radar site in France Blau ("Case Blue") (1942) - German offensive in the southern USSR Blücher (1942) - German campaign in the Caucasus Bodenplatte ("Baseplate") (1945) - German aerial attack on 27 Allied airbases Büffel (1940) - German operation to relieve troops in Narvik, Norway. Candytuft (1943) - British raid on the Italian east coast Canuck (1945) - SAS operation near Turin Cerberus (1942) - escape of German capital ships from Brest to home ports in Germany Chariot (1942) - British raid on Saint Nazaire Chastise (1943) - attack on German dams Clawhammer (1942) - planned commando raid on a radar site in France Claymore (1941) - British raid on Norwegian islands Cobra (1944) - American breakout from Normandy Dunhill (1944) - SAS operations in Normandy to support Cobra Cold Comfort (1945) - British raid on rail lines in Italy Colossus (1941) - airborne raid against rail targets in Italy Compass (1940) - British counteroffensive in North Africa Cooney - French commando raid Crusader (1941) - British attempt to relieve Tobruk Deadlight (1945) - postwar scuttling of U-boats Defoe (1944) - SAS patrols in Normandy Donnerschlag ("Thunderclap") (1942) - planned breakout of the German 6th Army from Stalingrad Downfall (1945) - planned invasion of Japan Olympic (planned for 1945, not executed) - first of two prongs of the invasion of Japan Coronet (planned for 1945, not executed) - second of two prongs of the invasion of Japan Dragoon (1944) - Allied landing in southern France Dove - gliderborne component of Dragoon Span - deception operation in support of Dragoon Driftwood (1944) - failed raid on rail targets north of Rome Drumbeat (1942) - German U-boat attack on east coast shipping of the United States Dynamo (1940) - British evacuation from Dunkirk Edelweiss (1942) - proposed German capture of the oil fields of Baku Eisenhammer (1943) - plan to destroy Soviet power generators in Moscow and Gorky (not the same as Iron Hammer) Epsom (1944) - British assault west of Caen, Normandy Fall Blau ("Case Blue") (1942) - German offensive in the southern USSR Fall Gelb ("Case Yellow") (1940) - German offensive against western Europe Fall Gruen ("Case Green") (year?) - the German invasion of Czechoslovakia Fall Rot ("Case Red") (1935) - German defense plan in case of an incursion by France when Czechoslovakia is invaded Fall Weiss ("Case White") (1939) - German invasion of Poland Felix (1940-41) - planned German invasion of Gibraltar Feuerzauber ("Fire Magic") (1942) - planned German capture of Leningrad Fischereiher ("Heron") (1942) - German offensive to capture Stalingrad Fortitude (1944) - Allied deception in Europe Foxley (year?) - a plan to kill Adolf Hitler that was never carried out Frankton (1942) - commando raid on shipping port in France Frühlingserwachen ("Spring Awakening") (1945) - German counterattack against Russian forces in Hungary Gaff (1944) - attempt to kill Erwin Rommel Gauntlet (1941) - raid on Spitzbergen Goodwood (1944) - British breakout attempt from Normandy Greif ("Grab") (1944) - German troops disguised as Allied soldiers during Battle of the Bulge Grenade (1945) - American/Canadian crossing of the Rhine Grün [1] ("Green") (year?) - the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia Grün [2] ("Green") (1940) - decoy invasion of Ireland in conjunction with Seelöwe Gunnerside (1943) - raid on a Norwegian heavy water plant Habakkuk (year?) - project to construct an aircraft carrier out of ice Operation Herbstnebel Herbstreise ("Autumn Journey") (1940) - decoy invasion of Scotland Herkules (1942) - planned Axis airborne invasion of Malta Wacht am Rhein ("Watch on the Rhine") (1944) - German counteroffensive in the Ardennes (in Belgium, Luxembourg and France); the Battle of the Bulge Husky (1943) - Allied invasion of Sicily Ikarus (1940) - planned German invasion of Iceland Juno (1940) - German naval operation to disturb allied supplies to Norway. Lachsfang (1942) - Proposed combined German and Finnish attack against against Kandalaksha and Belomorsk. Lightfoot (1942) - first attack by the British at El Alamein Lost (1944) - British raid on Brittany Loyton (1944) - large SAS patrol in French mountains Marita (1941) - German invasion of Greece Margarethe (1944) - German operation to keep Hungary from defecting Manhattan Project ( -1945) - American program to build an atomic bomb Market Garden (1944) - Allied airborne attempt to cross the lower Rhine Merkur ("Mercury") (1941) - German invasion of Crete Mondscheinsonate ("Moonlight Sonata") (1940) - German aerial raid on Coventry Morgenrote ("Dawn") (1944) - German counterattack against Anzio landings Narcissus (1943) - British commando raid Nelson (1944) - cancelled SAS patrol in France Newton (1944) - SAS raid in France Nordlicht [1] ("Northern Lights") (1942) - planned German assault on Leningrad Nordlicht [2] ("Northern Lights") (1944) - German withdrawal from the Kola Peninsula into Norway Nordwind ("North Wind") (1945) - German offensive in the Alsace Overlord (1944) - Allied landings in Normandy Bodyguard - overall deception plan Detroit - American airdrop in Normandy Chicago - American airdrop in Normandy Dingson - Free French commando raid Tonga - British airdrop in Normandy Neptune - landing phase of Overlord Maple - Allied naval minesweeping operations Gambit - British midget submarine operations Lüttich - German counter-offensive at Mortain Pegasus (1944) - Allied rescue of troops after failure of Market Garden Paperclip (1945) - part-military, part-scientific operation to scoop up Nazi scientists, engineers, experiments, prototypes, data, etc., after WWII Paukenschlag ("Beat of the Kettle Drum") (1942) - German U-boat offensive on the east coast of the United States Pedestal Allied convoy to Malta. Plunder (1945) - British crossing of the Rhine Archway - SAS operation to support Plunder Varsity - airborne crossing in conjunction with Plunder Pluto (year?) - construction of undersea oil pipelines between England and France Reinhard (1943) - German reprisals for Anthropoid Renntier ("Reindeer") (1941) - German occupation of Finnish Petsamo Rheinübung ("Exercise Rhine") (1941) - German attacks on Allied shipping conducted by Bismarck and Prinz Eugen Rösselsprung [1] ("Knights Move") (1942) - German naval campaign to sink Arctic convoys Rösselsprung [2] ("Knights Move") (1944) - German attempt to capture Josip Broz Tito Roundup (1942) - planned Allied landings in France Seelöwe ("Sea Lion") (1940) - planned German invasion of Britain Adler ("Eagle") - German air offensive Grün [2] ("Green") (1940) - decoy invasion of Ireland in conjunction with Seelöwe Herbstreise ("Autumn Journey") - decoy invasion of Scotland in conjunction with Seelöwe. Shingle (1944) - Allied landings at Anzio Baobab - commando raid in support of Shingle Chettyford - deception plan to support Shingle Pomegranate (1944) - Raid in support of Shingle Sledgehammer (1942) - planned Allied landings in France Sonneblume - movement of German troops to north Africa as a result of the British Compass Sonnenwende ("Winter Solstice") (1945) - German offensive to relieve Pomerania from Russian forces and halt advance on Berlin Supercharge (1942) - second attack by British at El Alamein Taifun ("Typhoon") (1941) - German autumn offensive to capture Moscow Tanne Ost (1944 ) - failed German attempt to capture Suursaari from Finland Tanne West (1944) - planned German attempt to capture the Åland Islands from Finland Tannenbaum - The planned German invasion of Switzerland. Theseus (1942) - German offensive to drive Allies out of Cyrenaica and Egypt Tiger (1944) - Allied training prior D-Day, near Slapton, England Tombola (1945) - SAS raid in Italy Torch (1942) - Allied landings in North Africa Totalize (1944) - Allied effort to trap German armor in Normandy Watchtower (1942) - U.S. invasion of Guadalcanal Weiss (1939) - German invasion of Poland. Weserübung ("Weser Exercise") (1940) - German invasion of Denmark and Norway Wintergewitter ("Winter Storm") (1942) - German attempt to relieve encircled 6th Army at Stalingrad Zitadelle ("Citadel") (1943) - German counteroffensive at Kursk Zitronella (1943) - German raid against a Norwegian/British station on Svalbard. Zombie (1941) - airborne raid against rail targets in Italy Cold War Era Agatha (1946) - British attack on Hagana and Irgun in Palestine Ajax (1953) - Anglo-British plan for coup in Iran Anadyr - Soviet plan to base nuclear weapons in Cuba; the cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis Argus (1959) - test of nuclear bombs in the upper atmosphere Attila (1974) - Turkish invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus Balak (1948) - smuggling of arms to Israel Blowdown (1963) - Australia/US/UK simulated nuclear explosion in a rain forest Claret (1964) - British patrols into Indonesia El Dorado Canyon (1986) - US strikes against Libya Earnest Will (1987-88) - American protection of Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War Praying Mantis (1988) - U.S. retaliates against Iran for mining frigate. Prime Chance (1987-88) - Special operations to protect Kuwaiti tankers, run largely from barges in the northern Persian Gulf. Entebbe (1976) - Israeli rescue operation at Entebbe, Uganda. Later renamed Jonathan Evening Light (1980) - US attempt to rescue embassy hostages in Tehran Gold (1954) - covert American tunnel under the Berlin Wall Golden Pheasant (1988) - US deployment in Honduras Horev (1948) - Israeli attack in northern Israel Jonathan (1976) - rescue of hostages at Entebbe, Uganda Just Cause (1989) - US invasion of Panama Mongoose (1962) - plan for information gathering, sabotage, civil insurrection and the overthrown of the Cuban government Nimrod (1980) - rescue of hostages in the Iranian embassy, London Northwoods (1960s) - plan to incite war between the United States and Cuba Orion (1960) - DARPA project to design a nuclear pulse propulsion system Peter Pan (1960s) - transfer of Cubans to the U.S. Power Pack (1965) - U.S. deployment in the Dominican Republic Provide Comfort (1991) - relief effort in northern Iraq Restore Hope (1992) - American name for UNITAF, humanitarian intervention in Somalia Silver (year?) - covert British tunnel in Austria Suzannah (1954) - Israeli plan to bomb American interests in Egypt Urgent Fury (1983) - U.S. invasion of Grenada Vittles (1948) - Berlin Airlift Operation Planefare - British part of the Berlin Airlift Post-Cold War Addition (2000) - Canada's contribution to the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) Anaconda (2002) - U.S. sweep in Afghanistan Apollo (2002) - the Canadian Navy's operations in support of United States forces in Afghanistan Assistance (1997) - Canadian assistance to Manitoba after major flooding Athena (2003) - Canadian Forces contribution to ISAF in Kabul. Bljesak ("Flash") (1995) - Croatian offensive against western Slavonian parts of Krajina Boleas (1998) - South African military intervention in Lesotho Bramble Bush (1992) - Israeli plan to kill Saddam Hussein Caravan (year?) - Canadian contribution to the French-led Interim Emergency Multinational Force in the Democratic Republic of Congo Central (1998) - Canada's assistance to Central America after the devastation of Hurricane Mitch Chaperon - Canada's contribution to the United Nations of one military observer (UNMO) Constable (1997) - Canada's contribution to the United Nations Mission in Haiti Deliverance (1993) - Canadian mission to Somalia Desert Shield (1990) - American buildup prior to Gulf War Granby - British codename for operations during Gulf War Desert Storm (1991) - Gulf War Desert Saber - Gulf War ground campaign Determination (early 1998) - Canadian deployment in the Persian Gulf to force Iraq to comply with United Nations inspection agreements Enduring Freedom (2001-2002) - US and UK invasion of Afghanistan Anaconda - US effort to capture al Qaeda members and Talibans in Afghanistan Apollo - the Canadian Navy's operation in support of the United States forces in Afghanistan Athena (2003) Canadian Forces contribution to ISAF in Kabul. Avalanche (December 2003) - US-led offensive of Afghanistan Haven Denial (July 2003) - US and Italian operation against Taliban remnants and Al Qaeda fighters in southeast Afghanistan Headstrong (2003) - British special forces secretly training Afghan commandos to seek out and destroy drug labs Mountain Resolve (launched on November 7, 2003) - US-led operation in Nurestan and Konar provinces, Afghanistan Mountain Viper (late August, 2003) - US-Afghan attack on suspected Taliban forces in Zabul province, Afghanistan Slipper - the Royal Australian Navy's contribution to the invasion of Afghanistan Warrior Sweep (July 23, 2003) - first major military operation of the Afghan National Army Essential Harvest (2001) - month-long NATO mission of disarming ethnic Albanians in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Falklands War: Rosario - Argentine invasion Corporate - British liberation Black Buck - British long-range bombing raid Canbelow - British antiaircraft naval ambush Keyhole - British commando raid Purple Warrior - British training exercise incorporating lessons from the Falklands War Sutton - British amphibious landings Flavius (1988) - SAS action against the IRA in Gibraltar Forage - Canadian contribution to NATO's Essential Harvest Granby (1991) - British codename for operations during the Gulf War Harmony - Canada's contribution to the United Nation Protection Force (UNPROFOR), which was created in February 1992 to ensure the protection and demilitarization of three UN Protected Areas in Croatia Infinite Justice - original name for Enduring Freedom Iraqi Freedom (2003) - US invasion of Iraq Bulldog Mammoth - American search of an apartment complex Iron Hammer - US forces in Iraq "ferreting out" the opposition (not the same as Eisenhammer) Ivy Blizzard - counter insurgency sweep by US forces Ivy Cyclone II - American operation near Tikrit Operation Red Dawn (2003) - American capture of Saddam Hussein Rifles Blitz - border security operations in Iraq Telic - codename for British operations Valiant Resolve (2004) Operations around Fallujah Kinetic - Canada's contribution to NATO's mission KFOR to secure Kosovo and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and to provide humanitarian needs to displaced persons Litani (1978) Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Megaphone - Canada's return of equipment used in Kosovo Oluja ("Storm") (1995) - Croatian offensive against Krajina Northern Watch (1990s) - northern No-Fly Zone over Iraq Peace for Galilee - Israeli invasion of Lebanon Peregrine - British Columbia forest fire fighting assitance by soldiers Persistence (1998) - Canadian operation at Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia to recover bodies after crash of SwissAir Flight 111 Potkova ("Horseshoe") (1999) - Yugoslav army offensive against the KLA Provide Comfort (1991) - security and humanitarian aid to Kurds in northern Iraq Quadrant - Canada's mission in Kosovo Rainbow - Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip in 2004. Record (1991) - Canadian mission to secure Iraqi-Kuwaiti border Recuperation (1998) - Canadian assistance after major snowstorms in eastern Canada Sharp Edge (1990-91) - evacuation of Americans from Liberia Shining Express (2003) - evacuation of Americans from Liberia Southern Watch (1990s) - southern No-Fly Zone over Iraq Slipper - the Royal Australian Navy's contribution to the invasion of Afghanistan Support (September 11-14, 2001) - Canadian Forces operations after terrorist September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks Telic (2003) - British codename for operations against Iraq Torrent (1999) - Canadian assistance after earthquake in Turkey Toucan - Canada's contribution to the United Nations' Internatonal Force in East Timor (INTERFET) and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) Unified Spirite - large NATO exercise held every two years to train the armed forces of member nations in joint and combined operations. Urgent Fury - American Invasion of Grenada Veritas (2001) - British codename for operations in Afghanistan Other/Unknown Artisan - Canadian Forces contribution to the Rinas Airfield Rehabilitation Project in Tirana, Albania Echo - Canada sending air forces to Aviano, Italy to enforce a no-fly zone over Balkan region (UNSFOR and UNKFOR) Eclipse - deployment of Canadian soldiers to east Africa in support of the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) Fusion - Canada's combined contribution to Allied Harmony and Concordia Prudence - Canada's participation in the Mission des Nations Unies dans la République Centrafricaine (MINURCA) Law Enforcement Avalanche (1999) - American anti-pedophilia effort Falcon (2004) - anti-pedophilia raid against companies handling credit card payments Ore (2003) - American led anti-pedophilia effort Pin (2003) - British-led anti-pedophilia effort Other List of amphibious assault operations List of Nuclear Tests Project Daedalus - British Interplanetary Society study to create a plausible design for an interstellar probe Project Jennifer (1974) - CIA lifting of a sunken Soviet submarine Project RAND Project Vanguard Non-military operations Bojinka - terrorist plot by al-Qaida members Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, foiled in 1995 Clambake - anti-Scientology I gotta say they dont all make sense. lol but some definately do. Thus; Operation Iraqi Freedom = Freedom for Iraqi's, Operation Overlord != Over the Lord
warranto hmm.. now you've confused me. I though you were saying that the name was designed so because the purpose of the war was to free Iraq. So using that logic, "Operation Overlord" was an operation to... Over the Lord? Thats the only reason I could think of for you to make the connection between the two... Here's a hint: the name of the operation does not automatically mean it's the purpose of the Operation. Your right, in 1933 when Hitler was doing whatever, noone would have done anything. Infact, no one DID anything. Using the past "if you knew" doesn't hold any strength in any sort of arguement. But if you want to... Why didn't Bush go to war as soon as he came to office? I mean, Saddam had already been in power for a while, and everyone knew the stuff he had done. Infact, why didn't Bush Sr do something about it seeing as he was mere miles from his front door? Infact, if you want to argue semantics about Hitler, the US sat back and WATCHED Hitler murder thousands, only entering the war when Japan attacked, and Germany declared war on the US as a result of the two countries being allies. Millions of people dead, and the United States of America did absolutely nothing about it, even though they knew what was going on... stealing is stealing, and yes that means the thief broke the law. I'm glad you can see that. It's unfortunate however that you fail to see how it connects to the topic at hand. The UN had stated that the US could not enter Iraq (Bush even recognized this in one of his speaches [Javaxcx has it, perhaps he can enlighten you to it's content]), yes the chose to do so, Violating the UN's desicion... the law was broken right then and there, regardless of the "noble" and "Virtuous" reasons Bush had. Overlord was later dropped. But yes, the Operation names do infer what the Operation is about. Desert Storm- Invade Kuwait Desert Shield- Protect Kuwait Desert Fox- Attack Iraq Stealthily Iraq Freedom- Free Iraqis. Overlord- Dominance over everyone Do you seriously think they would name it that if it had nothing to do with freeing Iraqis? Actually it does hold an Argument, Bill Oreilly proved this with Michael Moore. MM admitted he would pre-emptively attack Hitler knowing what he would do. We don't know what Saddam will do, why take the chance? Bush Jr didn't do anything because starting a war you first week in office isn't the best thing to start a presidency on. Bush Sr didn't do it because the UN said no. Remember that High Way of Death thing? American helicopters decimated what was left of the Iraqi military. The attack took place inside Iraq. Actually no. The US did not sit back. Without US supplies, planes, vehicles, gasoline. ammunition...the allies would not have lasted. The Battle of Britain would have been lost if America did not produce almost all of Britain's fighters. We originally developed the P-51 mustang for the British. Besides we entered in 1942. Only two years after Hitler invaded Europe. Were were fighting Japan within weeks of Pearl Harbor. And it took Allied forces 3 more years to develop Operation Over Lord. We did not just sit by and do nothing. And allied soldier knew about the concentration camps until we actually found them. The UN never voted.
Since both are you are complete dumbasses I will do this again, and i will explain every bit of it. And for a big 'duh factor' here, in order for us the Free Iraq we had to invade. You could not flip that around. Liberation is a product of invasion. How ever our reason for invasion was the product of liberation. It goes back to my cake analogy. For you to get a cake you need to put ingredients together. You cannot flip it around. So in order to a get a cake you need to mix the ingredients. your reason for mixing the ingredients was to form a cake. The ingredients/mixing is the invasion, the Cake is Freedom. We want a cake. So we mix ingredients, out pops a cake. Why did we mix ingredients? To get a cake!
Javaxcx Nodbugger 'An often indirect effect, influence, or result that is produced by an event or action.' The Liberation of the Iraqi people was not an indirect effect. It was not an influence. It was produced by an event or action. Yeah, too bad that is exactly what a repercussion is. And you've solidly disproven yourself and acknowlegded my point. The reason to go to war, as stated by your President, was to disarm Iraq. The REPERCUSSION (side-effect, indirect action, consequence, what have you!) of that disarmiment IS THAT IRAQ'S PEOPLE ARE FREE FROM SADDAM'S TYRANNY. You seem to be forgetting, and often misunderstanding, that your president did NOT say "we are going to Iraq to free the people". My God, he doesn't even infer that! Why is this so hard for you to grasp!? Quote: Our goal was to free the Iraqi people and get rid of Saddam. In order to do that we must invade. A goal and a reason are not the same thing. Goal n. The final purpose or aim; the end to which a design tends, or which a person aims to reach or attain. reason n. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction Your goal in school might be to get a high mark. That is not your reason you're going to school. Your reason might be any number of things: complete school, get a good job, etc. Stop arguing with words you don't even know how to use. Quote: For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction. We invade they got liberated. One of our reasons for invasion was for the goal of liberation to be accomplished. THAT IS A REPERCUSSION. Cause: Invade Iraq on pretense of disarmament. Effect: No weapons (at all, really) No Saddam Iraqi Freedom That does NOT equate to "liberation = reason". You are perverting the English language. Quote: I do not care what 'ETYMOLOGY' says. I am saying our goal in Iraq was to Get rid of Saddam and Liberate Iraqis. Etymology tells you how to use language. Something you obviously have difficulty with. YOU yourself can have goals of liberating Iraq, but they are not reasons to go to Iraq. Your President said that the weapons were the reason, not the people. Quote: I also do not care what the charter says. As I have said before. A Security Resolution totally over rides everything else. a Vote is not necessary to enact on a Resolution. We just wanted to tell them our idea and we will do it if they vote or not. Sorry friend, the law says otherwise. Stop ignoring the link to the Charter I provided. It will clarify everything for you. Quote: The UN failed to do their job. So we did it for them. You are not authorized by the laws you agreed to invade Iraq. The charter clarifies this, and so does this document I'm reading. It's pretty good. Quote: In no way was it illegal. Yes it was. You're pertaining to your ignorance again, kid. Quote: Saddam was illegal. Saddam is the one you should be protesting. He is the war criminal. I don't need to protest Saddam anymore. It is unequivocally agreed by a large majority (including myself) that Saddam was evil. Quote: Oh ya, Republican are so much More evil than murderous genocidal dictators. Nope, there you go with your generalizations again. Crimson is republican, and I don't think she is evil. You are so fucking retarded it isn't even funny. I will say it for the last fucking time. UN SECURITY RESOLUTIONS MAKE THE UN CHARTER VOID. EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS COMPLETE AND UTTER SHIT, NOW REVERT TO MY CAKE ANALOGY.
I've got three documents for you to look at. http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/scact2003.htm Please note the far right column: Security Council Action / Vote. The security council debates and votes on ALL of these issues when they meet. That is why and how they work. When it says "no action", it means that the vote did not equate to a resolution. Now look at March 19th, 2003. "NO ACTION". In fact, March 12th, on both Iraq-Kuwait issues, there was NO ACTION perscribed. http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N03/286/04/PDF/N0328604.pdf?OpenElement This is a report of the meeting and the speakers prior to the voting. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7696.doc.htm And that is the press release. All of which prove to you, once and for all that this war is illegal.
Javaxcx I've got three documents for you to look at. http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/scact2003.htm Please note the far right column: Security Council Action / Vote. The security council debates and votes on ALL of these issues when they meet. That is why and how they work. When it says "no action", it means that the vote did not equate to a resolution. Now look at March 19th, 2003. "NO ACTION". In fact, March 12th, on both Iraq-Kuwait issues, there was NO ACTION perscribed. http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N03/286/04/PDF/N0328604.pdf?OpenElement This is a report of the meeting and the speakers prior to the voting. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7696.doc.htm And that is the press release. All of which prove to you, once and for all that this war is illegal. And yet they don't care. Meaning it isn't illegal. Because resolution 1546 praises it. Now fuck off, you lose.
Oh, and another thing. You're still wrong. Resolutions do not make the charter void. They are made in ACCORDANCE to the charter. It's not called "resolution" for no reason. You obviously have no idea how the UN works, either. You're still wrong.
And I'm sure it being called the "War on Terrorism" meant that it was for Iraqi's to be freed, right? Like I stated earlier, had freeing Iraqi citezens been the reason for going to war, ideas of WMD's and Terrorism ties would NEVER of been introduced. And hind-sight arguements don't hold water, in any arguement where you plan to hold any sort of strength. Using your logic, we should execute you, and half the worlds population because we don't know what they'd do. so Bush jr decides to wait over 6 months? And seeing as how you enjoy hind-sight arguements, here's one of my own. Had 9/11 not happened, I somehow doubt he would have invaded. Oh, and sending supplies doesn't mean anything. At least it seems not to when it's Canada doing rather than participating in the war...
Nodbugger And yet they don't care. Meaning it isn't illegal. Because resolution 1546 praises it. Now fuck off, you lose. Consider yourself owned. You won't even read those articles proving you wrong. Just like you won't read documents stating Iraq was disarming. And just like you won't read the UN charter. It doesn't matter what the UN says today. I'm concerned with what happened in March 2003.
Oh, and another thing. Bush did say that Iraq is part of the War on Terror: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/06/bush.speech.transcript/ Quote: (Bush): Iraq is a part of the war on terror.
Oh, so someone praising something makes it less illegal? Where have I head something similar... oh yes, vigilante cases! Law enforcement officials usually praise the work thats being done, publically or not, but when it comes down to that final desicion, IT'S STILL ILLEGAL EVEN IF IT ENDS UP BEING FORGIVEN. LLiberty is the product of invasin, that has never been disputed (so I don't know why you seem to think it has been. It must make you feel better or something?) However, that DOES NOT mean that Liberty is a REASON for invading, it's simply a product.
Javaxcx Oh, and another thing. You're still wrong. Resolutions do not make the charter void. They are made in ACCORDANCE to the charter. It's not called "resolution" for no reason. You obviously have no idea how the UN works, either. You're still wrong. http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm 'Recognizing the threat of Iraq's non-compliance with Council Resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses international peace and security' It is all in Resolution 1441.
warranto And I'm sure it being called the "War on Terrorism" meant that it was for Iraqi's to be freed, right? Like I stated earlier, had freeing Iraqi citezens been the reason for going to war, ideas of WMD's and Terrorism ties would NEVER of been introduced. And hind-sight arguements don't hold water, in any arguement where you plan to hold any sort of strength. Using your logic, we should execute you, and half the worlds population because we don't know what they'd do. so Bush jr decides to wait over 6 months? And seeing as how you enjoy hind-sight arguements, here's one of my own. Had 9/11 not happened, I somehow doubt he would have invaded. Oh, and sending supplies doesn't mean anything. At least it seems not to when it's Canada doing rather than participating in the war... It is the War on Terror. Is Saddam not a terrorist? Your logic is seriously flawed. I am not Saddam. I have not done what Saddam has done. You have no reason to suspect me of anything. Saddam on the other hand.....you get my drift. The Military Operation was called 'Operation Iraq Freedom' You are jackass. Plain and simple. Europe would have failed in 15 minutes if we did not supply them.
I've read Resolution 1441. It does not negate the authority of the Security Counsil. Just like no other Resolution does. But you know, it doesn't give the United States permission to invade other countries either.
Nodbugger Is Saddam not a terrorist? Actually, technically he is not. I addressed this with the definition of Terrorism something like 2 pages ago.
Javaxcx Nodbugger And yet they don't care. Meaning it isn't illegal. Because resolution 1546 praises it. Now fuck off, you lose. Consider yourself owned. You won't even read those articles proving you wrong. Just like you won't read documents stating Iraq was disarming. And just like you won't read the UN charter. It doesn't matter what the UN says today. I'm concerned with what happened in March 2003. I have read them hundreds of times before. I do not need to read them now. Not reading them for the 600th time in no way proves me wrong. I do not care what the charter says. I care what the Security Resolutions say. Because they over ride anything in the charter. Iraq was not disarming. Until a couple months ago we had every reason to believe Saddam Had wmd everywhere. For all we know they are still hiding or were shipped out. But it is 100% fact that as of 2002 they were there.
Javaxcx I've read Resolution 1441. It does not negate the authority of the Security Counsil. Just like no other Resolution does. But you know, it doesn't give the United States permission to invade other countries either. If you are going to stay ignorant don't do it here. Security Resolutions negate the charter.
You keep saying that the resolutions override the security council, yet you have no logical evidence (or any, for that matter) proving it. Just like you have no proof saying that he "100%" had WMD in 2002. Oh, you're still wrong.
Javaxcx Nodbugger Is Saddam not a terrorist? Actually, technically he is not. I addressed this with the definition of Terrorism something like 2 pages ago. Because giving money to Palestinians suicide bombers doesn't make him a terrorist. Killing raping Genocide, naw definitely not terrorism. :rolleyes:
He is acting as the sovriegn leader of Iraq. A GOVERNMENT. THAT IS NOT TERRORISM. TERRORISTS != LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT
Javaxcx You keep saying that the resolutions override the security council, yet you have no logical evidence (or any, for that matter) proving it. Just like you have no proof saying that he "100%" had WMD in 2002. Oh, you're still wrong. Why don't you crawl into a hole and die? Why would they pass a resolution saying We blow blow Saddam up if he doesn't cooperate. If we cannot blow him up? Are you that fucking stupid. I quote...again. For you dumb asses. 'Recognizing the threat of Iraq's non-compliance with Council Resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses international peace and security' Right there Res 1441 written in 2002.
You don't understand how those resolutions work. They are REFERING to previous resolutions before they make the resolution they are writing. It is the way they proof themselves so they don't have to put up with the beaucratic crap associated with "Well, where is your evidence?" And that still doesn't negate the authority of the Security Counsil. So you're still wrong. Oh, and another thing: Ad Hominem is only funny when it's someone witty doing it. You are not.
Javaxcx He is acting as the sovriegn leader of Iraq. A GOVERNMENT. THAT IS NOT TERRORISM. TERRORISTS != LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT Go look up the damn defintion of terrorism. Im done arguing here. You are an idiot and you will not admit it.
I already did. You obviously chose to ignore it. Consider yourself owned, kid. You don't know how the world works. [/i]
Quote: Your logic is seriously flawed. I am not Saddam. I have not done what Saddam has done. You have no reason to suspect me of anything. Saddam on the other hand.....you get my drift. I never stated you were Saddam, I never stated that you had done what he did. All I am saying is that by using your logic of not knowing the future, everyone should be taken care of, simply because they "may" do something. See what I mean by hind-sight arguements not holding any strength? Unless, for whatever reason, it's you providing them :rolleyes: Was he a terrorist? Yes. However, if the plan was to free the peopel of iraq, would the war not have been called something else, and the whole idea of the war NOT revolve around WMD's and terrorist ties? Quite interesting here.. Resolution 1441 also states something else... "Reaffiriming the comittement of all member states soverignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and all the neighboring states." And then again in 1443 (which I'm pretty sure comes after 1441)... "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the soverignty and territorial integrity of Iraq" Kind of suggests that nothing should happen to them... no?
Javaxcx I already did. You obviously chose to ignore it. Consider yourself owned, kid. You don't know how the world works. [/i] I cannot believe I am replying. In no way am I a kid and In no way am I owned. I proved you wrong every single post. any Sane person could see that. You are just too Canadian to admit you were wrong...Isn't is past your bed time?
And Javaxcx, he's right about the terrorist thing... Specifically, "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person against people with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies, often for ideological or political reasons." Edit: sorry Javaxcx, I guess I hate you now. And nodbugger, I severly suggest you watch what you say about Canadians.
warranto Quote: Your logic is seriously flawed. I am not Saddam. I have not done what Saddam has done. You have no reason to suspect me of anything. Saddam on the other hand.....you get my drift. I never stated you were Saddam, I never stated that you had done what he did. All I am saying is that by using your logic of not knowing the future, everyone should be taken care of, simply because they "may" do something. See what I mean by hind-sight arguements not holding any strength? Unless, for whatever reason, it's you providing them :rolleyes: Was he a terrorist? Yes. However, if the plan was to free the peopel of iraq, would the war not have been called something else, and the whole idea of the war NOT revolve around WMD's and terrorist ties? Quite interesting here.. Resolution 1441 also states something else... "Reaffiriming the comittement of all member states soverignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and all the neighboring states." And then again in 1443 (which I'm pretty sure comes after 1441)... "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the soverignty and territorial integrity of Iraq" Kind of suggests that nothing should happen to them... no? We are talking about past events. Saddam did bad things before. We can now get rid of him. So why the hell do you care so much? there is no reason to be against the war. Other than you are just a stupid jackass that needs something to complain about. Sovereignty of Iraq. Not Saddam. Try again jackass.
You have proven nothing, actually. Both Warranto, AND myself have provided evidence. Evidence you have chosen to ignore. Your statements are full of logical fallacy, ad hominem, and false assumptions. And another thing, that's twice now you've said you were done arguing here. And that's now that you've replied thereafter in short succession. Oh, and I know you're a kid, too. A little bird told me. Now scuttle off, you have been owned.
Uhh... Saddam (was) the leader of Iraq. As long as he stayed on Iraqi soil, you could not touch him. When did I ever say I was against the war? Oh, right.. never. I never stated I cared, however your complete ignorance of things being discussed is just astounding. I could care less if Saddam Nuked every country in Europe, if the UN stated that Iraq was not to be touched, INVADING WOULD STILL BE ILLEGAL.