-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Okay, you just lost any credibility whatsoever with this argument. Normally, I stay out of these things because I'm somewhere in the middle on it anyway so both sides end up hating me. This one was just completely reveals how utterly out there you are, though.
Are you really suggesting that the Presidential Administration doesn't really believe that Iran is a legitimate nuclear threat because we didn't blatantly violate a treaty with the U.N. allowing visas and diplomatic immunity to envoys on U.N. business?
Are you really suggesting that he should have put every single one of our diplomats in every single country at risk by violating several centuries of understandings and agreements regarding diplomatic immunity to prove the President of Iran is a legitimate threat to peace?
Nikita Khrushchev was allowed to bang his shoe on his table disrupting the U.N. in New York City in the height of the Cold War....less than two years before the Cuban Missile Crisis. Castro has been several times in the past.
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that our failure to violate long-standing diplomatic immunity principles and agreements is evidence that Bush doesn't view Ahmadinejad as a legitimate nuclear threat and if any war action occurs it's all a sham?
My bet is that you'd be howling about "Cowboy diplomacy" if Bush actually had done anything of the sort. My bet is if he had done something like that you'd be accusing him of doing it to accelerate and ensure the war against Iran rather than to address the problem without actually having a war.
Are you really suggesting that the Presidential Administration doesn't really believe that Iran is a legitimate nuclear threat because we didn't blatantly violate a treaty with the U.N. allowing visas and diplomatic immunity to envoys on U.N. business?
Are you really suggesting that he should have put every single one of our diplomats in every single country at risk by violating several centuries of understandings and agreements regarding diplomatic immunity to prove the President of Iran is a legitimate threat to peace?
Nikita Khrushchev was allowed to bang his shoe on his table disrupting the U.N. in New York City in the height of the Cold War....less than two years before the Cuban Missile Crisis. Castro has been several times in the past.
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that our failure to violate long-standing diplomatic immunity principles and agreements is evidence that Bush doesn't view Ahmadinejad as a legitimate nuclear threat and if any war action occurs it's all a sham?
My bet is that you'd be howling about "Cowboy diplomacy" if Bush actually had done anything of the sort. My bet is if he had done something like that you'd be accusing him of doing it to accelerate and ensure the war against Iran rather than to address the problem without actually having a war.
How about violation of the Gulf War I cease fire between Iraq and the U.S., (not the U.N.) requiring Saddam to allow inspectors into his country on a continuing basis?
Furthermore, why would someone look stupid for suggesting that it might be a good thing to stop and eliminate a dictator that was paying rewards to terrorist suicide bombers that were killing our allies in Israel, attempting to fund such suicide bombers in the U.S., and HAD funded an attempt to assassinate a President of the United States?
Reasonable minds can disagree on whether there was sufficient moral justification to do what was done. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether it was good policy to do so.
You don't do your credibility any good by taking the tact that you have over credible, sensible, rational argument.
Furthermore, why would someone look stupid for suggesting that it might be a good thing to stop and eliminate a dictator that was paying rewards to terrorist suicide bombers that were killing our allies in Israel, attempting to fund such suicide bombers in the U.S., and HAD funded an attempt to assassinate a President of the United States?
Reasonable minds can disagree on whether there was sufficient moral justification to do what was done. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether it was good policy to do so.
You don't do your credibility any good by taking the tact that you have over credible, sensible, rational argument.
Really....so you're arguing that Bush should AGAIN violate U.N. protocols (accepting for a moment he has in the past....something that is not absolutely clear or certain) to prove the President of Iran is a threat.
To place every single diplomat in every single country at risk by violating CENTURIES old principles in order to prove to you he views him as a threat.
That, or assassinate him.
Your argument against Bush is that him not violating international law (again, in your book) proves he doesn't really believe that Iran is a threat. Is that really what you're arguing. If it is, it reveals more about you than it does about Bush.
Yes....the fact that Bush didn't do ANY of those is definitely rational and coherent proof and argument that he doesn't view the President of Iran as a valid nuclear threat to the safety of the U.S. Excellent, excellent points you make there.
:x
To place every single diplomat in every single country at risk by violating CENTURIES old principles in order to prove to you he views him as a threat.
That, or assassinate him.
Your argument against Bush is that him not violating international law (again, in your book) proves he doesn't really believe that Iran is a threat. Is that really what you're arguing. If it is, it reveals more about you than it does about Bush.
Yes....the fact that Bush didn't do ANY of those is definitely rational and coherent proof and argument that he doesn't view the President of Iran as a valid nuclear threat to the safety of the U.S. Excellent, excellent points you make there.
:x
Really....so you're arguing that Bush should AGAIN violate U.N. protocols (accepting for a moment he has in the past....something that is not absolutely clear or certain) to prove the President of Iran is a threat.
To place every single diplomat in every single country at risk by violating CENTURIES old principles in order to prove to you he views him as a threat.
That, or assassinate him.
Yes....the fact that Bush didn't do ANY of those is definitely rational and coherent proof and argument that he doesn't view the President of Iran as a valid nuclear threat to the safety of the U.S. Excellent, excellent points you make there.:x
To place every single diplomat in every single country at risk by violating CENTURIES old principles in order to prove to you he views him as a threat.
That, or assassinate him.
Yes....the fact that Bush didn't do ANY of those is definitely rational and coherent proof and argument that he doesn't view the President of Iran as a valid nuclear threat to the safety of the U.S. Excellent, excellent points you make there.
:x
You mean as opposed to the Saudi royal family which contributed funding to the same Charity that paid those monies to the suicide bomber families? Actually holding a Telethon on State sponsored TV which raised over one million dollars for the cause? Or let's hit closer to home 9/11 where two checks from the wife of the Saudi Arabian ambassador were deposited directly into the bank account of two of the 9/11 pilots? So we invade Iraq to depose Saddam but the Royal House of Saud dines regularly in Crawford?
You mention Saddam attempting to have Bush 41 killed. We go after him 13 years later? Not exactly solid justification. However, we did the same thing when we encouraged open revolt in Iraq in the years following Desert Storm. What would OUR reaction be if a foreign country tried to incite open civil war in the US? None of this was even mentioned as the reason for the war. Please remember we violated several UN decrees when we invaded. We expect Saddam to listen to the UN yet we did not ourselves? You mention honoring an agreement. We expect Iraq to honor an agreement but we ourselves pick and choose which ones to honor? Was Saddam not honoring the agreement reason enough to do what we did? In my opinion not at all. My tact on this is more than reasonable. I see no reason for thousands of young men and women to come home in body bags for these reasons. for tens of thousands to be horribly maimed. I see no reason for this administration to say it will veto spending 35 billion over 5 years to provide health coverage to CHILDREN, while asking for an ADDITIONAL 50 billion THIS YEAR to spend in IRAQ. so our own children can do without but we can give Haliburton and other contractors billions. This should make any reasonable person lividly angry. Especially when it was avoidable. Bush should be held accountable.
Credibility is NOT something the Bush administration has very much of it comes to foreign policy.
You mention Saddam attempting to have Bush 41 killed. We go after him 13 years later? Not exactly solid justification. However, we did the same thing when we encouraged open revolt in Iraq in the years following Desert Storm. What would OUR reaction be if a foreign country tried to incite open civil war in the US? None of this was even mentioned as the reason for the war. Please remember we violated several UN decrees when we invaded. We expect Saddam to listen to the UN yet we did not ourselves? You mention honoring an agreement. We expect Iraq to honor an agreement but we ourselves pick and choose which ones to honor? Was Saddam not honoring the agreement reason enough to do what we did? In my opinion not at all. My tact on this is more than reasonable. I see no reason for thousands of young men and women to come home in body bags for these reasons. for tens of thousands to be horribly maimed. I see no reason for this administration to say it will veto spending 35 billion over 5 years to provide health coverage to CHILDREN, while asking for an ADDITIONAL 50 billion THIS YEAR to spend in IRAQ. so our own children can do without but we can give Haliburton and other contractors billions. This should make any reasonable person lividly angry. Especially when it was avoidable. Bush should be held accountable.
Credibility is NOT something the Bush administration has very much of it comes to foreign policy.
Because he was traveling on diplomatic passport! Castro was allowed to talk at the UN. Even though the U.S. had no diplomatic relations with Cuba. We must follow the rules when it comes to the treatment of diplomats, while they are in our country. Hell the state dept. had to even provide additional security for him. :guns:
An interesting argument that we must logically depose all dictatorial governments immediately before we can morally deal with any singular one. Not particularly compelling, but....interesting.
The argument that we "violated several UN decrees when we went in" is an interpretation not firmly established except in the mind of those that disagree with the War in Iraq. Were we sanctioned? Were there any resolutions? Did the resolutions that had been entered explicitly require further approval before the US resorted to military action? Like many things, reasonable, informed individuals disagree on this point as well.
Furthermore, the Gulf War I cease fire was between the US and Iraq....not the UN. We needed no authorization at all from the UN to reestablish hostilities for violations of its provisions. Those provisions included the use of US and UN inspectors in Iraq which everyone agrees Saddam violated. I've said reasonable minds can disagree whether the war in Iraq was justified under any argument. I haven't even argued that any of the Bush administrations stated justifications were legitimate.
You seem to be essentially arguing that anyone that disagrees with your basic sentiment that Bush is one step (if that) from a war criminal is a moron.
Which one of those responses is more reasonable and tactful, really? You're not arguing with someone that has been uncritical of Bush at this point. You are, however, arguing with someone that understands life and politics is rarely as simple and black and white as you're insisting.
The argument that we "violated several UN decrees when we went in" is an interpretation not firmly established except in the mind of those that disagree with the War in Iraq. Were we sanctioned? Were there any resolutions? Did the resolutions that had been entered explicitly require further approval before the US resorted to military action? Like many things, reasonable, informed individuals disagree on this point as well.
Furthermore, the Gulf War I cease fire was between the US and Iraq....not the UN. We needed no authorization at all from the UN to reestablish hostilities for violations of its provisions. Those provisions included the use of US and UN inspectors in Iraq which everyone agrees Saddam violated. I've said reasonable minds can disagree whether the war in Iraq was justified under any argument. I haven't even argued that any of the Bush administrations stated justifications were legitimate.
You seem to be essentially arguing that anyone that disagrees with your basic sentiment that Bush is one step (if that) from a war criminal is a moron.
Which one of those responses is more reasonable and tactful, really? You're not arguing with someone that has been uncritical of Bush at this point. You are, however, arguing with someone that understands life and politics is rarely as simple and black and white as you're insisting.
So your saying inciting a revolt, that resulted in tens of thousands of anti-Saddam iraqi's to be killed, is with in the terms of a cease fire? It's justified to go to war because Iraq refused to let inspectors in after a decade of searches. But not justified for them to refuse after we tried to start a civil war? I am not in any way defending Saddam, he was a murderous slime. Who deserved what he got. As to me saying anyone who disagrees with me is a moron,,, No I was responding only to one individual who was attacking anyone who disagreed with Him. WMD proven false, Terror proven false, so what reason was the real reason? people can fervently support the war, but giving VALID reasons for it is difficult to do. I support our troops but not this War that was launched for false reasons. As I said earlier we did not let Saddam go into exile because then we could not control who replaced him. thus could not control the oil resources. That my friend is the ONLY reason we have an interest in Iraq. Without it's oil we would not care one iota what happens there.
I believe oil was the major factor, control the politics control the oil. But there were other purposes fulfilled. I am sure there will be an American base there way pass our lifetimes. Iraq was an enemy of saudi arabia and I know they have significant pull with both political parties. Let's not forget what saddam did to Israel in the first gulf war, and the Israelis have a long memory as well as significant pull. So we were going to war no matter what the reasons were. It's just this time the administration got caught spinning the product thinking we would buy it.
Please quit making strawman arguments and attacking them rather than the arguments I'm actually making. It's incredibly irritating, and not very effective.
Actually, your original tirade was in direct response to HanesOnU who said, "So we should let someone like Saddaam just have a billion dollars? We said he could leave, he did not do that."
How, exactly is that an an attack on someone who disagreed with him. It seems to me that it's you that is on the attack. It is certainly consistent with the nature of your usual responses. You assert that anyone that disagrees with you is simply woefully uninformed, a Bush lover to the end against all reason, or stupid or duped by the Bushies.
It hasn't been "proven false" that reasonable intelligence indicated WMD was a real threat, merely that it turns out they weren't there when we got there. Foreign governments believed, based upon their own intelligence, he likely had a continuing WMD program. U.S. Intelligence certainly wasn't clear that he DIDN'T have a continuing program. We KNOW with out a doubt he had a program following Gulf War 1 and the ensuing years. We KNOW he continued to resist inspection (which is contrary to the argument that he has nothing to hide).
Using 20/20 hindsight doesn't definitively make that an invalid basis for what was done.
The WOT not proven false except in your opinion by your twisted argument that if the US takes action to root out one source of terrorism it must immediately do so at the same time against every source. That's not the way the real world works. Iraq was clearly a state sponsor of terrorist activity against the U.S. and its allies. To deny that is to deny reality. Reasonable minds can disagree whether that, in and of itself was appropriate moral justification for Gulf War 2.
AS I've said before, I believe reasonable minds can differ on whether the war was justified. You, apparently continue to think anybody that disagrees with you simply doesn't know what they're talking about because you've proven them false, false, false,.....when you really haven't done that very effectively at all.
I'd like to see some evidence that we would not have had considerable influence...near total control....in who replaced them. We still would have had the threat of military engagement if it was a Baathist successor. This is more of you pre-supposing facts not in existence. Furthermore, as has been pointed out quite effectively, Kaje's "quote" of the conditions left out at least one important condition. This was about more than just a million dollars.
As far as oil....of course it is a strategic interest in all of this....a valid one too. You're argument that we would not care one iota what happens there and is the only reason we have an interest, however, completely ignores the geopolitical realities of the region and the strategic value of having another potential future launching base and sphere of influence in the area.
Actually, your original tirade was in direct response to HanesOnU who said, "So we should let someone like Saddaam just have a billion dollars? We said he could leave, he did not do that."
How, exactly is that an an attack on someone who disagreed with him. It seems to me that it's you that is on the attack. It is certainly consistent with the nature of your usual responses. You assert that anyone that disagrees with you is simply woefully uninformed, a Bush lover to the end against all reason, or stupid or duped by the Bushies.
It hasn't been "proven false" that reasonable intelligence indicated WMD was a real threat, merely that it turns out they weren't there when we got there. Foreign governments believed, based upon their own intelligence, he likely had a continuing WMD program. U.S. Intelligence certainly wasn't clear that he DIDN'T have a continuing program. We KNOW with out a doubt he had a program following Gulf War 1 and the ensuing years. We KNOW he continued to resist inspection (which is contrary to the argument that he has nothing to hide).
Using 20/20 hindsight doesn't definitively make that an invalid basis for what was done.
The WOT not proven false except in your opinion by your twisted argument that if the US takes action to root out one source of terrorism it must immediately do so at the same time against every source. That's not the way the real world works. Iraq was clearly a state sponsor of terrorist activity against the U.S. and its allies. To deny that is to deny reality. Reasonable minds can disagree whether that, in and of itself was appropriate moral justification for Gulf War 2.
AS I've said before, I believe reasonable minds can differ on whether the war was justified. You, apparently continue to think anybody that disagrees with you simply doesn't know what they're talking about because you've proven them false, false, false,.....when you really haven't done that very effectively at all.
I'd like to see some evidence that we would not have had considerable influence...near total control....in who replaced them. We still would have had the threat of military engagement if it was a Baathist successor. This is more of you pre-supposing facts not in existence. Furthermore, as has been pointed out quite effectively, Kaje's "quote" of the conditions left out at least one important condition. This was about more than just a million dollars.
As far as oil....of course it is a strategic interest in all of this....a valid one too. You're argument that we would not care one iota what happens there and is the only reason we have an interest, however, completely ignores the geopolitical realities of the region and the strategic value of having another potential future launching base and sphere of influence in the area.
