Printable View
With the relevant evidence now available, I would love to know from the pro-war lobby:
(i) Was war about WMD? Of which we were all 'convinced' by our respective governments.
(ii) Was war about regime change which is illegal in it's entirety?
(iii) Was war about UN mandates not being adhered too.
Xanith
I never commented the text, I only posted a link and pasted the title, nothing more. I didn´t write one single word of it.
Kill the Messager!! , Kill the Messager!!
and you swear I run around with blinders on and only see and read what I want to
what did I see???, What did I read????
I know want you read, you read the two qoutes.
The title of the article was "2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat"Quote:
Originally posted by lokespas
Xanith
I never commented the text, I only posted a link and pasted the title, nothing more. I didn´t write one single word of it.
Kill the Messager!! , Kill the Messager!!
and you swear I run around with blinders on and only see and read what I want to
what did I see???, What did I read????
I know want you read, you read the two qoutes.
The 2 lines I quoted from that same article are in direct contrast and directly disprove the assumption the title makes. Powel never claimed there were "No WMD's" or makes the assessment that "Iraq was not a direct threat". If you read and understood the entire text of what was quoted you too would understand that.
Its true I assumed you agreed with what was written. I think that is a fair assesment because if you didnt then why bother posting a link? So tell me what you think then instead of throwing up a bunch of links to web pages. I would happily debate anything you have to say :)
X
Xanith, the "I swear..." bit is what people are unhappy with. That's a cheap shot, but one that could be directed towards you as well in that post. You took a quote and misconstrued it before complaining that others were wearing blinders. Powell was arguing for continuing sanctions because they were successful. It was only later that we suddenly had to attack.
You took a statement about a rationale for a non-intervention action as a justification of intervention.
On the other hand, I thought the link made a pretty weak argument. Nothing in there seemed to suggest that anybody was doing anything except responding with a certain slant in their words, an action that everybody takes.
Quote:
With the relevant evidence now available, I would love to know from the pro-war lobby:
(i) Was war about WMD? Of which we were all 'convinced' by our respective governments.
Yes and they are still looking. The US has put alot of money into finding them. (You will fob it off as being for show) and are convinced they will find something. The report stated that there are no doubts Iraq was seeking WMD's it just wether they had them that now needs to be know. Like i say governments who support it still seem convinced that they existed.
(ii) Was war about regime change which is illegal in it's entirety?
No, regime change comes as a result of removing Saddam the threat. It is not the reason for attacking. The reason for attacking was the destruction/arrest of an evil dictator who has committed many human rights offenses and posed a potential threat to the worlds stability. America did ask Saddam to give up to prevent the war but he didnt.
(iii) Was war about UN mandates not being adhered too.
Yes and No, UN resolutions stated that Saddam could not own WMD's or weapons capable of firing over so far. The beleif was that Saddam had these weapons. The UN sent in weapons inspectors who were not told the truth and were also slowed down by timewasting. The UN's obligation was therfore to place 'Serious Consequences' as stated in the resolutions should Iraq not co-operate. The US, UK, Poland Australia etc felt the UN was failing in its obligations causing a clash of opinion. The war was because of the potential threat. If there was no petential threat just a uncooperative government then it would have been discussed and argued.
Thats my opinion anyway
Shaggy Hiker said it well, in fact almost everything he wrote.
one thing bothers me, it is the Threat thing.
Quote:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...
This looks to me like a real serious Threat:
Quote:
He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction
Quote:
He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
It’s always tough to be honest with people but that is the way I am. I admit I assumed that the person that posted the link agreed with it and reacted accordingly. If this person didn’t agree and didn’t want to spark a debate then why post it? If he wanted to simply troll and be unaccountable for his link then he should go somewhere else. I simply poked a few holes in the assessment of that particular article showing that the title was misleading. Its not a cheap shot when you are brutally honest, its may not be politically correct but then again I’ve never been accused of being that.Quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Xanith, the "I swear..." bit is what people are unhappy with. That's a cheap shot, but one that could be directed towards you as well in that post. You took a quote and misconstrued it before complaining that others were wearing blinders. Powell was arguing for continuing sanctions because they were successful. It was only later that we suddenly had to attack.
Actually I didn’t state anything. I simply posted to point out the obviously slanted and misleading title and how its content didn’t support it.Quote:
You took a statement about a rationale for a non-intervention action as a justification of intervention.
X
Well then I would like to be the first: your stance on the recent agressions is the most political correct stance in the Western world according to our respective govts.Quote:
Its not a cheap shot when you are brutally honest, its may not be politically correct but then again I’ve never been accused of being that.
Actually Xanith, I'm afraid I snickered at the "I swear.." bit. I know what you meant, but that phrase creates a really unflattering mental image.
Also, I didn't say that you made a statement, I said that you took a statement. It was Powell's statement, and I never intended to imply otherwise.