Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Solid proof that Sen. Boxer is a liar or ignorant
Topic Started: Jan 19 2005, 01:21 AM (836 Views)
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 01:11 PM
For the third time in this thread Dan, yes we should do something about rouge powers, but we should be more cooperative with the rest of the world in doing so. Waiting 30 days for the invasion would'nt have changed anything except we would be working with the UN rather than against them.

Sisko - you admitted that I had a good point earlier.

So - how do you propose that waiting 30 days would have helped anything??? I submit to you that the 30 days would only have meant further delay and the US would still have to have done what they did without UN approval because UN approval was NEVER going to come. How could it? The UN Security Council has got members on it that would expend every last ounce of thier energy making sure that the approval would never come. :shrug:

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
All that was asked was to complete inspections. The slippery slope argument as you know is a logical fallacy.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
^^^^^^^^^^

Personal Response

But the fact that Blix asked for 30 days doesn't mean that the inspections would have been completed in that time. Some 600 tons (or something like that) of ordinance has been found in Iraq. It wasn't neatly divided into different piles of different types and catalogued - by design of the Iraqi military. They would had to look through all that to determine the answer.

Meanwhile, 30 days would have made things far more dangerous for the US and coalition troops.

End of Personal Response

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I think we could've gone further to cooperate with the UN, you all don't. Fair enough.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, and if I think Kirk is a Denebian slime devil, then that's my opinion too. :P :lol: ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 12:25 PM
I stated that I don't think much else would've changed including the number dead. It is apparent that Hussein did not have these WMDs because he didn't use them as his country was being overrun. You are free to disagree with my "interpretation" if you like.

Am I wrong that Blix asked for extra time for the invasion? Is he not the UN's inspector? Would complying with his suggestion not been cooperating?

How is that apparent? He used WMDs on Iranians, and even on the Kurds. Did he exhaust his supply, AND CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT HE HAD THEM, just to fake us out? Face it, your "interpretation" is wrong.

Hans Brix (sorry, can't get Team America out of my head) asked for a 30 day extention because he opposed ANY United States intervention. In other words, it was an attempt to delay us. Yes, he was the UN weapons inspector, which carries (with me) about as much weight as being a dog catcher in Sealy, Texas. Complying with his delaying tactic could have meant more dead Americans.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 12:48 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I think we could've gone further to cooperate with the UN, you all don't. Fair enough.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, and if I think Kirk is a Denebian slime devil, then that's my opinion too. :P :lol: ;)

You're getting this wrong. The UN went out of their way to delay and undermine us. How would our cooperating with them have done anything except make their delays and undermining successful?

Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if that opinion is wrong.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I am wondering if you have any evidence to suggest that Blix wanted to deliberately undermine the U.S.

And, what your explanation would be as to IF Hussein had WMDs why he didn't use them when he was being invaded by a superior military force.

And just because I disagree with you doesn't necessarily make me wrong. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 19 2005, 07:01 PM
Hans Brix (sorry, can't get Team America out of my head) asked for a 30 day extention because he opposed ANY United States intervention. In other words, it was an attempt to delay us. Yes, he was the UN weapons inspector, which carries (with me) about as much weight as being a dog catcher in Sealy, Texas. Complying with his delaying tactic could have meant more dead Americans.

Personal Response

Well, I didn't see Team America, but otherwise would agree.

If the Iraqi government were serious about inspections, it shouldn't have taken 30 days to accomplish. All they had to do was hand over the keys and the map ....

They had to stall the US past March 30th and Blix was willing to help them.

My personal opinion was that the stalling would have continued for months (it had been going on for 14 years already afterall), but all they needed was to make it past March 30th.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that the stalling would continue?

Otherwise, it's a slippery slope argument (logical fallacy).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
No, it is not a slippery slope, and I'm glad to see that you've taken a course in critical thinking. The evidence was there, and we decided not to put up with it anymore.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 07:10 PM
Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that the stalling would continue?

Otherwise, it's a slippery slope argument (logical fallacy).

Personal Response

Ever hear of Pearl Harbor?

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 02:08 PM
And, what your explanation would be as to IF Hussein had WMDs why he didn't use them when he was being invaded by a superior military force.

One explanation could be he did not want to give credibility to the coalition invasion. Had he used WMD the coalition would have been proved right and would have gotten world support. Saddam would have lost the initial attack ether way, had he used WMD he would have also lost the anti-American sentiments over the invasion. Saddam’s objective could have been to lose the initial attack with as little lost as possible and then win the over all conflict by driving the coalition out through terrorist actions as this tactic has been used effectively against us in the past. He said as much before the war, when he said that all he had to do was hold out until the American citizens lost favor with the war. Had he used WMD that would never have happened, and any hopes to regain control would have been lost.

What did not plan on was to be caught or for his sons to die. He planed for the Americans to tack a bloody nose and run tail tucked out of his country, then immerge again to take power. But this time, after winning a war against coalition troops, he would have been in a much better position to flex his mussels - because the world would think twice after going against a foe we had already lost to.

If he did have WMDs the smarts thing he could have done was not use them in the initial attack.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Evidence of WMDs? Where? Can you post a link?

Wichita: So I guess that's a no.

Dan: Interesting theory, so Hussein MEANT for us to take over Iraq. That makes sense. :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 02:10 PM
Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that the stalling would continue?

Do you have any evidence the stalling would end?

Given the fact that there was stalling and since there is no time portal to prove or disprove that stalling would continue - what do you do? How long do you let the stalling continue to see when it will stop on its own?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 02:10 PM
Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that the stalling would continue?

Otherwise, it's a slippery slope argument (logical fallacy).

I think the makeup of the Security Council is proof enough. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus