Putins Letter to the US

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You are right, the UN never legally "allowed" for the use of force against Iraq. And Jim in CT didn't say it did either. So you dodged his post about who actually thwarted the UN inspectors by questioning something that you think I said.

I didn't dodge anything, he implied Saddam violating the UN Mandate authorized the use of force which none ever did.

I also did not say that the UN did such a thing. I spoke of the fictional "International Community" to which you like to invoke as some force to "galvanize"--even into a mandate which is backed by military force. And weren't the 30 nations who participated in the coalition of the willing against Saddam, plus 15 others who allowed air space and other assistance, a sizable portion of the "International Community" (which included the U.S. Congress and the UK), and didn't most, if not all, eventually regret it. How is that "International Community" plus the others who were not willing going to be galvanized into mandating the use of force? Saddam was every bit the tyrant as Assad, and even more so. And how will it override vetoes in the UN security council against such a mandate?

The regret is because like many they were caught up in the post 9/11 world led by few with an agenda. Very different than the coalition in 1991 when, like with Syria, there was an active issue at hand.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I didn't dodge anything, he implied Saddam violating the UN Mandate authorized the use of force which none ever did.


The regret is because like many they were caught up in the post 9/11 world led by few with an agenda. Very different than the coalition in 1991 when, like with Syria, there was an active issue at hand.

-spence

"he implied Saddam violating the UN Mandate authorized the use of force "

No, I didn't. What I did was, I correctly repudiated your nonsensical claim that it was Bush's doing that the weapons inspectors were booted out of Iraq.

"Very different than the coalition in 1991 when, like with Syria, there was an active issue at hand."

So when Bush invaded Iraq, there was no issue at hand? Saddam didn't repeatedly violate the terms that ended the first Gulf War, by repeatedly kicking the weapons inspector out? Spence, do you deny that Saddam did that? Or are you saying that kicking the weapons inspectors out, does not rise to the level of calling it "an issue"?

Which is it?

Jesus God Almnighty.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Which is it?

Jesus God Almnighty.

not sure why you guys insist on frustrating yourselves by asking him questions knowing that he, just like Barry and his administration simply make everything up to suit their needs and then act like anyone who doesn't believe their concocted facts is stupid, uneducated haters

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, I didn't. What I did was, I correctly repudiated your nonsensical claim that it was Bush's doing that the weapons inspectors were booted out of Iraq.

I said no such thing, what I did say was that point was the start of the real fiasco.

So when Bush invaded Iraq, there was no issue at hand? Saddam didn't repeatedly violate the terms that ended the first Gulf War, by repeatedly kicking the weapons inspector out? Spence, do you deny that Saddam did that? Or are you saying that kicking the weapons inspectors out, does not rise to the level of calling it "an issue"?

At that time Saddam wasn't gassing anybody, Bush was acting on a perceived threat. It was a preventative action.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I said no such thing, what I did say was that point was the start of the real fiasco.


At that time Saddam wasn't gassing anybody, Bush was acting on a perceived threat. It was a preventative action.

-spence

"At that time Saddam wasn't gassing anybody"

Spence, no one said Saddam was gassing somebody...see if you can go two seconds without moving the goalposts, shall we?

you said that unlike what Bush 43 faced with Iraq, Obama has a real issue with Syria. Meaning, there was no issue in Iraq. No issue. The fact that Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the UN peace treaty, to you, was not an issue to be addressed. Your words, not anyone else's.

"Bush was acting on a perceived threat."

Oh, Bush did it unilaterally? He didn't get formal support from the US Senate, including Senators Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Schumer, Boxer, et al? All those conservative neocons?

Lots of people that are considered heroes by the left, were every bit as certain as Bush, that Iraq had WMDs.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"At that time Saddam wasn't gassing anybody"

Spence, no one said Saddam was gassing somebody...see if you can go two seconds without moving the goalposts, shall we?

you said that unlike what Bush 43 faced with Iraq, Obama has a real issue with Syria. Meaning, there was no issue in Iraq. No issue. The fact that Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the UN peace treaty, to you, was not an issue to be addressed. Your words, not anyone else's.

"Bush was acting on a perceived threat."

Oh, Bush did it unilaterally? He didn't get formal support from the US Senate, including Senators Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Schumer, Boxer, et al? All those conservative neocons?

Lots of people that are considered heroes by the left, were every bit as certain as Bush, that Iraq had WMDs.

You're just talking now, trying to find things to object to.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're just talking now, trying to find things to object to.

-spence

Spence, you said that what Bush faced in Iraq did not rise to the level of being an issue. That's what you said. Your words. Nonsensical words, but your words nonetheless.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you said that what Bush faced in Iraq did not rise to the level of being an issue. That's what you said. Your words. Nonsensical words, but your words nonetheless.

No, you're just hearing what you want to hear, that's why is sounds like nonsense.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

At that time Saddam wasn't gassing anybody, Bush was acting on a perceived threat. It was a preventative action.

-spence

Isn't destroying Assad's stuff a preventative action? Aren't Assad's weapons a perceived threat?

Do you perceive chemical weapons to be a greater threat than radical, jihadist Islam?

WMD have been owned by nations for more than 60 years. Doesn't it depend on the rational makeup of the owners more than the weapons? Isn't the ideology and conviction of the owners the far greater threat than the weapons?

If so, why do we support and supply the "rebels" who will most likely be co-opted by jihadist types whose ideology and conviction is world domination, not merely domination of a state? Do we really think that Assad would use his weapons against us if we left him alone? Do we think he has a mission to bring down the evil West?

Why are we so willing to use force against a local tyrant, but support those who wish to destroy us? I don't know if it is possible to rid the world of chemical weapons if the ability to produce them exists. I would rather rid us of those who wish us harm and destruction by any means possible, chemical or otherwise.