[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
According to liberals, WMD includes Willie Peat we used all over fucking Afghanistan (WP being an incendiary), but not Saddam’s mustard gas is not.
It’s a typical liberal double-standard.
[/quote]
Sounds about right. [/quote]
About as idiotic as banning the use of hollow point munitions because they are “unhumane”. As if there is a civilized to kill someone. Who actually subscribes to the WP and mustard gas example?
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Chemical weapons aren’t WMDs? WTF is a WMD then?[/quote]
I posted this on the first page,
"I have written ad nauseum that the term “weapons of mass destruction” is a emotive misnomer that lacks analytical rigor. Weapons of mass destruction was frequently employed in securitizing speech acts post-9/11 to justify the proliferation of the state security apparatus and the invasion of Iraq.
Unconventional munitions are more accurately described as chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological(CBRN) weapons. Chemical weapons are not particularly effective weapons. They are highly dependent of geographical and weather conditions, are costly to produce, hazardous to store, and have profound political and security repercussions as their unconventional nature is antithetical to several nearly universal international norms. This is not an uncommonly held position in the intelligence and defense communities. "[/quote]
Ok.
What is a WMD then? [/quote]
According to liberals, WMD includes Willie Peat we used all over fucking Afghanistan (WP being an incendiary), but not Saddam’s mustard gas is not.
It’s a typical liberal double-standard.
[/quote]
From what I can gather using flares constitutes a “war crime” because they contain phosphorous. And that using suicide bombers against civilians is legitimate “resistance” because civilians pay taxes that pay for flares.
You have to ask yourself what credibility the Security Council could’ve maintained if Saddam was allowed to continually defy binding resolutions. Sanctions were not only entirely ineffective, they were bypassed through the corruption of the Oil for Food program. Saddam’s defiance of the Security Council and subversion of sanctions represented a threat in and of itself to the authority of the UN.
If Saddam could ignore no-fly zones then why would anyone else obey them? If Saddam could weapons inspectors why would anyone accept them? Saddam was a threat to the international authority of the UN just as Hitler had been a threat to the international order of the League of Nations. It was the loss of credibility and the breakdown of authority of the League of Nations that brought about The Second World War.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You have to ask yourself what credibility the Security Council could’ve maintained if Saddam was allowed to continually defy binding resolutions. Sanctions were not only entirely ineffective, they were bypassed through the corruption of the Oil for Food program. Saddam’s defiance of the Security Council and subversion of sanctions represented a threat in and of itself to the authority of the UN.
If Saddam could ignore no-fly zones then why would anyone else obey them? If Saddam could weapons inspectors why would anyone accept them? Saddam was a threat to the international authority of the UN just as Hitler had been a threat to the international order of the League of Nations. It was the loss of credibility and the breakdown of authority of the League of Nations that brought about The Second World War. [/quote]
So the rationale for the Iraq War was not an existential threat from Saddam, but that he was a bad apple that could influence the rest of the region that for the most part already chants “Death to America, The Great Satan”?
I’m also slightly chuckling about the “authority of the UN” comment. Maybe NATO, but definitely not the UN.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
So the rationale for the Iraq War was not an existential threat from Saddam, but that he was a bad apple that could influence the rest of the region that for the most part already chants “Death to America, The Great Satan”?
[/quote]
There were many rationales for the Iraq War but I’m not defending the war on strategic grounds because it was not managed in a coherent manner. If the occupation had served a coherent grand strategy then it would be defensible. Unfortunately it wasn’t.
Secondly, the fact that the region hates the West has no bearing upon whether or not they are effectively contained via the authority of the UN.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your professors apparently failed to teach you the full consortium of reasons for the Iraq War. I’ve seen you squawking hens here on PWI for years now playing strictly with WMD beach ball. It truly is tiresome.
You must’ve audited Iraq War 101 and missed some serious schooling. Go take the course again, Bistro.[/quote]
Push, if you would be so gracious, would you please give us a simple run down on the reasons for the Iraq War?
[/quote]
No, I’ve done it so many times that I have grown fatigued. Greatly fatigued.
[/quote]
Apparently Pushy feels the same about adequately addressing the substantive posts of those who disagree with him. Only drive by insults for him.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your professors apparently failed to teach you the full consortium of reasons for the Iraq War. I’ve seen you squawking hens here on PWI for years now playing strictly with WMD beach ball. It truly is tiresome.
You must’ve audited Iraq War 101 and missed some serious schooling. Go take the course again, Bistro.[/quote]
Push, if you would be so gracious, would you please give us a simple run down on the reasons for the Iraq War?
[/quote]
No, I’ve done it so many times that I have grown fatigued. Greatly fatigued.
[/quote]
Apparently Pushy feels the same about adequately addressing the substantive posts of those who disagree with him. Only drive by insults for him. [/quote]
Are you worth anymore than that, boy?
[/quote]
Does your age (and my relative lack there of) somehow make you a subject matter expert regarding U.S. foreign policy and national security? I’ll take that as an indication that you are not only unwilling to have a civil discussion, but that you’re intellectually unequipped to do so. Your cognitive biase prevent you from even considering the position that the Iraq War was the most egregious American foreign policy failure since Vietnam.
One can learn a lot from what Push post.
I sure have over the years.
Mufasa
I will ask this Push: the Idealism that has fueled the failures in the Middle East…
Is it the idea that somehow some semblance of “American Democracy” was going to fuel a New Day in the Middle East…and that somehow thousands of years of hatred between groups of Tribal Minded people were suddenly going to disappear as they all held hands and sang “We Are the World” in the streets of Bagdad?
…or were you thinking something else?
Mufasa
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
JB and Others:
I sure hope that people are not naive enough to think that it’s our Arab “friends” in the Middle East who watch our backs.
(…and no…I don’t believe that the President thinks that either…)
Mufasa[/quote]
You’re faith is strong. Extraordinarily strong. You definitely could be classified as devout.
[/quote]
Not really, Push…
I just don’t (and never will) follow the same narrative that you, SM and many other Conservatives do when it comes to the President.
On this point, we will continue to agree to disagree…and it’s all good, my Friend…
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I will ask this Push: the Idealism that has fueled the failures in the Middle East…
Is it the idea that somehow some semblance of “American Democracy” was going to fuel a New Day in the Middle East…and that somehow thousands of years of hatred between groups of Tribal Minded people were suddenly going to disappear as they all held hands and sang “We Are the World” in the streets of Bagdad?
…or were you thinking something else?
Mufasa[/quote]
The ideals fueling the idealism driving Iraq policy pre and post-9/11 are outlined by the policy documents and statements of principles promulgated by the Project for a New American Century.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I just don’t (and never will) follow the same narrative that you, SM and many other Conservatives do when it comes to the President.
[/quote]
When I consider the man’s character I can’t help but not cut him much slack. I honestly believe his backbone is weak, his belly is yellow, and he is an arrogant, conniving liar. Throw all that into the mix with his deeply leftist background and you have the near perfect recipe for a malignant baked good that would do more serious harm to our country than has already been done had not our republic’s system of checks and balances – weaker than ever but still present – been in place.
We do know he is very frustrated with those who would dare interfere with his self-perceived messianic agenda conceived by Ayers, et al.
[/quote]
Push, you’re slipping, Brother…!
You forgot about all the Butt-Sex and Knob-Slobbing he and Holder were having in the Oval Office…
Mufasa