President Bush also said that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. He's not an authority.Axis Kast wrote: President Bush sited a cease-fire in his case for the legality of war in a March 2003 speech just prior to the war.
That's it, I've had it with your invincible wall of ignorance. The facts are fully available to anyone with the fucking brains to run a google search.
I’m not fully convinced. There had to have been documents signed in the field between the actual combatants.
Then you should have refused to sign the cease-fire. As such, you are bound to it's terms, cannot claim it as justification for invasion, and the consequence is you should abandon your legal argument.
Even if you prove correct and Resolution 687 is the only form of cease-fire agreement, I was never convinced that the Security Council should have final say over American national defense. France, China, et al. certainly don’t share many of the same fears as Washington. Paris and Moscow are far more safe from an assault by Iraq – even if you don’t agree that one would occur under Hussein – than Washington or New York. An American or Israeli target was Saddam’s most attractive choice.
Except that Afghanistan was *known* to be the haven of terrorists who had attacked the United States. Repeatedly.I could have said the same of Afghanistan.
Repeating your claims without modification is not an argument.
Look at the determinations that Hussein made. That he’d win against a better-armed enemy by virtue of untrained mass warfare alone? That is was a good – or at the very least acceptable – idea to strand his troops in the desert on the Kuwaiti border during Desert Shield – even after the bombs began to fall? That his military was a capable enough machine to invade a country at least as militarily powerful as his own with an infrastructure he himself had helped to undermine? The man is illogical, Vympel. He is unpredictable. He is victim to illusions of grandeur. That’s a sign of basic insanity.
Appeal to ignorance (burden of proof) fallacy. It's not a question of what I'm willing to bet.
You’re willing to bet that Iraqi intelligence was twiddling its thumbs in relation to the United States up to and during the war? That their collective thumb was up their collective ass just because we didn’t catch anybody on the homefront?
81mm artillery rockets for helicopters are proof of danger?
Proved to whom? There are different levels of proof. If you ask me, all the circumstantial evidence – as well as the physical evidence of clear circumvention – put forth thus far is proof enough of danger.
Complete nonsense. Do tell me what Iraq would gain by such an incredibly foolish act. Saddam was so eager to be out on his ass, after all.
A reasonable time frame as in within twelve months or less. The potential for disaster to strike some unit of our troops in the Middle East stationed to threaten Iraq was supreme.
No appreciable difference between the two. You'd think anyone would advance the argument that if Brezhnev died the Soviet Union would collapse?Not to mention that unlike in the Soviet Union, there was a clear line of succession in Iraq among Hussein’s own family.
There was no nation Iraq was posing any physical danger to. I need not subscribe to your question begging.
And to whom was Iraq the greater threat in the first place? France, Germany, China, Russia, or the United States? None of this “he’s toothless” crap, either. Answer the question. To whom did Iraq pose the greatest physical danger?
I guess strangulating sanctions aren't 'punishment' enough.
And neither did the United Nations. They allowed Saddam’s circumvention to go largely unpunished.
Incessantly? Their destruction began in a matter of *weeks*.He waffled incessantly over the al-Samouds until Washington made additional noise about an invasion.
Well, perhaps if you hadn't fucking invaded, we would've seen some movement on the issueNot to mention that those aluminum tubes were never destroyed despite being illegal in the first place.
Because if it doesn't make the threat any more significant, it does not merit such a heavy-handed response. Not to mention that any attempts to deprive Iraq of weapons (like the drone) that are not prohibited would destroy the entire process.Remarkably stupid. Why permit Iraq to rearm on any level beyond the most base?
What kind of fucking bullshit argument is this? You just get more incoherent and fucking loopy the more this goes on. YOU argued that Iraq did not have a justification for having any such legal arms, and sort to artificially exclude a key threat to Iraq. Fucking wierdo.Of course I’m “allowed” to exclude them – because we dictate the terms in the first place.
Iran.Against who else could Iraq have put up a halfway legitimate argument against about its security?
Too bad. You'd sure as wish hope the entire Iraqi Army would spontaneously combust too, doesn't make it a legitimate reason for invasion, you loon.“Bullshit alert?” If I were an American soldier poised to invade Iraq – even as part of the United Nations plan to continue sanctions under threat of invasion -, I’d sure as shit hope that Iraq didn’t have that kind of capability on even a basic level.
Of course they would. They are faster, can fly under radar cover as well as any drone, have more range, making them safer from counterattack, and can actually carry a meaningful payload.Are you implying that either of those – a helicopter or an airplane – would more easily escape early detection and destruction than a small drone launched out of the back of a cargo hauler?
No, you stupid fucking idiot. Who said it was necessary to have permanent forces for invasion? You've already conceded that point.
To force Iraq to comply with inspections? Jesus fucking Christ!
From close air support aircraft. Allied air supremacy and CAPs were supreme.
And you’re telling me there’s no potential for those drones to get in the air during a combat situation? Let’s remember that at times even American troops had to wait a few minutes for ground support.
This argument is irrelevant. Your drone claim is just as idiotic as citing the fact that the Iraqis have tanks as some sort of violation of the 'spirit' of the sanctions.
Gather round people, for the great Axis Kast moron circus.
Actually, that’s a cogent argument.
Ah, it's the school of "we should invade because of what they might do when we invade, luckily we were preparing to invade anyway, so that makes it a cogent argument" thought.Because we were preparing for the eventuality of having to attack Iraq as part of the UNSC’s envisioned solution as well.
You gibbering mound of idiocy, do shut up.
He did, did he? When?
Clinton tried and failed.
Please direct me to the source that states the reason for the cruise missile strikes in 1998 were so that Iraq would disband it's military.In case you hadn’t noticed, his strategy featured the now-clichés “cruise-missile lob.” Sure helped in Afghanistan, yessiree.
Please direct me to any point where Bush 43 indicated that it was unacceptable for Iraq to have any weapons whatsoever.And who’s to say Bush 41 didn’t make mistakes? Or that Bush 43 picked up the ball a bit late?
Superfluous? YOU brought it up.
And yet superfluous.
You think a fucking RC could reach a plane 8km away? Are you retarded? Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question.
But I thought it was such a basic thing!
And still entirely irrelevant. Iraq can also place men with guns in such facilities- clearly, this is a reason to invade also.Let’s see. Hospitals. Civilian housing. Schools.
Actually, 'real-time' isn't guaranteed at all. That would require datalinks.Again, it’s a tactical drone. It provides real-time information for small units.
It's range and it's payload.Weak construction and power limit its range, but not its utility inside a certain area.
That *is* the idea of modern warfare. Quite frankly, I think this thing could be shot down by commander's MG on an M1, judging from it's engine.Are you implying that every unit will have air-defense assets attached at all times?
Irrelevant. You asked why it was a moronic tactic. And to turn around you incredibly inane reasoning- any Iraqi opposition to a US invasion is unacceptable. We must invade.So small-scale attacks are acceptable?
Yes, I remember the paranoia. This is reasoning for invasion- how?An entire small unit could become infected. Remember the fears that those twelve soldiers who surrendered to British troops before the war might have carried smallpox and that it could spread through blue-on-blue mingling later?
And the same applies for much more effective, and harder to destroy, missiles. Give up the gimmick.NBC protection that won’t necessarily come on in anticipation of the drone attack.
More stating your position as fact, eh?Bullshit. They’ve got more capability than Afghanistan in the first place – on all levels.
Wrong. It's a logical fallacy known as the "appeal to ignorance", used by one side when he is uncapable of justifying his positive claim. It is exactly the same as the fallacy I just cited- i.e. no more valid You are fooling precisely noone- you cannot prove something by saying "prove that he's NOT!"The “proving the negative” argument is a means of evading having to ever justify your position and exposes a blind faith that has no place in politics.
Oh delicious! You're a fucktard creationist too?! Why am I not surprised?!
And for whom does that look worse? Me or you?
Except, they were known to be harboring terrorist organizations that had been attacking the US for years.Neither was the Taliban.
Your argument is bullshit, Vympel. The Taliban were told they’d be ejected from power and their country occupied if they didn’t turn over Saddam.
Getting confused?You've descended into dogma. Why don't you stop repeating yourself and actually respond to a point for once?They had at least as much assurance as Hussein – if not less, because Baghdad was reliant on UN intervention until the very end of inspections. Still, they held on to Osama. And this is again to say nothing of the potential for Iraqi intelligence forces to act as middle-men or for Hussein to plot the demolition of American military targets in the Middle East. Remember that al-Qaeda threatened the same as well.
No, I'm suggesting that if you think Iraq should be destroyed for your so far unproven assertions of sabotage in the United States, then the same must apply to other nations against whom there are equally unproved assertions.
It’s that (A) we can’t catch them [or that we feed some misinformation] and (B) it’s not worth it to got to war with Britain, Russia, China, or France. Are you suggesting that we should grant Iraq the same privileges?
No, it's just a comment on your atrocious charachter.
And this is a cogent argument in defense of Iraq, how? Appeal to strategic overreach? Criticism of failure to self-endangerment? Jesus fucking Christ.
You've also claimed that you would support the terrorizing of the civilians of another nation if you sincerely believed it benefited your nation, without any moral qualms. You are indeed a facist coward.
Only a delusional idiot like you would foot the argument that I’m a coward for suggesting sound strategy.
Do find where exactly in my argument the strawman that "Afghanistan was a conventional threat" was the basis of my entire argument, you buffoon.It’s the basis of your whole argument.
That Iraq was not a conventional threat is fact. That you amusingly cite piss-ant legal programs like a drone to play up this conventional threat is incredibly funny.That Iraq isn’t a conventional threat and so must not be an unconventional threat either.
It would be, if you had at any point made a case.What do you call them … ? Tremendous leaps of logic?
Do point out where Iraq's magical 'intelligence capabilities' were cited as a justification for war. Do point out in which UN resolution the existence of a security service in Iraq is cited as a contravention. Do point out where the WMD are. Al-Samouds are conventional weapons- and were destroyed.
You are asking for proof that Iraqi intelligence was still in existence until the war began? You are denying that the al-Samouds were prohibited but that Saddam had them because inspections ended early? He did have unconventional weapons and intelligence capabilities until the end. Period.
Perhaps because when he attacked Israel, he was hoping to avoid Palestinian casualties?
Ah, so Saddam is gibbering mad, but not enough to kill Palestinians. The SCUD has a circular-error-probable of several hundred metres- with chemical weapons and fired in a predominantly Jewish area (non-West Bank/ Gaza Strip), the risk of Palestinian casualties is rather low.Funny, I thought he was insane, illogical, and unpredicatable? Concession Accepted.He didn’t use WMD on Coalition forces in 1991 because his régime wasn’t in clear danger of falling apart. Or don’t you remember that he was still in power subsequent to the cease-fire.
Oh, I'm well aware it's conjecture- but again, your baseless paranoia is not my problem.He didn’t use WMD in 2003 because it was previously destroyed, buried, disassembled, or never existed in the first place.
But this is all conjecture. Unlike you, I have no faith that history will repeat itself.
In what amounts, with what frequency, and with what level of dedication?!
The same assets were present and still American inspectors were fooled.
So, you don't have any evidence, but you attest to it's truth anyway.
But still true.
Funny, above you speculated that Iraq destroyed it's WMD.
I honestly believe that even had force been a possibility that Israel would never have fully divested itself of its full arsenal. I don’t believe anybody would.
Chinese air-defense systems? Which one would those be? Not to mention that the issue of economic sanctions is not the same as that of compliance with weapons of mass destruction provisions.
The rest of the world monitored compliance, idiot. Not to mention that Iraq was long able to break economic sanctions. Or how did the Indian centrifuges and Chinese air-defense systems get there … ? Those American troops weren’t always on top of things.
Really? I can argue precisely the oppoisite and point to the presence of that invasion level force to his reluctance to destroy a means of his own defense, and indeed, I already have.
Bullshit. Saddam was waffling until the end. In this case, without the threat of full invasion, who’s to say what he would have done? It took 100,000 men on his border and a huge array of threats to get him to destroy the al-Samouds.
Not the point. That it's a bad thing is the point.Good or bad, no Islamofascists.
Laughing about a lack of evidence and the fact that US WMD hunters in every site they've inspected have found no such concealment techniques? You must be on crack.
… I’m not even going to say where you went wrong with that. But I will say I laughed for quite a while.
And this helps your argument, that you don't even know if these US inspectors ever were on site? Here's a news bulletin: you can't maintain the charade of a grain facility if the inspectors are IN the facilitiy.They were taken for a fucking train ride even when they did go. Not to mention that it never says whether inspectors were on-site at all. Only that the site was “explained away.”
And you are absolutely incorrect.
I am still under the impression that the cease-fire and the resolution are two different things.
No, obviously not all.
All of them?
But WERE. THE. TROOPS. ACTUALLY. THERE. No. You previously cited that troop levels would have to stay at that level to ensure compliance, unfortunatley for you Iraq did comply right up to 1998 (when the US fucked up the sanctions).
Because TROOPS threatened to INVADE.
An intelligence failure (lack of spares), and the superiority of Iranian armaments was not that marked.His invasion was BASED ON A PLAN DRAFTED IN 1941. He expected complete victory AGAINST A BETTER-ARMED FOE.
Also, what's wrong with basing your plan on a pre-existing one? You think they followed it rote- extraordinarily hard to do considering the formations would be completely different. Has the geography of Iran changed?
Except of course that Iran's troops were the same abysmal quality if not worse- until, after the war begun, some officers/ pilots etc of the Shah were brought back in. Fortunes of war, nothing more.He threw troops into a meat-grinder with the expectation that ELAN would save the day and grant his conscripts victory. The man compounded a poor warplane (which could have been made by a sane man) with delusions of absolute grandeur (which couldn’t).
Ah, so his responsibility for the Ba'ath Party system somehow translates into direct knowledge of the shortcomings of his military. Fascinating.
He built and perpetuated that Ba’ath Party system of “yes-men,” you idiot. It was his decision to ignore it. Delusions of grandeur.
And what part of 'doesn't mean he's crazy and unpredictable and bound to attack us for no reason' don't you understand, you moron? How many dictators are you going to label crazy now in your loopy quest?What part of perpetuation of a system of “yes-men” and making some of the political appointees himself don’t you understand?
Ah, and thanks to your 20/20 hindsight, you can now safely declare them ALL crazy, instead of just badly informed.
Based on wishful thinking on all sides. Again, look at the kind of decisions Hussein made to forward the invasion.
You think that's a totally crazy plan? Perhaps you should justify this view? Knockout blows are common throughout the history of warfare.The man is illogical andunpredictable. What kind of logical leader makes a plan for a quick war during which he expects not to face the enemy at full strength because of attrition?
In other words, totally irrelevant.During.
Answer the question. Where America's military leaders crazy, insance, illogical, and unpredictable by virtue of the fact that they cooked up a stupid warplan that was doomed to fail?The argument is whether Saddam is logical, predictable, practical, and absolutely sane (as in displaying no characteristics of mental failure). The answer is no.
What part of if you MOVE them, they DIE, don't you get, you idiot? I have three words for you: Highway of Death.
So you move them, you fucking idiot. You tell them to retreat.
Moving ground forces are EASIER to spot from the air. When negotiations were cut off, for Saddam to order a retreat immediately would've seen a very early occurence of the Highway of Death. It would've been suicide.
True, yet being steadily diverted to other tasks (like finding links to terror evidence, war crimes evidence) instead of what they were originally there for.
That’s not “abject failure.” Other teams are still there.
False cause. I can easily argue that it was their presence and steadily increasing US invasion rhetoric and obvious military preparations (you don't put on a condom unless you want to fuck) that resulted in the delay- not to mention that the delay was quite minor, and was largely over the issue of whether they were in fact prohibited.
After 1998, that changed. Why did it take 100,000 men and threats of invasion for Saddam to comply with the UNSC over the al-Samouds?
But the US shouldn't be criticized?
No, its claim to legitimacy would not be strong. It would be criticized just as viciously.
And you gave me a pair of criminal facist aggressor states. Why am I not surprised.You asked for historical precedence.
No, I'm saying that if your argument had any merit, which it does not, it *would* be a new kind of precedent- one not committed by a facist aggressor state, which was condemned by the world as a legitimate reason for the use of force back in 1945.My argument has no merit? Look at what you’re saying. You just admitted they would still make the claim without our having set a precedent. That means we didn’t set a precedent. Concession accepted
No, that’s what you’re doing. You’re telling me we created a new kind that’s somehow our legacy.
And your bullshit 'you tooisms' aside, you *are* making an artificial distinction. You demand the right to preemptively destroy any nation you wish, but deny that right to others 'just because'.
Difference between anti-ship missiles and tanks? Oh sorry, zero.Anti-ship missiles, yes.
Except that the cease-fire stipulates exactly what the consequnces of breach are. And it's not cessation of the cease-fire.Violate a cease-fire and there’s no longer a cease-fire. Or hadn’t you heard?
Get a fucking clue, you ingorant retard.
Whatever, I'm really sick of this.
