Putins Letter to the US

[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

[scottw]

this is pretty funny....

"United Nations Security Council resolution 678, adopted on 29 November 1990, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674 and 677 (all 1990), the Council noted that despite all the United Nations efforts, Iraq continued to defy the Security Council

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments........


"4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach."


Iraq didn't really rise to the level of being an issue and the threat was "perceived" ? Spence should have notified the UN and they could have saved all of that time pounding out all of these resolutions and threats of consequences for nothing......But now Syria....there's s SERIOUS threat from a tiny country

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-spence

OK. So now, you are denying that you said the events leading up to the second Gulf War didn't rise to the level of being called an "active issue"

here is an exact quote.

"The regret is because like many they (those dealing with Saddam) 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."

You say here that there was no active issue. You also say that the war was launched by a few with an agenda.

Spence, read the Senate vote on authorizing the use of force. Those in favor included the current Vice President, as well as senators Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Boxer, Edwards, all those neocons. You're saying they all had an agenda?

What was Joe Biden's agenda, Spence? Enlighten me. What was Senator Clinton's agenda, and Senator Kerry?

[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.