Originally Posted By DlandDug (I didn't expect those links immediately. But I will be interested in seeing them.)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Hmmm... not a single quote from any of those people saying "therefore, we need to invade and occupy that country." That's the big leap that always gets ignored.<< <This is not a flip flop, Beau. It's a prime example of moving the goalposts. The charge is "Bush lied about WMDs." > Nope. I never said Bush lied about WMD. Others may have, but not me. Kindly show me where I did. (I'll save you some time: you won't find it.) So I can't have moved the goalposts from "Bush lied" when I never said it. Kindly do not attribute something to me that I did not say.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Her regular material on Lew Rockwell's blog (he who advocates the overthrow of the government) > Nice attempt at guilt by association. Come on, I expect better from you. <But it should be understood that she has an agenda, which makes her assertions less than entirely factual.> Kwietkowski is career military and a lifelong Republican. Her "agenda" is telling what she saw in her job. If you can point to something that is "less than entirely factual" (itself a pretty weasely phrase), and prove that it is, do it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The case has not been made that anyone could know absolutely one way or another.> Even setting aside Tom's comments in 56, this gets to the crux of what I've been saying all along (getting back to a couple of posts ago). The bar to go to war - not to mention the bar to invade and occupy a country - should be HIGH. If Bush and co. were getting considerable contradictory intell about WMD (and we know it wasn't just one piece or one warning from the CIA that Saddam might not have WMD - how much they got is yet to be determined), then the bar, IMO, has not been reached. This is why my position is consistent. Clinton thought Saddam might have WMD, but didn't pull the trigger to invade and occupy. Those other people quoted felt he might have it, but didn't call for an invasion. Bush and co. thought he might have it, had considerable intell that told him he might not... and decided to invade. That's the difference. IMO, unless you know DANG WELL, you don't invade and occupy another country.
Originally Posted By Spree We did know "dang well" that Sadaam was violating the terms of a cease fire that he agreed to. Case closed.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 There have been scads of countries that have violated cease fires that we have not invaded and occupied. Case reopened.
Originally Posted By Spree There were several as you know well. Things like not trying to have our President assainiated, and not shooting at our planes, and of course letting UN inspectors in without delay.....without delay.....without delay.
Originally Posted By Spree #67. Logical Fallacy. "But Jimmy had a cookie and you didn't punish him" logic?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The bar to invade and occupy a country should be higher than "should I punish my kid for taking a cookie."
Originally Posted By Spree ^granted. Never the less every country is different just as every child is different. btw: What countries did we have a cease fire with that violated said cease fire? Was it a minor violation? Did the violation come anywhere near as serious as shooting down our planes or tryng to kill our former leaders?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>What countries did we have a cease fire with that violated said cease fire?<< We didn't have a cease fire with Iraq. The United Nations did.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < We didn't have a cease fire with Iraq. The United Nations did.> Exactly. And do you really want to get into how many countries have violated UN cease-fires over the years?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I'd venture to guess that we've violated them at least once or twice as well.
Originally Posted By Spree I just thought since there were all these other countries(scads even) an answer would have been offered easily. Guess post 67 was just a cheap comeback based on no hard facts.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It really wasn't, Spree. Just out of my memory I remember one earlier this year by Sudan. That would be the country almost certainly committing genocide against its own people - and violating cease-fires - that we didn't invade.
Originally Posted By Spree We had a cease fire with Sudan? Where have I been? Don't even remember going to war with them. I'll have to trust you on this one. Thanks for the example.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>We had a cease fire with Sudan? Where have I been? Don't even remember going to war with them. I'll have to trust you on this one. Thanks for the example.<< We didn't have a cease fire with Sudan or Iraq - the United Nations did. The cease fire that we accused Iraq of breaking was a United Nations cease fire, not a United States one.
