Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates

View Poll Results: pick.

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • in person

    35 74.47%
  • over the phone

    17 36.17%
  • mail

    3 6.38%
  • email/IM

    5 10.64%
  • through a mutual friend

    3 6.38%
  • other (specify)

    1 2.13%
  • stalking will always remain the ideal choice!

    3 6.38%
  • doesn't matter, i get the boobies anyway

    7 14.89%
  • they all fail anyway, and durf is to blame!

    13 27.66%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 102
  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Connecticut, U.S.A
    Posts
    2,864
    Quote Originally Posted by Underseer
    Let me ask you: was there a formal declaration of war or wasn't there?
    I guess Vietnam never happened eh?




  2. #62
    IncGamers Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn
    Saddam would doubtless have backed down (I think I even read something about a secret occupation proposition?). I'm sure you & Ilad would view this as Shrub's saying something along the lines of, "I've got all my toys out, and I'm gonna play" - but to agree to a vague peace deal once poised on the brink of war isn't necessarily as wise as you would assume. Saddam had shown his skill at subterfuge, we would have faced just as much pressure from your allies as we do now for keeping an "occupation army", and having troops forward-deployed in hostile territory would have generated the sort of violence we're seeing now.
    I'd have been fine with keeping a set number of troops there until the inspections for Resolution 1441 were over (the inspections teams could be supplemented if there were enough demands as such). Sure, it would be temporary fix in many people's eyes, but, in my opinion of course, the case for the "smoking gun" and WMD was weak all along.

    Had Saddam's government stayed in place, I doubt that an occupying base would face nearly as much violent opposition as the forces in Iraq do now. Undoubtedly there would be attacks, as now some terrorists would only have to travel one quarter of the distance to take out some folks they don't like. However, certain insurgencies surely wouldn't be as prevalent, whether in the form of the followers of a power-hungry cleric or some typical radical Iraqis that have no harsh authority keeping them in line.


    And because y'all aren't privy to intel briefs, they must be false. At least, for a conservative Executive branch. I forgot my rule book, so sorry.
    Hey, if a government wants me to believe them, they should provide as much evidence as they can, not as much as they want to. The 'proof' was sparse, and heavily relied on trusting the officials telling the public about the results of the investigation. I doubt the Clinton administration was terribly concerned with convincing the skeptics though; his popularity took a nifty little spike anyways.


    You & Ilad are the ones invoking the UN; I made no such statement. Doubtless you would now split hairs, as Saddam did, and claim that since he personally didn't agree to the terms, they were valueless - I forget whether the generals who negotiated the surrender were executed...?
    Well, they were created under the name of the UN and one of it's resolutions. Since post-Gulf War Iraq remained under minimal UN control, individual countries or small coalitions wouldn't have much ease in applying their own ideas to the regions. The British, American, and French governments apparently were concerned enough with maintaining the appearance that they were still operating under the UN's mandate to whip up some public statements about how they were enforcing the UN's resolutions.


    BTW, I'll never forgive Blackhead & Bush 1 for being such idiots - Saddam should have personally had to kowtow, and we might not have even needed to be in this situation.
    Llad already mentioned it, and I wouldn't be too surprised if you've read it, but this piece covers some of Bush Sr's views on the matter. For anyone who feels like checking it out: http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:...addam%22&hl=en


    Edit: crazy url tags




  3. #63
    IncGamers Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    US WEST
    Posts
    2,232
    Plum: I think though, that if the government (atleast our government) tells you something, it is assumed true until proven otherwise. If a cop gives you a ticket for going 20 over, it is assumed that the cop saw you going 20 on his radar gun, unless you can prove that his radar gun was wrong, which can easily be shown in court by tests. This case is very much so larger and complex, but it does relate some. If the government tells you that you owe 500 dollars on property taxes, you assume that the government is correct unless you can prove otherwise through an appraisal or whatnot.




  4. #64
    IncGamers Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,551
    Oh my, the red cross just released a report documenting the widespread abuse and torture of prisoners throughout Iraq. Looks as though statements from our president and secretary of defense that this was an isolated incident for which a few soldiers were responsible for ... is untrue.

    By the way, did those red cross ever visit Guantalamo?




  5. #65
    IncGamers Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    1,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve_Kow
    I guess Vietnam never happened eh?
    "No" would have sufficed.




  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Connecticut, U.S.A
    Posts
    2,864
    Quote Originally Posted by Underseer
    "No" would have sufficed.
    No, it wouldn't have. Your point is irrelevant. A lack of a formal declaration of war doesn't mean a state of war didn't actually exist. Hell, Congress never declared war on Iraq, or Vietnam.




  7. #67
    IncGamers Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    1,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve_Kow
    No, it wouldn't have. Your point is irrelevant. A lack of a formal declaration of war doesn't mean a state of war didn't actually exist. Hell, Congress never declared war on Iraq, or Vietnam.
    Nice attempt at moving the goalposts. The original assertion was that war was declared.




  8. #68
    IncGamers Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    US WEST
    Posts
    2,232
    Remember, if history or facts dont agree with what Underseer thinks, he ignores it.







    Edit: Actually, you were the one who said it was an official declaration, he said it was a "de facto declaration."

    So, you are wrong, you are trying to sidetrack this arguement and keep aruguing to avoid admiting defeat...




  9. #69
    IncGamers Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    1,063
    Quote Originally Posted by tydon
    Remember, if history or facts dont agree with what Underseer thinks, he ignores it.







    Edit: Actually, you were the one who said it was an official declaration, he said it was a "de facto declaration."

    So, you are wrong, you are trying to sidetrack this arguement and keep aruguing to avoid admiting defeat...
    I refer you to the original post

    http://forums.rpgforums.net/showpost...4&postcount=38

    Here are the relevant passages:
    I still wonder why no one remembers that Saddam declared war on the US long before we attacked him.
    ...we had a nutball who had already declared war on us...
    Seeing that he already declared war on us...
    Note the presence of the word "declare" and the absence of the phrase "de facto" or any phrase that can be interpreted as "de facto."

    *yawn* Whatever.




  10. #70
    IncGamers Member Stevinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    chicagoland
    Posts
    5,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Underseer
    "No" would have sufficed.
    I'm a little sick of your constant rebuttal that 9-11 and hte iraqi conflict are completely seperate entities. sure iraq is not closely linked to al quaeda but we know that saddam and AQ have met several times, they both have a similar hatred for us and they were both actively seeking a means to kill as many americans as possible. so though we're not sure if they worked together i'd call them both terrorist entities. There is even some iffy evidence that the saudis that executed the 9-11 strike against us were trained in not far from bagdad in in-fight combat. no no one has proved it conclusively...just as we haven't figured out where the WMD we knew saddam had have been moved/sold to.

    you can argue we only have a half asked reason through the UN, you cna say we don't have conclusive enough proof that he was trying to kill us, you can say there's not enough evidence that iraq and AQ are connected. but three half reasons is enough for me. it's my life that's at stake. (chicago was on the list of cities saddam was going to fly bio weapons over in his terrorist-esque remote control plane plans).

    You can whine all you want about what the world thinks of us, and how we're not abiding by the geneva conventions and all this but you know what? who cares? the USA is protecting it's own. the geneva thing matters not anyway, no country that has signed it has upheld it 100% and the terrorists weren't wearing uniforms anyway so I don't think they're even covered under it.

    What would happen if we listened to every whiny country out there who wanted us to do something different? if everytime someone disagreed with what we were doing we stopped nothign would get done. If you don't like the war on terror and you'd rather make nice to the terrorists then fine, vote for someone other than bush. then we'll do whatever the terrorists tell us to and everyone will be happy and they'll just decide to stop blowing up our cities.

    I'm going to let you in on a secret. people hate us. they hate us for many reasons, but one seems to be an overwhelming reason. it's the same reason that baseball fans hate the yankees. they win all the time. I hate people that beat me at everything. some people don't like conflict they don't like differing opinions they want everyone to agree. those people live in a dream world. fundementalist muslims hate us because we are infidels. they think they will be more powerful if they destroy us and they aren't the people of god that other muslims are...they want to kill everyone who is not their particular brand of religious extremism.

    I hate war too. I wish we never had 9-11 and we never had to retaliate in afghanistan and iraq. I wish we had never taken over that jail and i wish we never had to "soften up" those prisioners. I think the torture was terrible, but not the worst thing i've ever seen. I mean we had some soldiers burned and dragged all over the desert and then hung on display. so a few embarassing photos aren't that terrible. the REAL harm here is that this gives al jazeera something more to whine about. I'm not belittling the incident, I'm just looking at it from a larger perspective. if you look up the first thread on this topic i was unset about the incident, but it's been overblown, and now i'm disturbed at both the action, the likely reaction and basically everything that has happened since 9-11. the whole thing is disturbing to me, but 3000 dead americans and a briefly crippled economy forced us to act. It's not nice and great and perfect, but the world rarely is.

    so does rummy need to resign? well maybe if he ordered it or something...but I don't think he's responsible in the same way you're using it. if a young schlub does something on a aircraft carrier that's bad is it the captain's fault? no, but he's responsible for everything that happens on his ship. that doens't mean you reprimand the captain though...you repremand the schlub. the people who did the deeds should be punished and everyone who was ordering them to do it should get in some trouble. but the majority should be the people who actually committed the offense.

    if it comes out that he actually ordered it...or somehow implied that it should happen then there should be some punishment, but I hardly think resignation is what we need. Notice Tenet still heads the CIA and he's the one that botched again and again. Calling for rummy's resignation is purely political. everyone on the hill and in the white house knew or should have known that we were "softening up" prisoners, we've been doing it for decades and no one was upset by it until someone released pics. all this hubub is CYA.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •