T Nation

Warning: Political Stuff to Follow

Lift some of them whilst keeping Saddam contained. Like I’ve said before Brian before we go on ad infinitum, ad nauseam, I don’t believe they were an imminent threat and I don’t believe this is curbing terrorism! Were those not the reasons for going to war? Are, will you my friend continue to add a plethora of good reasons why we are there?
True, True, he was not complying with UN sanctions, True he was a bastard of the highest order, but unless we’re ready to offer our blood to rid the world of these people when they are not an imminent threat we are going to be sending our people to die for a long time. You are in favor of the actions the administration has undertaken, would you be willing to go pull the trigger yourself? I don’t mean to be small, I really want to know!

vroom writes:
“Brian, does this mean the US is on a one country crusade to democratize the world, but only when it isn’t painful when doing so?”


Elkhntr1, but if you read my posts here (or on any thread) I haven’t said anything about “imminent threat” or “curbing terrorism.”

As far as “pulling the trigger myself,” I think that is not a very useful question. Would you “pull the trigger” in Bosnia or the Sudan? I am not a soldier but if I was, I would understand our involvement in these 3 theatres as legitimate and moral and worthwhile.

Taking away some sanctions and leaving others meant to contain is a non-existent option. The ones which put the burden on the Iraqi people were not meant to rub Saddam’s face in his defeat but to contain him from future international malfeasance.

Brian, I think you skipped the point.

The president can’t just send the troops anywhere willy-nilly. He kind of needs a specific set of reasons or approvals.

Liking the effect that having the troops involved in a crisis provides is a different matter entirely.

vroom, that’s why I’ve always stated on this forum that the case the U.S. administration should have made for war against Iraq was “material breach of armistice agreements,” and to say “massive human rights violations” in the same breath.

In the Sudan, the case for military involvement should be imminent and threat to human life, a pretext the UN accepts IN THEORY. (In reality, the UN doesn’t ever get involved until individual countries put boots on the ground, at least not yet.) Check out the link to Hentoff column I posted above.

Well then, Brian if those reasons were given and then approved by Congress and the American people. I must say with international support I have to agree with you! I concede this to you. Now can’t you concede this administration went about this whole thing in a deceitful manner?

there was misinformation given to the White House on the nature of the chemical weapons.
Purposeful deciet?..NO…thats just your partisanship coming out. The White House didn’t influence us Army types anticipating chemical weapons when I was over there last summer. We thought they had them before the President ever said anything about going into Iraq!!! We have been training for this stuff for years and fully expected it if and when we ever went into Iraq. This was based on Army and CIA intellegence! NOT White House reports!!!
This is critical to know because the light of this proof blows away your DECIET theory!

BTW: I am a chemical weapons officer!!!

Here’s a pic I found of Montrose and Ptr protecting the skies over Georgia from the deadly Al-labia terrorists.

interesting to see whats on your mind tme!
I don’t live in Georgia dude…
and…I’m sorry you don’t seem to have a good friend. then again…you are a looser…

Tme, that is an interesting post considering all the anti faggot threads I’ve posted in.

But,I bet you really enjoy having that cartoon on your desktop! LOL!

Yeah, ok. Like you guys weren’t the original inspiration for the AGD cartoons.

Ace: you post anti-faggot stuff as a cover, it’s really transparent dude. Ease up and just go with it.

Gary: looser, loser, whatever. It confuses a lot of other people two. Or is that too? Or to? Oh hell, now I’m messed up two!


“Now what are you looking at?”

tme…all the fags these days are out with it. i guess its pretty well accpted as mainstream. i even noticed that mtv is going to have a all homo cable channel next year.
you may have to watch your back with your gay jokes! (although my girlfriend did think that cartoon was a hoot!) you may be accused of hate speech…long considered a bane by liberals! me?..I don’t give a crap who I offend.

Hang on ladies and gents: tme has attempted to hijack the thread…stay in your seats please…

Elkhntr1 writes:

“Well then, Brian if those reasons were given and then approved by Congress and the American people. I must say with international support I have to agree with you!”

There is some confusion here. Firstly, Congress approves war, not the American people. The American people elect Congress to make these decisions. Secondly, what do you mean by “international support”? International consensus does not make an action wrong or right. If you mean tacit approval for a military action by us and any country who wanted to join us via something similar to Resolution 1441, that’s a different story.

Did you support Clinton’s devastating bombing of Iraq to punish Saddam for violating the sanctions and destroy potential weapons sites? Because that was done without UN approval.