DescentBB

Since he left out a legitimate choice you may find it here...

I vote Birdseye's choices.
Noone else was going to launch an attack then but Bush. It's a fairly Black and White choice.

TIGERassault wrote:I vote Birdseye's choices.
Noone else was going to launch an attack then but Bush. It's a fairly Black and White choice.

That's kind of the BIG point! You see, the U.N Security Council - the big world wide authority - issued the demand that he comply or else....he didn't comply and they let him buy his way out of trouble.
And you apparently don't have a problem with that!
You probably have no clue how that takes the authority right out of anything they do in the future!

Will Robinson wrote:That's kind of the BIG point! You see, the U.N Security Council - the big world wide authority - issued the demand that he comply or else....he didn't comply and they let him buy his way out of trouble.
And you apparently don't have a problem with that!
You probably have no clue how that takes the authority right out of anything they do in the future!

Huh? No, I was just saying here that nobody else was going to attack, or at least that we know of, except Bush; and he'd carry it the full way through, like he did.
That's why I say there's no middle option.

So when the U.N. Security Council passed Reolution 1441 what were they intending? Have you even read it?

And when they said: that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
you thought they meant what?

You see just because you think no one was going to attack, the rest of the world had good reason to believe that Saddams actions could indeed lead to a military intervention. And the legitimacy of the U.N. Security Council depends on it backing up it's demands!
So your whole point resting on your lone assertion that \"no one was going to attack\" is kind of weak!

[Sigh]

No good answer for me here, either.

See my post in the other poll thread - there's still the relevant (to me) option of, \"I was against the war, and now I am for staying to prevent a civil war.\"

Will Robinson wrote:So when the U.N. Security Council passed Reolution 1441 what were they intending? Have you even read it?

And when they said: that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
you thought they meant what?

You see just because you think no one was going to attack, the rest of the world had good reason to believe that Saddams actions could indeed lead to a military intervention. And the legitimacy of the U.N. Security Council depends on it backing up it's demands!
So your whole point resting on your lone assertion that "no one was going to attack" is kind of weak!

Wait; first you were complaining that the UN didn't invade Iraq and the US had to do it. Then you say that yes, the UN were going to invade?
Am I missing something? Or are you just a person that likes to argue?

Foil wrote:[Sigh]

No good answer for me here, either.

See my post in the other poll thread - there's still the relevant (to me) option of, "I was against the war, and now I am for staying to prevent a civil war."

Sorry, and yours is a good choice for someone who was opposed to the war but facing reality you favor not running away and leaving a bigger problem than existed when we went in. Definitely a wise position in my mind but Birdseye's poll was the magically-go-back-and-do-it-over/different scenario. In which case I'd say you weren't going to go to war in the first place....so his choices have you covered.

TIGERassault wrote:Wait; first you were complaining that the UN didn't invade Iraq and the US had to do it. Then you say that yes, the UN were going to invade?
Am I missing something?.

Yes. And it has been pointed out numerous times. You are missing the fact that the U.N. said they would use force.
My point, the one you've been avoiding every time it's raised, is if they had done their job as they agreed to...if they had backed up their threat with obvious impending invasion Saddam would have given in because he wouldn't have bribed Russia and France and niether of those two countries would have been telling him they wouldn't go along with an invasion. Instead Saddam, would have had no allies giving him hope he could get away with his games again and would have seen the whole U.N. acting as one and he would have given in.
That is what you are missing...or else you just like to play dumb.

dude, there's no way any poll puts everyones opinion in there.

the intention of the poll was basically to find out if you were for or against the war, and would you change your view based on what happened now. Not what bush \"should have done instead\"

Birdseye wrote:dude, there's no way any poll puts everyones opinion in there.

the intention of the poll was basically to find out if you were for or against the war, and would you change your view based on what happened now. Not what bush "should have done instead"

Right, and I was for the war and changed my view to a position not included in your poll so I'm asking how many others see it the same way. Nothing more to it.

Will Robinson wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:Wait; first you were complaining that the UN didn't invade Iraq and the US had to do it. Then you say that yes, the UN were going to invade?
Am I missing something?.

Yes. And it has been pointed out numerous times. You are missing the fact that the U.N. said they would use force.
My point, the one you've been avoiding every time it's raised, is if they had done their job as they agreed to...if they had backed up their threat with obvious impending invasion Saddam would have given in because he wouldn't have bribed Russia and France and niether of those two countries would have been telling him they wouldn't go along with an invasion. Instead Saddam, would have had no allies giving him hope he could get away with his games again and would have seen the whole U.N. acting as one and he would have given in.
That is what you are missing...or else you just like to play dumb.

Uh...huh...
I'm getting mixed messages here.
Which do you think would have happened: that the UN would have or wouldn't have attacked Saddam?

TIGERassault wrote: Uh...huh...
I'm getting mixed messages here.
Which do you think would have happened: that the UN would have or wouldn't have attacked Saddam?

Your question is flawed because it doesn't allow the most likely outcome.
That answer you seek, which is also that outcome you refuse to consider, has already been given to you.
Here it is again:
********************
if they had done their job as they agreed to...if they had backed up their threat with obvious impending invasion Saddam would have given in because he wouldn't have bribed Russia and France and neither of those two countries would have been telling him they wouldn't go along with an invasion.
*********************

It's a hypothetical situation. We know now, with the benefit of hindsight, that members of the Security Council elected to strike private deals with Saddam instead of back up the enforcement of the resolutions that they themselves helped write and that they themselves voted for!

The point is that if they hadn't done that and instead they had joined forces Saddam would have flinched even sooner because there woulld have been no hope for protection from a unified Security Council.
And when he flinched it wouldn't have been up to Bush to decide that he could ignore Saddams last minute surrender it would have been a joint decision. We would have, for the very first time had completely unfettered access to all of Iraq.
Saddam would have been exposed as having no WMD's and the U.N. Security Council would have had no authority to remove him from power.

I'm not making excuses for the way Bush has managed the war in Iraq. I've already condemned him for it more than once.

But if you read resolution 1441 and all the previous resolutions it includes you will see plainly that everyone on the Security Council had agreed that Saddam was a potential threat and had to be compelled to surrender numerous weapons systems that he instead had been trying very hard to hide from inspectors throughout the 12 year period!
They were still discovering things they thought were destroyed right up until they were kicked out the last time!!
So yea, we "rushed in there" at the amazing speed of a 12 year pace!

*The right to invade if he didn't comply was legitimate in the eyes of the U.N. Security Council.

*Members of the Security Council struck under the table oil futures deals that were contingent upon Saddam being released from the current sanctions.

*When he finally realized the U.S. and Great Britain was going to invade in spite of the resistance from the bribed members Saddam tried to give in...it was too late to satisfy Bush and Blair, they wanted him gone.

*Had the Security Council resisted the bribery and instead actually lived up to their obligation under their agreement as Security Council members Saddam's last minute surrender would have been delivered to the head of the U.N. instead of Bush and Bush couldn't invade unilaterally at that point. If he did he definitely would have been a war criminal at that point just like the bribed members should be considered criminals right now!

*So by taking a bribe the French and Russians sealed Saddam's fate and enabled Bush and Blair to go in under whatever rules they wanted to make up...and we all saw how inventive they have been twisting the "rules".

Perhaps I didn't make clear my question. I'll try again.

If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, do you think that the UN would have invaded/started to invade/backed up their threat/took action?

Obviously not. They didn't.

No, it's pretty damn clear they would have voted to release Saddam from the sanctions and cashed in their oil future deals. Saddam would have been allowed to ramp up his production of weapons again as he was planning to do.

What is the relevance of your question to the point I raised?

who cares if we had 'the right' to invade? its funny now in our 'modern' times we have these rules and regulations that make it seem ok for us to wage war. this guy was not a threat with the entire world breathing down his neck. all eyes were on him. we searched for weapons and couldnt find anything. we stormed the country and didn't find any more weapons. big surprise.

Birdseye wrote:who cares if we had 'the right' to invade? its funny now in our 'modern' times we have these rules and regulations that make it seem ok for us to wage war. this guy was not a threat with the entire world breathing down his neck. all eyes were on him. we searched for weapons and couldnt find anything. we stormed the country and didn't find any more weapons. big surprise.

Read 1441 and check the dates on when Blix and company declared he had nothing, then check the dates on when they wrote him up for having the very thing they thought he didn't have...
The truth is, until we went in there by force no one could say for sure what he had and if we let the French and Russians prevail he would probably be completely free to re-build by now.
For me that is unacceptable, read my reply in the other thread to understand why.

Will Robinson wrote:What is the relevance of your question to the point I raised?

It's back to the Black and White point.

Will Robinson vs Everyone. Heh!

TIGERassault wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:What is the relevance of your question to the point I raised?

It's back to the Black and White point.

Are you incapable of discussing a hypothetical, or afraid to?

If you don't want to discuss the point I raised then just vote but don't try to deny that it was possible to have had a much different outcome if the Council had made the choice to enforce their demands. No matter how you try to spin this the possibility that the Council could have enforced the resolutions and the outcome would have been much better is a legitimate point.
That is a fact.
Why you won't dicuss it is your problem.

Skyalmian wrote:Will Robinson vs Everyone. Heh!

You lost me there.

I think this is a language issue.

Birdseye's options covered everything. The point of the post was \"Knowing what you know now, would you do it again?\" The information he was looking for was a basic for/against then and now.

So that's 4 possabilities.
for/for
for/against
against/for
against/against

He already said he wasn't listing the against/for option, so we are left with the 3 he did list.

I think the problem is the way Birdseye wrote the options makes them seem somewhat limited in scope.
Will would fall into the for /for catagory. Knowing what he knows now, he would still go to war, just do it differently (politics need revision).

So, Birdseye's poll covers it all.

catch has it right, will is just very passionate about his view.

Read 1441 and check the dates on when Blix and company declared he had nothing, then check the dates on when they wrote him up for having the very thing they thought he didn't have...
The truth is, until we went in there by force no one could say for sure what he had and if we let the French and Russians prevail he would probably be completely free to re-build by now.
For me that is unacceptable, read my reply in the other thread to understand why.

I'm still confused as to how this guy was even a threat compared to many other dictators and countries. Sure, he had a little bit of funny business. So, we weren't sure what kind of weapons he had, he wasn't threatening to attack anyone, and the entire world was breathing down his neck. I still don't see how this was such an alarming problem that it required a full scale invasion of the country. Please articulate very clearly here, I want to hear what you have to say.

The funny thing about the Iraq war is I think you could have made similar cases for many other dictators, but we have tunnell vision with Iraq.