Fact and Fiction, The Iraq Conflict

Saddam was not on the ballot. That is a fact. Semper, you have no facts I have seen.

Originally posted by semperfortis
1. The reason for going in Iraq being the violation of UN sanctions is mentioned first and foremost

Many countries have NUMEROUS U.N Sanctions violations NUCLEAR ones at that, and yet they are our allies so we remain silent to these violations.

Also, why are "we" enforcing U.N sanctions when the U.n didn't authorize it?

2. Speeches of support were made by both sides of the isle, all with availability to the same information as the administration

looks above.

3. If there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, who are those people we have killed and captured who were named by the enemy as "Leaders of Al-Qaeda in Iraq?
I would assume if there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, we would not be constantly finding these people....

Al-CIAda in Iraq was formed after the invasion, Local insurgents and foreign fighters some of which with no real affiliations to AL-CIAda took on the name.

Of course we are going to find a mix of Real Al-CIAda in that region, they are looking for a fight, and our troops are in Iraq, so they are going to go to IRAQ...

Saddam was not on the ballot. That is a fact. Semper, you have no facts I have seen.

Come on now.... Follow the conversation....

I believe that the Iraqi Government that was "elected" by the Iraqi people was selected by Paul Wolfiwitz and other American officials as a puppet to US interest. So the invitation isn't to surprising is it?

See how my response fits nicely?

Now your caught up there, let's look at my "facts" shall we...

1. I have posted the election results... FACT
2. Iranian Intelligence Officers captured in Iraq.
Iranians in Iraq FACT
3. Other Foreign Fighters Captured...
More Foreign Fighters Captured FACT

Now I could go on and on, but those that know me, know that I use only factual sources. You will have to find the rest yourself.

FACTS

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
The "War", the "Conflict" what ever you wish to call it, is not illegal. Not even close. The fact that it has been tested in the courts and found to be perfectly legal should satisfy any thinking person. (Remember that just because you WANT it to be illegal in no way makes it so)

Interesting idea, but....

Which international court has it been tested in, exactly?

The UN security council didn't agree to it. It may have grudgingly accepted it because there would have been a total stalemate on any vote, but the use of force in Iraq was not specifically voted on. Resolution 1441 did not give direct authorisation for the use of force by any nation.

I guess I'm just fond of reminiscing, but I remember all the bold and valiant speeches made by Republicans AND Democrats about how we need to go in and remove Saddam. Did they and you expect us to do that and just leave the vacuum that we created? Are you that naive?

Theres a difference between a power vaccum and still trying to call the shots. I think alot of people see the US as still trying to call the shots in Iraq.

We enabled the Iraqi people to vote and choose their own destiny. Now we stay and support that vote from those now free people. We fight the Islamic Fascists that want nothing except to control everyone and everything under their version of religion.

Forcefully "Installing" democracy, really isn't allowing it to happen, is it?
As for "islamic facists", Iraq was secular before the invasion. Its most certainly not secular now. What the invasion provided was essentially an excuse for the lunatics on all sides to go on a killing spree because they could.

Now besides "Illegal War" I hear all the time "War for Oil" another hyped up and unsubstantiated claim that ignores the facts and makes conclusions based on hyperbole and fantasy desires.

When you ask a "War for Oil" uninformed person to PROVE their comment, you get this. "You prove it's not". HAHAHAHAHAHA How ridiculous is that? Asking me to prove a negative in support of an unsubstantiated comment with no merit.

Well the removal of a hostile administration and the installation of a more friendly one in a country sitting on huge oil reserves by the worlds largest consumer of oil isn't really going to help your argument there, is it?

I wonder how vocal you all would be on this issue if all of a sudden you were walking to work? Oh you can protest how brave you would be while your sitting here able to buy gas, you can talk big and bad, but we all know the truth. You would be raising holy heck and screaming about how bad the government is... Can't you all see the hypocrisy? Of course not, you have gas now.

Ah. So it IS about oil. You just contradicted yourself there.

Fact vs Fiction... I still wonder what happens to peoples intellect on this issue. Why they can not believe facts, yet jump on any politically correct fictional account that slides down the pike.

Well, I'd suggest that theres a question of spin and interpretation on how people look at things really

Also, why are "we" enforcing U.N sanctions when the U.n didn't authorize it?

My guess would be because they shot at our planes? Remember that?

Or that he used Chemical Weapons to kill thousands of innocent people... Remember those weapons he never had? They sure were deadly to be non existent. I'll just bet if you ask one of the friends or family left of the Kurds he massacred about those weapons, they believe he had them..

Add to that the training terrorist training grounds he sponsored and built, well it just becomes academic to me.

Well there was that little incident where he invaded a country under our protection as well...

So, it all adds up to me, but I am sure there will be OPINIONS and FEELINGS that differ....

Semper

You just contradicted yourself there.

Not a contradiction at all....

Just showing you that there are many reasons and how foolish it is to pick one out as your bone of contention and argue only that one.

Of course oil is an issue. You can not argue anything about the Middle East and not discuss oil...

Yet your contention is to ignore or disregard all other facts and relevant evidence and keep insisting oil is the only reason.

I'm trying to show you how foolish that is... To fixate on a single solitary reason in such a complicated scenario... Come on...

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
1.We went and deposed a tyrant

The one who's regime we trained, funded, supported, and armed?

2.We stayed and helped set up and support one of the most successful democratic elections seen in the free world

We supported, trained, funded and armed a dictator in Iraq, then disposed him. only to have that backfire, multiple times...
We influenced the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran to install a puppet leader... only to have that backfire.... multiple times...
We supported a dictator in Pakistan which overthrew a democracy...
Thats working out well...
We supported, trained, funded and armed the Mujaahideen, of which many remnants are now Al-CIAda.. that backfired multiple times....

should i go on?

3. We have captured several well known Al-Qaeda members in Iraq. Even calling themselves "The Leaders of Al-Qaeda in Iraq". Not something we coined

looks to previous reply.

4. We have calculated that approximately 80 to 90% of all recent detainees and enemy casualties are from neighboring countries and not indigenous to Iraq.

Which basically substantiates the fact that our enemies aren't in Iraq they are simply GOING THERE BECAUSE WE ARE THERE...

5. The Presidents Speeches all began telling us we were going in because of the violation of sanctions and they ended that way as well.

Yeah with nuclear weapons, bio and chemical labs funding al-CIAda ect ect ect.. even though we patrolled 2/3 of the country for 12+ years and the only places these facilities "could" have been located would be in a vary small area around Baghdad.. and central Iraq...

Originally posted by semperfortis

Now your caught up there, let's look at my "facts" shall we...

1. I have posted the election results... FACT
2. Iranian Intelligence Officers captured in Iraq.
Iranians in Iraq FACT
3. Other Foreign Fighters Captured...
More Foreign Fighters Captured FACT

You said that 80-90% of all recent detainees and enemy casualties are from neighboring countries and not indigenous to Iraq.
Then you come in here and back it up with two reports - one that talks of TWO(2) Iranian int officers captures and the other source showing just over 300 non national fighters captured.

Your second source goes on to say "Non-Iraqis make up a small percentage of the more than 10,000 suspected fighters currently detained in Iraq, and are believed to comprise less than 5 percent of the fighters in the insurgency."

I suggest you check your sources more carefully SIR.

Now I could go on and on, but those that know me, know that I use only factual sources. You will have to find the rest yourself.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by pavlovsdog]

Guys,

there is no point in trying to debate a person like this on his points.

Simply ask for him to back up what he proudly calls his FACTS.

He falls miserably on his face, and his argument is destroyed.

He will attempt to show what proof he has on the items he can substantiate (many of his facts will show faulty evidence that he uses)

Other points that he makes, when asked for proof he will simply reply

"People who KNOW me, know I use facts - if you dont believe me, find out for yourselves" - paraphrased

A debate champion. HA

[snipped personal comment] Courtesy is mandatory

Please debate the topic, not the people.

[edit on 29/0108/08 by neformore]

[edit on 29/0108/08 by neformore]

Which international court has it been tested in, exactly?

As for the legality or illegality of any action taken by my Country, I am only concerned with the laws of the United States.

As the use of force was authorized by congress, in an almost unanimous decision, the war is not illegal.

Whatever Bulgaria, France or "Hippopotimia" decide is of no relevance to me.

I think alot of people see the US as still trying to call the shots in Iraq.

What one sees and what is happening is not connected factually. The FACT is that the current President of Iraq has asks us to stay, numerous times. He has also assured us that us leaving will destroy his country.

Forcefully "Installing" democracy, really isn't allowing it to happen, is it?

Did you miss the Iraqi Election? Where they voted for Democracy almost unanimously? I saw it...

country sitting on huge oil reserves by the worlds largest consumer of oil isn't really going to help your argument there, is it?

What country provides the majority of oil to the US? Here I'll answer it for you Canada...

Using your "round about" thinking, we should have invaded Canada...

Ah. So it IS about oil. You just contradicted yourself there.

It is about all the issues I have mentioned of course. It is the taking of one singular issue, that because it is politically correct and shines a bad light again being politically correct and following the crowd, and using that issue as the sole foundation for an argument.. Makes no sense..

Well, I'd suggest that theres a question of spin and interpretation on how people look at things really

If your claiming spin in reference to facts and that is your argument, then anything anyone says is useless. Facts are facts, spin or not..

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
Why is it you are so ready to say we are after the oil..

Because oil is vitally important.

And yet so hesitant to say we are there for democracy,

Because we (US) have not previously supported democratic governments in that region, and have not taken similar actions throughout the world to support democracy.

Originally posted by semperfortis
My guess would be because they shot at our planes? Remember that?

I would assume we would also be shooting at his planes if they patrolled OUR skies...

Or that he used Chemical Weapons to kill thousands of innocent people... Remember those weapons he never had? They sure were deadly to be non existent. I'll just bet if you ask one of the friends or family left of the Kurds he massacred about those weapons, they believe he had them..

Oh you mean the ones we sold him?

And you mean all of those poor Iraqi's we promised we would march into Baghdad with and oust Saddam in the first golf war, only to not help them at all and watch them get massacred? and those poor Iraqi's no one gave a # about for 12+years?

Add to that the training terrorist training grounds he sponsored and built, well it just becomes academic to me.

Where? whats "terrorists" trained in these "terrorist" training camps, committed a "terrorist" act?

Well there was that little incident where he invaded a country under our protection as well...

yeah and he got pushed right on back into his country and um his citizens faced sanctions for 12+ years which resulted in many of there deaths...

not only that many of our great "allies" profited from this oil for food bull#.


[edit on 29-1-2008 by C0le]

reply to post by pavlovsdog


My friend, you are welcome to come into the debate arena anytime..

As for my use of facts...

Your one of those posters I love.. You wont look for yourself to prove anything, you want who ever you are posting with to do all your research for you...

Not my job...

You posting your opinion, in retaliation of my facts (However limited they may be) is a prime example of your stance. Also the attacks on my character and my account status are unnecessary and I believe mildly against the T and C.

Now I love a good heated debate, but if you are going to get personal, I must bow out as none of this is personal to me and the conversation has degraded below where I am willing to go...

Look here..

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

T and C

Thanks

Semper

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


No argument there...

I have stated that Oil is one of the many reasons for going there. I however object to the politically correctness of singling it out as the only reason and basing an entire negative campaign on that one issue.

Historically we have taken numerous actions to support democracy throughout the world however.. Boxer Rebellion, Korea, Vietnam and I would argue that our support of Israel qualifies as supporting democracy in that part of the world.

However your point is well taken. We have not in fact engaged in hostilities in defense of democracy in that area prior to this.

Yet does that completely negate or dismiss the freeing of a people? Does that somehow diminish their worth or their right to freedom?

Not to me

Semper

So let us list the facts we can agree on.
Saddam was not a saint.
Bush is not a saint.
WMDs have not been found.
We have WMDs ready to go.
Saddam is dead.
America is hated more than ever before.
We did some nice things for some Iraqis.
We did some bad things to some Iraqis.
We tourtured people.
Life in Iraq was better before we went in.
We have gone into great debt.
We have killed many of those who opposed us.
We have made many oppose us who did not before.
Iraq has oil.
Politicians lie.
There are some crazy extreemists out there.
They might come and try and kill us.
Everybody likes money.

reply to post by C0le


If you are defending Saddam I can not argue with you... If you have it in your mind that he was a good guy and not the murderous tyrant he was, how is it I could ever give you an argument?

Looking at previous actions by previous administrations is not relevant here. I could show you historically where every single government in existence made similar or even more horrific mistakes. What does that prove? So we made mistakes in who we supported? What does that prove? Does that mean we should not help a people live free?

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by pavlovsdog

 

You wont look for yourself to prove anything, you want who ever you are posting with to do all your research for you...

Not my job...

If the original poster cannot substantiate his claims, what validity does the original poster have.

It should not be the responsibility of the reader to verify every point a topic starter makes. By you posting the claims, you are representing that you have done the research, otherwise we must assume you are just 'talking off the top of your head'.

A good argument is backed up by facts. Not by the statement 'if you knew me, you would know I speak only the truth' (paraphrased)

I apologise for the personal remark. My dander got up and my 'noobish' here came out. I edited it

In every conflict or war, there are people representing all sides of the issue. That is why people choose to see it the way that fits their ideals, they see what they need to to justify their particular stance.

I forgot to mention that many people feel victimized by the few that seek to sustain their vital interests. Oil is always a button that can be pushed to cause otherwise rational people over to the side of the defense against war or conflict.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by antar]

reply to post by earthman4


I'll address them as you have listed them.

So let us list the facts we can agree on.
Saddam was not a saint. (Agreed)

Bush is not a saint. (Agreed)

WMDs have not been found. (Evidence of chemical weapons were in fact discovered)

We have WMDs ready to go. (So?)

Saddam is dead. (Agreed)

America is hated more than ever before.(So?)

We did some nice things for some Iraqis. (Millions)

We did some bad things to some Iraqis. (Bad Iraqi's Yes)

We tourtured people. (Inconclusive)

Life in Iraq was better before we went in. (Ridiculous)

We have gone into great debt. (So?)

We have killed many of those who opposed us. (Excellent)

We have made many oppose us who did not before. (Nope wrong)

Iraq has oil. (So do we, Canada, Venezuela etc etc The Point?)

Politicians lie. (Yes!)

There are some crazy extreemists out there. (Yes)

They might come and try and kill us. (They already have)

Everybody likes money. (Yes)

Semper

reply to post by pavlovsdog


Apology accepted

Semper