No end in sight

[wicked_assassin]

one thing: in history leaders gave always an other "more nobel" reason for going to war then the "true" reason.

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

[quote=""wicked_assassin""]one thing: in history leaders gave always an other "more nobel" reason for going to war then the "true" reason.[/quote]

How about this one? On September 1, 1939, Hitler announced that Germany invaded Poland because 25 Polish police officers raided across the German border and stole some radio equipment. In fact, the "police" were Germans dressed in Polish uniforms. In response to this "aggression" by 25 men, the Germans attacked Poland with 3 million troops, tanks and the air force.

But they had a reason... you can't let Polish police steal radio equipment on your own territory.

[huGGy]

[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""][quote=""wicked_assassin""]one thing: in history leaders gave always an other "more nobel" reason for going to war then the "true" reason.[/quote]

How about this one? On September 1, 1939, Hitler announced that Germany invaded Poland because 25 Polish police officers raided across the German border and stole some radio equipment. In fact, the "police" were Germans dressed in Polish uniforms. In response to this "aggression" by 25 men, the Germans attacked Poland with 3 million troops, tanks and the air force.

But they had a reason... you can't let Polish police steal radio equipment on your own territory. [/quote]

Seit 5:45 Uhr wird zurück geschossen.

[IndyBrit]

@Mac:
Find me the specific Bush quote you are talking about. I'm aware of him saying that Saddam was not cooperating with inspections (true) and that he violated security council resolutions (also true).

Where is a naked assertion by Bush that inspectors were not allowed in the country when in fact they were in the country at the time?

[IndyBrit]

[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben"]
I think it is safe to say that Lincoln probably did not care about the average slave in the South. He would not have invited former slaves over for dinner, and he would not have paid their rent. But I really do think that he wanted to abolish slavery. Yes, it helped him politically when he did it, but Lincoln was an extremely Christian man. If you really follow Christ, you simply cannot countenance slavery. You just can't do it. Not just that, but Lincoln also took the Constitution seriously and he saw that the lofty principles just weren't working when some people were "people" and others were "property." The whole business about "all men being created equal" just turned into a huge farce.
[/quote]

Not sure I agree with the Christ-slavery business. Many of his parables involved servant-master relationships, and Ephesians (post-Christ interpretations, but considered relevant by many Christians) also cover master-slave relationships. Christ would probably have told masters to treat their slaves well, but I don't think it's clear that he would have abolished the institution. His gig was not really political, and he probably would have said that you shouldn't worry about your stature and focus on God instead.

[rufio_eht]

[quote=""IndyBrit""][quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben"]
I think it is safe to say that Lincoln probably did not care about the average slave in the South. He would not have invited former slaves over for dinner, and he would not have paid their rent. But I really do think that he wanted to abolish slavery. Yes, it helped him politically when he did it, but Lincoln was an extremely Christian man. If you really follow Christ, you simply cannot countenance slavery. You just can't do it. Not just that, but Lincoln also took the Constitution seriously and he saw that the lofty principles just weren't working when some people were "people" and others were "property." The whole business about "all men being created equal" just turned into a huge farce.
[/quote]

Not sure I agree with the Christ-slavery business. Many of his parables involved servant-master relationships, and Ephesians (post-Christ interpretations, but considered relevant by many Christians) also cover master-slave relationships. Christ would probably have told masters to treat their slaves well, but I don't think it's clear that he would have abolished the institution. His gig was not really political, and he probably would have said that you shouldn't worry about your stature and focus on God instead.[/quote]

Indeed, a first shall be last, last shall be first type thing.

Kaiser, or anyone, I'm quite interested to hear your opinion on the perceived South's right to secession.

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""IndyBrit""][quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben"]
I think it is safe to say that Lincoln probably did not care about the average slave in the South. He would not have invited former slaves over for dinner, and he would not have paid their rent. But I really do think that he wanted to abolish slavery. Yes, it helped him politically when he did it, but Lincoln was an extremely Christian man. If you really follow Christ, you simply cannot countenance slavery. You just can't do it. Not just that, but Lincoln also took the Constitution seriously and he saw that the lofty principles just weren't working when some people were "people" and others were "property." The whole business about "all men being created equal" just turned into a huge farce.
[/quote]

Not sure I agree with the Christ-slavery business. Many of his parables involved servant-master relationships, and Ephesians (post-Christ interpretations, but considered relevant by many Christians) also cover master-slave relationships. Christ would probably have told masters to treat their slaves well, but I don't think it's clear that he would have abolished the institution. His gig was not really political, and he probably would have said that you shouldn't worry about your stature and focus on God instead.[/quote]

Also remember that slavery back then versus 16th & 17th century slavery was much different.

[jonesk]

[quote=""IndyBrit""]@Mac:
Find me the specific Bush quote you are talking about. I'm aware of him saying that Saddam was not cooperating with inspections (true) and that he violated security council resolutions (also true).

Where is a naked assertion by Bush that inspectors were not allowed in the country when in fact they were in the country at the time?[/quote]

July 14th 2003:
” The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.”

January 27th 2004:
“And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution — 1441 — unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""jonesk""][quote=""IndyBrit""]@Mac:
Find me the specific Bush quote you are talking about. I'm aware of him saying that Saddam was not cooperating with inspections (true) and that he violated security council resolutions (also true).

Where is a naked assertion by Bush that inspectors were not allowed in the country when in fact they were in the country at the time?[/quote]

July 14th 2003:
” The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.”

January 27th 2004:
“And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution — 1441 — unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."[/quote]

When he made those remarks, Saddam was not allowing inspectors in the country.

Over 30 European nations joined with us on 1441, yet this is ALL Bush's fault is what I find so hilarious....

[Sporting_Lisbon]

Yes, europeans shouldn't trust so much in the american government right? :p

[IndyBrit]

[quote=""jonesk""][quote=""IndyBrit""]@Mac:
Find me the specific Bush quote you are talking about. I'm aware of him saying that Saddam was not cooperating with inspections (true) and that he violated security council resolutions (also true).

Where is a naked assertion by Bush that inspectors were not allowed in the country when in fact they were in the country at the time?[/quote]

July 14th 2003:
” The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.”

January 27th 2004:
“And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution — 1441 — unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."[/quote]

The proposed quotes are non-responsive.

Saddam banned inspectors from the country on many specific occasions, and he banned them from specific sites they were supposed to be allowed to inspect on many occasions. Both of these quotes are post-invasion, so they cannot be quotes from a situation where Saddam was allowing inspectors and yet Bush asserts that he is. It is easy to see these quotes referring to either occasions where Saddam banned the group from the country or from certain sites, although they are non-specific so we can't be sure. Perhaps, rather than referring to times where Saddam banned inspectors, these quotes are referring back to times where they were allowed, and he wasn't thinking of the banned times during these quotes, and was therefore lying. (and perhaps that line of reasoning is absurd. )

Therefore, again, where is he saying that they were banned from the country during a time they were allowed in?

[IndyBrit]

[quote=""Sporting_Lisbon""]Yes, europeans shouldn't trust so much in the american government right? :p[/quote]

Europeans should not trust the U.S. government. They should also not trust the European governments.

[Sporting_Lisbon]

I don't trust the portuguese government much, dunno about the others :\

[Macabee]

[quote=""Soccerman771""]

When he made those remarks, Saddam was not allowing inspectors in the country.

Over 30 European nations joined with us on 1441, yet this is ALL Bush's fault is what I find so hilarious....[/quote]

This is stunning. Hans Blix headed a UN inspection team that had unfettered, unannounced visits anywhere in Iraq leading up the Bush order to get out. The UN inspection team was actually in Iraq. When the Bush administration announced that they "knew" where the wmd was that Blix (who was leading the UN inspection team that was actually in Iraq conducting inspections) was like great, tell us! It was the Bush administration that stonewalled the UN inspection team about sharing information with the inspection team. Hans Blix, who actually conducted the inspections in FULL compliance with the resolution reported that there was no evidence of any wmd program.

Do you know that many nations agreed to the UN resolution only after it used watered down language that did not include the use of force? Many nations did not agree with the use of force.

It's not really very funny that while the inspectors were finding that there were no weapon of mass destruction, Bush rushed to war before he could be found out.

Mac

[Macabee]

[quote=""IndyBrit""][quote=""jonesk""][quote=""IndyBrit""]@Mac:
Find me the specific Bush quote you are talking about. I'm aware of him saying that Saddam was not cooperating with inspections (true) and that he violated security council resolutions (also true).

Where is a naked assertion by Bush that inspectors were not allowed in the country when in fact they were in the country at the time?[/quote]

July 14th 2003:
” The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.”

January 27th 2004:
“And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution — 1441 — unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."[/quote]

The proposed quotes are non-responsive.

Saddam banned inspectors from the country on many specific occasions, and he banned them from specific sites they were supposed to be allowed to inspect on many occasions. Both of these quotes are post-invasion, so they cannot be quotes from a situation where Saddam was allowing inspectors and yet Bush asserts that he is. It is easy to see these quotes referring to either occasions where Saddam banned the group from the country or from certain sites, although they are non-specific so we can't be sure. Perhaps, rather than referring to times where Saddam banned inspectors, these quotes are referring back to times where they were allowed, and he wasn't thinking of the banned times during these quotes, and was therefore lying. (and perhaps that line of reasoning is absurd. )

Therefore, again, where is he saying that they were banned from the country during a time they were allowed in?[/quote]

It appears he quoted the quote about the time in question. That time that Bush referenced as we all know was the time that Hans Blix led a UN inspection team in Iraq. To clarify: Bush was saying that Saddam Hussein would not let the inspectors in.

Mac