Law School Discussion

Democracy of Iraq has Constitution

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
« Reply #50 on: October 25, 2005, 09:29:10 PM »
To be honest, I agree Clinton handled it better. Even though I'm a conservative. I think Clinton should've taken more military risks (that's why I mentioned Rwanda), but Bush went to far. But now that we're in Iraq, we should stay until Iraq is as stable as Japan. I'm infuriated with people who say we should pull out any time soon.

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
« Reply #51 on: October 25, 2005, 09:53:59 PM »
To be honest, I agree Clinton handled it better. Even though I'm a conservative. I think Clinton should've taken more military risks (that's why I mentioned Rwanda), but Bush went to far. But now that we're in Iraq, we should stay until Iraq is as stable as Japan. I'm infuriated with people who say we should pull out any time soon.
See, i think pulling out now is a bad idea, but I also am infuriated that we entered into a trillion dollar endeavor that will cost many lives and has only marginal value.  We would have been better off investing that money in so many other ways than sending our troops to get attacked with roadside bombs for a country that doesnt apprecate us.

Have you seen the poll that was taken by the Brits which said the Iraqis support the attacks on coalition forces?  Prolly not since it has gotten NO US MEDIA coverage.  Maybe the press already has too many negative things to talk about.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
« Reply #52 on: October 26, 2005, 06:02:34 AM »
well, we spending close to $100 billion year now, not we?  (and this not include long-term costs of pensions for dead and wounded, etc.)  and we probably need more troops to have hope of winning war.  rice recently told congress she couldn't say war would be over within 10 years, so do math.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
« Reply #53 on: October 26, 2005, 06:15:02 AM »
sorry.  julie read closer next time.  you fine american.

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
« Reply #54 on: October 26, 2005, 08:24:20 AM »
no study, but it seems we will be there for 20+ years

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
« Reply #55 on: October 26, 2005, 11:53:38 AM »
that why any president who takes nation into war without serious support is idiot.  compare reluctance of wilson and fdr--both rather popular presidents (at least at time, for wilson)--to lead us into world wars compared to johnson's escalation in vietnam and bush's war in iraq.

as to last of these, it extra stupid to lie about basis for war, as this only will erode support when and if lie is revealed (and upcoming indictments apparently will bring this to fore as never before).

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
« Reply #56 on: October 26, 2005, 04:45:33 PM »
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House called for a UN Security Council ministerial meeting to consider action on     Syria's alleged role in the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri.
 
US     President George W. Bush "believes it's important for the Security Council to meet at the ministerial level to talk about how to proceed, and talk about how we move forward on this resolution," said spokesman Scott McClellan.

McClellan also demanded that Syria, which has denied any role in the February slaying, cooperate with a UN investigation by German magistrate Detlev Mehlis that so far has implicated senior Syrian security officials.

"Non-cooperation cannot be tolerated. That is unacceptable," said McClellan. "There needs to be accountability for the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri."

The Security Council, which heard from Mehlis on Tuesday, is split on whether to impose sanctions to force Syrian cooperation or wait for the UN report to be completed on December 15.

A draft resolution drawn up by France and the United States calls on Damascus to detain "Syrian officials or individuals" whom the UN probe considered suspects in the car bombing "and make them fully and unconditionally available to the commission."

With the threat of UN sanctions looming large, embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has asserted that Damascus is innocent while he scrambles to assure the international community that Syria is cooperating with the probe.

"I have declared that Syria is innocent of this crime, and I am ready to follow up action to bring to trial any Syrian who could be proved by concrete evidence to have had connection with this crime," Assad said in a letter sent to Washington, London and Paris, the Washington Post reported.




It sure would be nice if the UN did something, but probably not...China and Russia won't let it.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
« Reply #57 on: October 26, 2005, 11:32:49 PM »
okay...somebody did not follow my timeline re: the former dictator of iraq.
and my mention that other administrations had to deal with the murdering despot.

boy do aye remember the following: strange that you guys do not acknowledge or do not remember it.

on december 16/98 6:00pm nyc time...

"earlier today, i ordered america's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq...they are joined by british forces...their mission is to attack iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

hussein has been a problem...his heirs would have been a bigger problem...the kurds...shiites...sunnis were not in charge of their own country...that administration recognized the ramifications...

congress and the administration pushed hussein out.

A. Clinton used the right ammount of force
B. The US is not the police force of the world
C. It was not in our national interest to go to war

a. clinton's administration orchestrated an attack on iraq...necessarily so...so, realistically...since hussein moved into kuwait...it has been ON.
b. agreed...but allied countries protect its allies.
c. why was it in our national interest for clinton to order an attack on iraq?
d. what would you call clinton's order to attack iraq?
A. But Clinton did not invade and occupy Iraq
B. The US is not alloed with the Kurds, the Kurds are not a country/nation-state, and there were no allies calling for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not even Israel
C. Clintons air strike was in our interest because there was something to gain and nothing to lose; continued deterence at the price of a few missles
D. Clinton's order to attack was a justified response of proportional force to Iraqi shots at planes enforcing the no fly zone.  At some point Saddam was going to realize that shooting at our planes was not in his interest but at that point he was just testing the waters.


A. But Clinton did not invade and occupy Iraq...

no, but he set...sorry (continued) the wheels in motion for it...and did bomb the shite out of it...finally...the congress ordered the operation in iraq with the push of bush...that initially...was a strategic bombing


B. The US is not alloed with the Kurds, the Kurds are not a country/nation-state, and there were no allies calling for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not even Israel 


us ARE allied with the kurds...the tribes of iraq are "the people" of iraq...the kurds are part of the region and want to have a say in the affairs of their people...who are part of the tribes in iraq...kurdish people are in iraq's security force...iraq's security force IS a us ally


C. Clintons air strike was in our interest because there was something to gain and nothing to lose; continued deterence at the price of a few missles...


well that is right...but aye believe clinton knew it would be merely a determent and sooner or later hussein would have to go...or in time...hussein's sons would have to go...clinton played it right for the time...but eventually hands would be bloodied



D. Clinton's order to attack was a justified response of proportional force to Iraqi shots at planes enforcing the no fly zone.  At some point Saddam was going to realize that shooting at our planes was not in his interest but at that point he was just testing the waters.

testing the waters or not...he was seeing what the us was made of...and how far clinton was willing to go at the time...and an assault is an assault...and...it was obvious hussein was not going away.

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
« Reply #58 on: October 26, 2005, 11:40:32 PM »
Saddam was not a threat.  He had no way to project force outside of his own country; hell, he couldnt even fly in his own country

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Democracy of Iraq has Constitution
« Reply #59 on: October 27, 2005, 01:22:27 AM »
Saddam was not a threat.  He had no way to project force outside of his own country; hell, he couldnt even fly in his own country

temporarily...hussein and his b'aath regime were an offensive threat since their army invaded quwait...it subsided in scope but not in size...the people of the country had no say in their own affairs...and were essentially under seige...

it is threatening to the future economy of the world to have a military dictator and a ruthless b'aath party regime in charge of the 2nd largest oil reserve on the planet and not the people who live on top of it.

after hussein...his sons would have taken over...in scope...a far greater threat.
the timeline began in 1968 when ahmad hassan al-bakr was in charge with hussein waiting in the wings...as hussein's sons would be today had they not been ousted...

hussein was not finished by conceding quwait...his regime was STILL there...otherwise clinton would not have found it necessary to bomb iraq...that was one stage of a war which began with the invasion of quwait and was really not finished until the usa congress and bush took out hussein, his sons, and the military b'aath factional regime.

and mass murdering ones own people is not a "threat"...it is ruthless "action".