Whomod, I see you filibustered around the real issues for three posts.

Pretty much everything you posted can be dismissed simply as liberal spin of the truth.

Liberals alleging the Bush administration did something wrong, or slanderously IMPLYING Bush did something wrong without clear evidence, hardly demonstrates proof of guilt.

And mass populations of liberal schmucks protesting in cities across the world (half-informed, who are probably motivated more by undigested liberal propaganda and emotion than a real understanding of the truth, and what's really being attempted for the greater good of the entire middle east in Iraq).
These protests, however large, are still a fraction of the population of the countries where they occurred.

And as I've said several times before, it's no wonder that the popular numbers against the war are high in Europe and the Middle East, because the liberal news only argues the anti-American position.
No logical explanation of the U.S. action in Iraq is even ATTEMPTED.

And let's not forget that German President Gerhard Schroeder pumped up his popularity by bashing the United States, in order to get re-elected last year. It seems that no matter what U.S. policy is, it will be spun negatively to exploit popular preconceptions among European voters.
And even so, EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT IN EUROPE (Excluding France, Germany and Russia) SUPPORTED U.S. action in Iraq.

And again, the U.S. followed international law regarding Iraq from 1991 to 2003 ( 12 years ! ) before an inneffectual U.N. that refused to back up its own resolutions forced the U.S. to act alone.

I find it amazing that I just said in my last post above that France said (prior to the March 2003 Iraq war) they would veto ANY security council U.N. resolution to invade Iraq.
And then you AGAIN repeated the fantasy that "the U.S. should have waited until the U.N. was on board".
The U.S. acted with a coalition of the willing, because France (and possibly Germany as well) would have vetoed ANY security council resolution to disarm Iraq.

MYTH # 2:
You allege that there was no proof that Iraq had WMD's.

But THE TRUTH is --again-- that weapons inspectors had noted the huge stocks of missing weapons in Iraq's military inventories, that IRAQ's OWN INVENTORY RECORDS, AND THE U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTORS, recognized as a threat that needed to be accounted for.

All the lies, all your fantasies of "what Bush should have done" BYPASS that incontrovertible reality.

~

Since T-Dave raises many of the same falsehoods that you do, I'll answer his questions:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
i actually liked his speech, there was speculation he would have to give France and some of the axis of weasels concessions in his speech and he did none of that. he pointed out clear and simple the Iraqis are no longer under a brutal dictator. how anyone could disagree that is good is beyond me....
I don't think anyone ever disagreed with that. It was my reason for supporting the war.

The problem is that it was never the coalition's reason for going to war until no WMDs were found.
I've already answered this false notion repeatedly.

Bush listed many reasons for invading Iraq (rather than repeat myself again, read my last two posts, or the concluding 18 minutes of Bush's 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
(again, linked in my above posts).

Or Bush's 12-minute "48 hours for Saddam to leave Iraq" speech on the eve of war, on 3/17/2003
(also linked above).

Bush's speeches clearly disprove the notion that invasion was solely for WMD's.
There were MANY reasons given.
Primarily Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with the previous U.N. resolutions, cruelty to his own people, and unaccounted for WMD's, according to the prior reports of U.N. weapons inspectors.

Yet liberals and Bush-bashers constantly repeat that false allegation, that it was SOLELY, or even primarily, about WMD's. WMD's were, at best, one of many reasons from the outset, PRIOR to the invasion on 3/20/2003.
Bush's speeches say otherwise.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

And what about the rest of the bastards in the world? What about Burma, North Korea or Liberia? There are plenty of other wankers to depose. But where are the threats of invasion against them?
There are limits to what even the United States can do at one time. Why not blame the U.N. for not intervening?
Clearly, we have to start somewhere.

But even if invading for the most noble of reasons, you and whomod will just re-spin it as "warmongering" on the part of the United States.

What you consider warmongering, I call going against what's politically correct and popular, to act in the best interest of the long-term security of the United States AND THE WORLD, whether or not they appreciate it.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:

France, Germany and Russia were the three nations to whom Saddam Hussein's government owed the largest debt.
Gee, why did these nations oppose invading Iraq?
Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Or because they were reaping large profits by (while violating U.N. sanctions) doing business with Iraq?
It is not for an altruistic defense of international human rights and international law that Germany and France opposed the war. It was for their own self-interest.
I really find this argument absolutely repulsive, every time I see it.

Germany, France and Russia were not opposing a war because a very small number of companies based in those countries were illegally doing business in Iraq.
So it's off limits to suggest that France, Germany and Russia were serving their own economic and political interests, but conversely, it's accepted as fact that Bush indulged in "Blood for oil" and so forth.
That's a typically liberally biased argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

They opposed a war because there was no proof of WMDs. There still isn't.
I just made clear, for roughly the 20th time, that the U.N. weapons inspectors, and SADDAM'S OWN MILITARY RECORDS clearly disprove that allegation.

The U.N., Germany and France clearly acknowledged that the threat of Saddam existed, and even signed aboard U.N. resolution 1441 (September 2002), a resolution threatening "severe consequences", if Saddam's Iraq did not comply and disarm.
France and Germany just lacked the resolve to do the right thing, and follow up their own legislated rhetoric with action.

And it can certainly be argued that France, Germany and Russia had political and economic self-interests for not going to war with Iraq.

Chirac in particular, was cultivating a 30-year relationship with Saddam Hussein, that was France's diplomatic gateway to the Arab world. (As britneyspearsatemyshorts posted, from the France" topic: )
http://www.robkamphausen.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=27&t=000400&p=7

or directly, at:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81079,00.html


Beyond any further evidence of WMD's found, the "proof" of WMD's is Saddam's own military inventory records, huge stockpiles of VX, Sarin and Anthrax documented as missing by the U.N. weapons inspectors, based on Saddams's own records.
And if these were the official records, there were probably even more unaccounted for, consistent with Saddam's prior treachery.

The allegation of "no proof of WMD's" is just smoke tossed out by anti-American/anti-Bush political posturing and media coverage.

quote:
originally posted by Dave:

They opposed a war because international law is built on respect of sovereignty, and has been for 300 years.
I find this really ironic.

No doubt you're familiar with hundreds of years of European colonialism?
Germany only lost its colonies in 1918, less than a hundred years ago. (Togo, Namibia, Tanzania and Cameroon included. To say nothing of conquering most of Europe and North Africa in two world wars. A tremendous respect for international law, that.)

France as well had far larger colonial holdings, and only let go of its colonial empire across the globe barely 50 years ago, and only because it could no longer militarily hold on to it. (Including Algeria, Morocco, and almost all of Northeast Africa, Syria, Lebanon, Madagascar, Cambodia and Vietnam, among others).
Once again, a tremendous display of respect for international law.
I recall some nuclear testing by France in the Pacific Islands a few years ago, that was also touted as violation of international law.

So much for the moral high ground of Germany and France.

quote:
originally posted by Dave:

And they opposed the war because of intense public oppposition in their countries towards the war. No one likes warmongers.
I think it's pretty clearly established that they (Chirac and Schroeder) exploited and fanned the flames of anti-Americanism for their own political gain, despite the rightness of U.S. action, and the U.S.'s greater consistency with the U.N. resolutions to that point in time.
Gerhard Schroeder, again, postured with anti-American rhetoric to get re-elected in 2002.

But meanwhile, every other government in Europe EXCEPT France, Germany and Russia, SUPPORTED the U.S. action in Iraq.

quote:
originally posted by Dave:


The hundreds of thousands of people in cities around the world demostrated against the war not to support the French companies who illegally did business in Iraq. They did it because they hate war.
They protested based on the one-sided argument of the anti-American liberal media and anti-American political rhetoric, where the other side of the issue --the justification, documented missing weapons and the long-term good of establishing democracy in Iraq-- was not even voiced.

quote:
originally posted by Dave:

This argument set out by Dave is disgusting. Lets acknowledge it for what it is. It stinks of embarrassment in the face of allegations, real or unfounded, that the US might have spent taxpayers' money to invade a country to the profit of the US oil industry, and squirmingly endeavours to throw the profit motive back against those who hate war.
Once again, the assertion that it's an outrage to accuse France, Germany and Russia of self-serving political and economic interests for opposing the war in Iraq, while brazenly and hypocritically accusing the U.S. of exactly the same thing.

It is a pure and simple fact that France, Germany and Russia had vested interests (both political and economic) in keeping Saddam in power, despite the weight of U.N. and U.S. evidence.
Which is why France and Germany wouldn't back up the harsh U.N. rhetoric with action, and instead obstructed a U.N. security council vote to invade.
France said it would veto ANY resolution.
Despite the evidence.

T-Dave,I find your arguments unfounded, and based in slanted rhetoric. And that's all they are, baseless allegations and half-truths. If not outright lies.

There is no embarrassment for the Bush administration in being falsely painted by baseless slander.
Like I've said repeatedly, I didn't even vote for Bush, but it infuriates me to see a leader who is struggling to do the right thing, who is relentlessly smeared by a biased media and self-serving political rivals, that makes it very hard for Bush to do the right thing, and pursue a long-term objective of even TWO YEARS to do the job right, in democratizing Iraq.

quote:
originally posted by Dave:


It is pathetic, and evasive. It tries to make people who oppose war as a valid instrument of diplomacy look like they're motivated by greed.

It is a grubby, grubby lie.
More personal insults, that bypass the issues raised here.

Go for the ball, not the man, ( to use your own arguments against me in prior debates).

I see so much slander and jumping to baseless conclusions about the Bush administration. I simply point out that the other side has political/economic motivations as well.

And that Germany and France's actions since September 2002 (U.N. resolution 1441) are in direct contradiction to the threat they previously not only said Iraq was, but VOTED that Iraq was, in the prior U.N. resolutions.

And when Chirac and Schroeder stop exploiting anti-Americanism for their own political gain, then your argument in defense of Germany and France's posturing might gain some credibility.