"If you accept those premises then, we wouldn't needed to maintain the "No Fly Zones". We could have "passed" on enforcing the cease fire agreement regarding WMD. And that obviously leads to there being no justification for imposing any sanctions on Iraq.
"
The whole point of the No-Fly zone was to
1) protect the Kurds in the notrth and Shia in the south,
2) hopefully fostering a decay of the Iraqi state and a de-facto succession of an indep. Suni or Kurd regime that could lead to the removal of Saddam.
2)and as part of the sanctions- where would you get the idea that patrolling the no-fly zone
If you think the No-Fly zone was to defend America from the evil Saddam, you are woefully ignorant of the history of that issue.
"Does this not follow your premise?"
In a word: nope
and
"Following your premise,
It makes no sense to talk about 'following a premise'. You follow arguments, and premises are prior to arguments. So what you are trying to get at I have no idea.
can you make any sense of Clinton's policy in regards to Iraq? Or back it up further,
Clintons policy on Iraq was Bush Srs policy on Iraq- containment, no-fly zones in the north and south, sanctions. It was adequate to keep Saddam in the box and keep him as a non-threat to the region. It worked fine, and you should be congratulating the daddy of your buttmonkey instead of assailing the illogic of his plan.
why bother about the fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Was Saddam ever a threat? And if you say he was at one point in time, when exactly did he stop being a threat-
"
This is why I don't bother with you- thats the dumbest thing you have said yet- and that says sometyhing. Saddam was a threat when he invaded one of the worlds largest oil supplier and threatened the largest oil-supplier. We put him in the box as a result of that threat. We contained him, we sanctioned his military down to a rusted joke, and it appears the sanctions completely wiped out his ability to make WMD or threaten anyone. You could defeat my claims by showing me any WMD... Have some? Thats what I thought....
Saddam was dealt with. End of story. He wasn't a threat.
"an exact date, please. "
How about the date his armies were defeated in Kuait? That good enough for you?
Think I'll go back to ignoring you....
Davin L.
Current Events » in reply to re: Wow- you really must be desperate
re: Wow- you really must be desperate
The whole thread (49 posts)
- U.S. Asks Allies to Condemn Iran on Nuclear Issue . . .
- OK. Well here goes. Iran, in the name of the Father (GHWB), the Son (GWB), the Holy Ghost (Dick Cheney) I rebuke thee and all thy stand for!!
- You know, a normal person might think atomic weapons in the hands of the Ayatollahs is a bad idea.
- You know, a normal person might think atomic weapons in the hands of an Israeli war criminal is a bad idea. (n/t)
- yeah, too bad
- One Addition. . .
- BTW...
- re: BTW...
- What do you think I am, an idiot?
- You established that long ago. (n/t)
- Is that a trick question? Sorry. Couldn't resist. ;)
- re: too bad
- Excellent. You did forget The Ultimate Weapon.
- Short quiz. Betcha won't answer, as the truth would hurt too much.
- See my response to Davin.
- Told you so. Told you so, told you so told you so. (n/t)
- Isn't it funny how he throws the term 'buttmonkey' around while he's this predictable in his responses and positions?
- Told you so. Told you so, told you so told you so. (n/t)
- See my response to Davin.
- You know, a normal person might think atomic weapons in the hands of the Ayatollahs is a bad idea.
- OK. Well here goes. Iran, in the name of the Father (GHWB), the Son (GWB), the Holy Ghost (Dick Cheney) I rebuke thee and all thy stand for!!
