British Army runs away from Basra

[Alan]

I wouldn't have provoked the war when there was a legitimate reason for Iraq to invade Kuwait, and instead stopped Kuwait from slant drilling. That would be the responsible and correct thing to do.

Cop out number 2

The question still remains So Xarog how would you deal with situation that faced the world at that time? After the the First Gulf War

I think he means that America stopped interfering with Germany's internal affairs.

Which they didn't do for years after the war ended

You won't buy the book because you know what you'll find



Spurious as in when you claimed somebody said something and couldn't produce any proof to back it up. Then when proof that that somebody said exactly the oposite came to out you still stuck by what you said. Eish

 

[Xarog]

Cop out number 2

The question still remains So Xarog how would you deal with situation that faced the world at that time? After the the First Gulf War

I wouldn't have started or provoked the war, thus I see no reason to answer as if I had, presuming that I actually had the influence to change events.

I might as well ask you how you'd impliment communism.

You won't buy the book because you know what you'll find

Yeah. Another load of rubbish.

Spurious as in when you claimed somebody said something and couldn't produce any proof to back it up. Then when proof that that somebody said exactly the oposite came to out you still stuck by what you said. Eish

I guess you must have had Kilo on ignore then.

 

[Alan]

I wouldn't have started or provoked the war, thus I see no reason to answer as if I had, presuming that I actually had the influence to change events.

I might as well ask you how you'd impliment communism.

Cop out number 3.

The question has absolutly nothing to do with anything pre the first Gulf War.

It simply asked how you would have dealt with Saddam if you had come to power after the first Gulf War. You are quick to criticize others for their policies yet you steadfastly refuse to say what you would have done AFTER the first Gulf War. No use saying "oh but I wouldn't have done this before and not that ".

It happened so how would you deal with the resulting state of affairs?

 

[Xarog]

Cop out number 3.

The question has absolutly nothing to do with anything pre the first Gulf War.

It simply asked how you would have dealt with Saddam if you had come to power after the first Gulf War. You are quick to criticize others for their policies yet you steadfastly refuse to say what you would have done AFTER the first Gulf War. No use saying "oh but I wouldn't have done this before and not that ".

It happened so how would you deal with the resulting state of affairs?

It's not a cop-out.

But that you think it is explains oh so much.

 

[Alan]

It's not a cop-out.

But that you think it is explains oh so much.

Still nothing Go on and on criticizing policies yet here is a chance to "enlighten" us on how you would handle a situation and amazingly and totally contrary to your normal endless posting you have fallen silent except for a small cop out whimper

Fudzy made the effort yet you won't or more likely can't.

I guess it all boils down too "the west started it" and nothing more with you

 

[Xarog]

Still nothing Go on and on criticizing policies yet here is a chance to "enlighten" us on how you would handle a situation and amazingly and totally contrary to your normal endless posting you have fallen silent except for a small cop out whimper

Fudzy made the effort yet you won't or more likely can't.

I guess it all boils down too "the west started it" and nothing more with you

... You can't be THAT stupid, surely?



Tell you what Alan. You tell me how you'd go about planning the rise of Soviet Communism from 1917 onwards, and I'll tell you how I'd react to the post-gulf-war situation.

There was certainly no "west started it" involved in my previous arguments, merely that the west was no better than anyone they seek to blame for the way events unfolded.

 

[Alan]

Oops missed this

The French? That's news to them too, I suppose.

You "suppose" wrong again

But de Villepin, according to the word-by-word translation of his remarks that appeared Feb. 5 in the online version of The Washington Post, also said there were "unresolved questions in the ballistic, chemical, and biological areas."

What was he talking about? "First, "Regarding the chemical area, we have indications about a capacity to produce VX and mustard gas." Second, "In the biological area, our evidence suggests -- the evidence suggests that there are significant stocks -- there is the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxins and the possible -- possibly a production capacity today." Finally, Iraq at present had no long-range missiles, "but we have disturbing indications about the continued determination of Iraq to acquire ballistic missiles with a range exceeding the authorized range of 150 kilometers."

The French believed it. Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin argued last year that "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen."

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s former deputy and who is now anti Bush said "The French, of all people, even offered “proof positive” that Hussein was buying aluminum tubes “for centrifuges".

Even Chirac said

"the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq" and declared that the "international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."

So how come the US/UK couldn't get a mandate at the UN to go to war?

*sigh*

Because they couldn't agree on how to deal with Saddam over his breaking of U.N Resolution 1441. That is the fundamental aspect you lot refuse to accept unfortunately. Technically the U.S/UK didn't go to war because Saddam had weapons but because he broke that resolution.

The inspectors were there to see whether they had still had WMD, after all the US had sold them some in the 80's so we know they had that capability at one point. That fact that inspectors were there is hardly evidence for WMDs' (we know, you're grasping at straws here).

They knew he had the capability because he used them on his own people .

No the fact that Saddam messed them around breaking U.N resolutions which resulted I might add in Clinton( Who also believed he had WMDs) bombing Iraq is pretty damning.

So Chiskop if the cops suspected you had a chemical hidden in your garden( add the fact that you had gassed your pets with the chemical in the past) and wanted to search your premises and you obstructed their efforts for ages including kicking them out what do you think would have happened to you. I'd say they'd remove you from the premises

 

[Alan]

... You can't be THAT stupid, surely?



Tell you what Alan. You tell me how you'd go about planning the rise of Soviet Communism from 1917 onwards, and I'll tell you how I'd react to the post-gulf-war situation.

There was certainly no "west started it" involved in my previous arguments, merely that the west was no better than anyone they seek to blame for the way events unfolded.

No because communism has nothing to do with this thread if you hadn't noticed .

You could just ask me the same question and I'll answer it. But since I asked you first

 

[Albereth]

Like I said. Removing Hitler from the picture would not have caused wars to cease. Without some fundamental changes in the way things work, you will always have wars. But removing any one reason why a particular war occurs, if you could alter the past, would have BIG repercussions on the war that does occur and why it was fought.

Now you are just arguing against yourself - you have maintained that there is only one cause of the 39-45 war - onerous reparations. It should therefore not matter if any of the other reasons are removed.