Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 01-15-2007, 11:57 PM
aklim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Location: Greenfield WI, USA
Posts: 8,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin View Post
It looks to me as if diplomacy succeeded more than anyone knew.
Lets say you are right about that. Remember Kay? Even he was gung-ho about going into Iraq because he thought that we would find something there. Well, he didn't and came back backpedaling with a totally different story that he didn't really believe there was anything there. So, If we based it on what we knew then, how were we to know whether the resolutions were working or not? Hindsight is 20/20. I have articles that declared that things were going to get done this time. A little while later, we fall back into the same old habit. So, with all this, how would anyone know that this time (2003) was the time? How could it not be another one of those shuffles again like in the past? Look, the guy has had over 10 years to comply. Each time it is the same drill. How do you know this time, it will be right?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-16-2007, 08:51 AM
Botnst's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 44,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim View Post
Lets say you are right about that. Remember Kay? Even he was gung-ho about going into Iraq because he thought that we would find something there. Well, he didn't and came back backpedaling with a totally different story that he didn't really believe there was anything there. So, If we based it on what we knew then, how were we to know whether the resolutions were working or not? Hindsight is 20/20. I have articles that declared that things were going to get done this time. A little while later, we fall back into the same old habit. So, with all this, how would anyone know that this time (2003) was the time? How could it not be another one of those shuffles again like in the past? Look, the guy has had over 10 years to comply. Each time it is the same drill. How do you know this time, it will be right?
Telepathy and physiognomy.

B
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-16-2007, 08:54 AM
t walgamuth's Avatar
dieselarchitect
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lafayette Indiana
Posts: 38,938
sadaam was complying.

the inspectors were finding no WMD.

w and company said...."he must be moving them around".

"he is lying about having WMD so therefore we shall attack." (paraphrases)

the thing about saying someone is lying without hard evidence is that it is only a guess. in this case, it turned out that sadaam was not lying.

we went ahead on suppositions and might be's.

now we have a moumental mess because cheney had the fever for war.

tom w
__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-16-2007, 09:03 AM
GottaDiesel's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by t walgamuth View Post
sadaam was complying.

the inspectors were finding no WMD.

w and company said...."he must be moving them around".

"he is lying about having WMD so therefore we shall attack." (paraphrases)

the thing about saying someone is lying without hard evidence is that it is only a guess. in this case, it turned out that sadaam was not lying.

we went ahead on suppositions and might be's.

now we have a moumental mess because cheney had the fever for war.

tom w
Curious. Did Cheney and his friends benefit, say via Haliburton from the war?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-16-2007, 09:05 AM
aklim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Location: Greenfield WI, USA
Posts: 8,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by t walgamuth View Post
sadaam was complying.
So the reason for all those other resolutions was because the UN was bored and needed something to write?
__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-16-2007, 09:48 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim View Post
...Look, the guy has had over 10 years to comply. Each time it is the same drill. How do you know this time, it will be right?
You don't. If the administration had been honest about the risks posed by Saddam, then I think they would be entitled to some benefit of the doubt for making a bad choice. But they weren't honest. Not even close.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-16-2007, 10:19 AM
aklim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Location: Greenfield WI, USA
Posts: 8,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin View Post
You don't.
IOW, if we didn't go in in 03 but went in sometime last year, we would be saying "Well this time in 06 he was complying but we went in and jumped the gun."
__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-16-2007, 10:31 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim View Post
IOW, if we didn't go in in 03 but went in sometime last year, we would be saying "Well this time in 06 he was complying but we went in and jumped the gun."
That's your opinion. I disagree, so your use of "IOW" is misplaced.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-16-2007, 10:37 AM
aklim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Location: Greenfield WI, USA
Posts: 8,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin View Post
That's your opinion. I disagree, so your use of "IOW" is misplaced.
You just said that in 03 he was complying. You also said that we don't know whether he would play tricks again. He has had 10 years or more to comply. Each time it has been more shell games. So what is it you are saying? Why is the time in 03 any different from the past? Now, given his history, how is the time in 03 going to be any different from if we had let it run it's course? When do you think it is a good time to pull the plug?
__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-16-2007, 11:00 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim View Post
You just said that in 03 he was complying...
I probably overstated that. It would be more accurate to say that he was being less non-compliant.
Quote:
...You also said that we don't know whether he would play tricks again...
Right. There were no guarantees, just like there were no guarantees that we would be greeted as liberators.
Quote:
...When do you think it is a good time to pull the plug?
When it appears that he poses an imminent threat. If the inspection process had continued the inspectors would have shown that Saddam had been disarmed. So, as it turns out, the time to pull the plug was never.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-16-2007, 11:18 AM
aklim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Location: Greenfield WI, USA
Posts: 8,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin View Post
I probably overstated that. It would be more accurate to say that he was being less non-compliant.

Right. There were no guarantees,

When it appears that he poses an imminent threat. If the inspection process had continued the inspectors would have shown that Saddam had been disarmed. So, as it turns out, the time to pull the plug was never.
What again were the terms of the cease fire as far as compliance went?

OK. Fair enough. No gaurantees. What does his trend since the Gulf War tell you? If you were betting on the outcome, what would you bet on?

IF the process had continued and there wasn't another and yet another attempt to stonewall them, maybe. We didn't know what he did with all that stuff. So, if he did have it and sent it to someone we didn't like and they sent it back to us, it would have been bad. Is that a risk we should take? IOW wait till the thing hits us in the face and then react? Yes, guessing the market sometimes presents loss and sometimes gain.
__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-16-2007, 11:25 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim View Post
What again were the terms of the cease fire as far as compliance went?
I'm sure he violated those terms nine ways from Sunday. I also assume that UN should have done something about it sooner. But how do those facts justify our invasion?
Quote:
OK. Fair enough. No gaurantees. What does his trend since the Gulf War tell you? If you were betting on the outcome, what would you bet on?
I would bet the trend in place in 2002-2003 would continue. IOW, time was on our side.
Quote:
...So, if he did have it and sent it to someone we didn't like and they sent it back to us, it would have been bad. Is that a risk we should take?
That's a risk we are taking. I don't see how the invasion reduced that risk.
Quote:
IOW wait till the thing hits us in the face and then react?...
No. The approach should have been to inspect. If he prevented access to any site, that site got destroyed. As it should have been since the cease fire.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-16-2007, 11:31 AM
aklim's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Location: Greenfield WI, USA
Posts: 8,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin View Post
I'm sure he violated those terms nine ways from Sunday. I also assume that UN should have done something about it sooner. But how do those facts justify our invasion?

I would bet the trend in place in 2002-2003 would continue. IOW, time was on our side.

That's a risk we are taking. I don't see how the invasion reduced that risk.

No. The approach should have been to inspect. If he prevented access to any site, that site got destroyed. As it should have been since the cease fire.
The UN didn't want to do anything about it because they would have to use force. Several members with veto powers would not want to use force because they have investments in Hussein's government.

OK. Based on what? Guy stiffs you with a bad check many times. Why would you think this time would be different? Because you want to avoid a confrontation?

If he didn't have anything, it changes nothing. But if there was something and we didn't stop it and it came back, people would be upset again.

That we agree on. However, again, the UN wouldn't have gone along with it.
__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-16-2007, 11:39 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim View Post
The UN didn't want to do anything about it because they would have to use force. Several members with veto powers would not want to use force because they have investments in Hussein's government.

OK. Based on what? Guy stiffs you with a bad check many times. Why would you think this time would be different? Because you want to avoid a confrontation?

If he didn't have anything, it changes nothing. But if there was something and we didn't stop it and it came back, people would be upset again.

That we agree on. However, again, the UN wouldn't have gone along with it.
I think we have exhausted all of those topics, but I still haven't seen any reason why the invasion was a good idea.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-16-2007, 12:15 PM
Botnst's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 44,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin View Post
I think we have exhausted all of those topics, but I still haven't seen any reason why the invasion was a good idea.
Unsurprisingly, each of us is back where we began.

B

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page