Well, well, Saddam has been caught. Well done USA!!
You have managed to catch an old man hiding in a hole, BUT... where IS OBL??
That is right, what you want to do now is to murder an old man who is being given the role of scapegoat for a mass murderer who you cannot find. Kill Saddam, then we can have a piece of justice for a man that actually attacked us. We cannot find him, so lets get another raghead. Saddam, Ossama, they are all the same, right?
Please answer this question. Do you believe that the people that financed, and provided weapons to OBL should be punished? If so, and given the fact that you believe that Saddam is a "terrorist", do you believe that the people that financed and provided weapons to Saddam should be punished? Yes, I hear you chant in unison, so therefore, you believe that Bush senior, Ronald Raegon, Donald Rumsfeld etc need to be brought in front of the same court that Saddam is brought up in. They all provided funds and weapons to Saddam, so surely, if he is guilty of terrorism, so are the people that gave him the weapons.
Oh, thats right. Saddam is "evil", whereas Bush is "christian". Despite the fact that the vatican condemned this "evil" war as an act of pure "evil", apparently the guy that oversaw more state sponsored murders than any other governer in the history of the USA, is more "christian" than the pope. Maybe Bush is actually the son of God. After all, he knows what is more "christian" than the pope, so he must be closer to Mr God than the pope. Hypocracy is a legendary fact of the American religious right. Turn the other cheek indeed...
Well, well, Saddam has been caught. Well done USA!!
You have managed to catch an old man hiding in a hole, BUT... where IS OBL??
That is right, what you want to do now is to murder an old man who is being given the role of scapegoat for a mass murderer who you cannot find. Kill Saddam, then we can have a piece of justice for a man that actually attacked us. We cannot find him, so lets get another raghead. Saddam, Ossama, they are all the same, right?
Will you apologize when we do catch up with OBL?
I guess we all feel in our hearts some pity for the "old man" as you say - but steel your heart - and think of his victims. I don't think Bush has plans to murder Saddam. The fact that we captured him alive proves my point and it should be obvious to you. Let the Iraqi's decide what to do with him in court of law. Isn't that reasonable scott? What do you propose we do with him?
quote:
Please answer this question. Do you believe that the people that financed, and provided weapons to OBL should be punished? If so, and given the fact that you believe that Saddam is a "terrorist", do you believe that the people that financed and provided weapons to Saddam should be punished? Yes, I hear you chant in unison, so therefore, you believe that Bush senior, Ronald Raegon, Donald Rumsfeld etc need to be brought in front of the same court that Saddam is brought up in. They all provided funds and weapons to Saddam, so surely, if he is guilty of terrorism, so are the people that gave him the weapons.
Oh you are ever so cunning! Geeze I just didn't see that coming. What? The US supported Saddam? Financed and armed him??? Oh no...
Please give me your interpretation of following link:
apparently the guy that oversaw more state sponsored murders than any other governer in the history of the USA,
That's a doozy scott. Anything to back it up?
Its as if you have something hard and dry deep inside that you just can't seem to push out through your a$$hole. Push scott - push. It will make you feel better.
I guess we all feel in our hearts some pity for the "old man" as you say - but steel your heart - and think of his victims. I don't think Bush has plans to murder Saddam. The fact that we captured him alive proves my point and it should be obvious to you. Let the Iraqi's decide what to do with him in court of law. Isn't that reasonable scott? What do you propose we do with him?
OK, lets look at this. Bush, today, said that Saddam needs to be put to death. This is the guy that oversaw more executions than any governor in the history of the USA, so you need to take him seriously. With regards to letting the "Iraqi people" try him and decide what to do with him, who is in charge of Iraq??? If an "Iraqi court" were to try him, who would be in charge? America rules Iraq, because America has occupied Iraq. America, therefore will be in charge of the people chosen to try him "fairly". Then again, America thinks that the people of Guantanemo Bay are tried with the same sort of "fairness". "What do I propose you do with him"?? Try him in front of an international court that will show fairness, rather than a bunch of Americans that want to crucify him for 911 that he had nothing to do with. But then again, America refused to sign up to the ICC. Whats wrong? Something to hide??
quote:
Oh you are ever so cunning! Geeze I just didn't see that coming. What? The US supported Saddam? Financed and armed him??? Oh no...
Please give me your interpretation of following link:
Have you forgotten the pictures of the war criminal, Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Husein, days after Donald learnt of Saddams "daily usage" of chemical weapons?
Please give me your "interpretation".
quote:
That's a doozy scott. Anything to back it up?
Its as if you have something hard and dry deep inside that you just can't seem to push out through your a$$hole. Push scott - push. It will make you feel better.
Check out http://www.texecutions.com/ It will show just how much Governor Bush cares about human life. Hey, people that commit abortions are "evil", even if they have been raped, but anyone that is a darky, and cannot afford a good lawyer, DESERVES to die. Well hey, even if they have not commited a real crime, given the fact they are "darkies", they will probably commit a crime in the future, so kill them now. It is the only "christian" way to go. That is why we stopped them from voting in the last general elections.
Really, clear your bowels and you will feel better.
sorry!
quote:
With regards to letting the "Iraqi people" try him and decide what to do with him, who is in charge of Iraq??? If an "Iraqi court" were to try him, who would be in charge? America rules Iraq, because America has occupied Iraq. America, therefore will be in charge of the people chosen to try him "fairly".
We shall see? Won't we Scott? I'm sure evil overlord Bush will threaten all Iraqi judicial/jury members with torture if they do not comply with his will to murder Saddam...
quote:
Try him in front of an international court that will show fairness, rather than a bunch of Americans that want to crucify him for 911 that he had nothing to do with. But then again, America refused to sign up to the ICC. Whats wrong? Something to hide??
Now I'm really scared. But seriously, since the Iraqi's already said they would appreciate help from international community in establishing fair public trial for Saddam, I suppose we ought to wait to see how it turns out. I don't think that means you can impose your cushy northern european socialist standards upon them though.
You can bet that Saddam will get more "justice" than he afforded to his victims.
That's a great link. Did you review mine??? Now I'm sure AT&T was real happy to sell telecom equipment/expertise to the company "huawei" (where are they based???). But they can hardly be held responsible if this other company violates the law and uses this technology to execute contracts in Iraq. You can make that connection right? But that's a minor point. US companies that deliberately violated the law should be held accountable.
I think in comparison to ther countries, US supplied Iraq with minimal weapons. The list from your link of other countries/companies trading with Iraq is a bit disingenuous:
AUSTRIA: 3
BELGIUM: 7
CHINA: 3
EGYPT: 1
FRANCE: 9
GERMANY: 18
GREAT BRITAIN: 24
INDIA: 1
JAPAN: 5
LUXEMBOURG: 1
NETHERLANDS: 3
PORTUGAL: 1
SINGAPORE: 1 (Note: This company, KIM AL-KHALEEJ, also has links to Dubai.)
SPAIN: 3
SWEDEN: 2
SWITZERLAND: 7
USSR/RUSSIA: 6
First of all, the whole friggin countries of China and USSR were one big state run company.
More appropriate would be to compare real direct trade in weapons to prove your point, and the point of the article.
Your arguments then fall apart fundamentally because if US was chasing its evil commercial interests alone, it never would have confronted Saddam on anything and probably taken the opposite route to increase support.
quote:
Have you forgotten the pictures of the war criminal, Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Husein, days after Donald learnt of Saddams "daily usage" of chemical weapons?
I'm sure Rummie sincerely liked the guy. Really!
But then consider that within two years of Halabja we were pounding Saddams army and defeated him soundly.
When did Rummie visit?
When did Saddam begin wholesale use of chem weapons?
quote:
Check out http://www.texecutions.com/ It will show just how much Governor Bush cares about human life. Hey, people that commit abortions are "evil", even if they have been raped, but anyone that is a darky, and cannot afford a good lawyer, DESERVES to die. Well hey, even if they have not commited a real crime, given the fact they are "darkies", they will probably commit a crime in the future, so kill them now. It is the only "christian" way to go. That is why we stopped them from voting in the last general elections.
I'm just glad to see you have your facts straight and that you approach this issue objectively!
Really, clear your bowels and you will feel better.
sorry!
OK, very happy that you are happy
quote:
We shall see? Won't we Scott? I'm sure evil overlord Bush will threaten all Iraqi judicial/jury members with torture if they do not comply with his will to murder Saddam...
Who controls Iraq? Hmmmm, Bush is in charge of Iraq, given the fact that he is the one that invaded and occupied Iraq. What shall we see? Bush is in charge of the country that he invaded, and won. What is the question here?
quote:
Now I'm really scared. But seriously, since the Iraqi's already said they would appreciate help from international community in establishing fair public trial for Saddam, I suppose we ought to wait to see how it turns out. I don't think that means you can impose your cushy northern european socialist standards upon them though.
You can bet that Saddam will get more "justice" than he afforded to his victims.
OK, so what you think is that an evil dictator, (which nobody is denying), deserves exactly the same as he "apparently" dealt out. Obviously you do not believe in "due process", and the whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing. I am proposing that the ICC deals the case and the punishment, given that is what the court was set up for. Obviously though, the ICC is terrible given it proposes that the USA are just as accountable as any other nation. What a shitty thing to say!! How could the USA be responsible for evil? The USA are responsible for "helping" people. Even when the USA are responsible for the like of Mei Lei, they are OK!! Try to stop waving your flag for a second and you may be able to see logic.
quote:
That's a great link. Did you review mine??? Now I'm sure AT&T was real happy to sell telecom equipment/expertise to the company "huawei" (where are they based???). But they can hardly be held responsible if this other company violates the law and uses this technology to execute contracts in Iraq. You can make that connection right? But that's a minor point. US companies that deliberately violated the law should be held accountable.
I think in comparison to ther countries, US supplied Iraq with minimal weapons. The list from your link of other countries/companies trading with Iraq is a bit disingenuous:
AUSTRIA: 3
BELGIUM: 7
CHINA: 3
EGYPT: 1
FRANCE: 9
GERMANY: 18
GREAT BRITAIN: 24
INDIA: 1
JAPAN: 5
LUXEMBOURG: 1
NETHERLANDS: 3
PORTUGAL: 1
SINGAPORE: 1 (Note: This company, KIM AL-KHALEEJ, also has links to Dubai.)
SPAIN: 3
SWEDEN: 2
SWITZERLAND: 7
USSR/RUSSIA: 6
First of all, the whole friggin countries of China and USSR were one big state run company.
More appropriate would be to compare real direct trade in weapons to prove your point, and the point of the article.
Your arguments then fall apart fundamentally because if US was chasing its evil commercial interests alone, it never would have confronted Saddam on anything and probably taken the opposite route to increase support.
So, apparently you are incapable of admitting US involvment in Iraql. I have never once said that no other nations have sold weapons to Iraq, BUT the US decided that Iraq had WMD, because it sold Iraq those WMD, and this is a reason to go to war. Without a doubt, Iraq had WMD. America knew this because it gave them the WMD. Soooo, how can America decide this is a reason for pre-emptive war? "I will give you weapons, then attack you for having them". This makes no sense.
quote:
I'm sure Rummie sincerely liked the guy. Really!
But then consider that within two years of Halabja we were pounding Saddams army and defeated him soundly.
When did Rummie visit?
Well, Rummie visited in 83, just one week after learning of the "daily usage of chemical weapons". So, it looks like your argument sort of falls down. Check out the CIA intelligence info on Saddam, then reply. Incidentally, the senior rep to the mid east within the CIA said that the Halabja gassing was the responsibility of the Iranians, not Saddam. Saddam reguarly gassed the Iranians, just as the Iranians reguarly gassed Iraq. Check out the Info, and you will see that your Fox news incited information is little more than right wing propaganda.
quote:
I'm just glad to see you have your facts straight and that you approach this issue objectively!
Well, it is nice to see you post a URL that contradicts this.
scottc said this in post #1 : Well, well, Saddam has been caught. Well done USA!!
You have managed to catch an old man hiding in a hole, BUT... where IS OBL??
Well... Well... Well.... look at this. Another foreign terrorist has permeated the US borders to launch their terrorist attacks via form submissions. The news of Saddam's capture must have inspired this agent of evil to step up his terrorism on America.
I think Osama bin Laden has probably been dead for more than a year. In any case, whether he is dead, sick, or stuck in the foothills of Pakistan... he's being hunted, his funding has been compromised, his training bases have been destroyed... and he is an ineffectual combat element against the U.S.
Well... Well... Well.... look at this. Another foreign terrorist has permeated the US borders to launch their terrorist attacks via form submissions. The news of Saddam's capture must have inspired this agent of evil to step up his terrorism on America.
I think Osama bin Laden has probably been dead for more than a year. In any case, whether he is dead, sick, or stuck in the foothills of Pakistan... he's being hunted, his funding has been compromised, his training bases have been destroyed... and he is an ineffectual combat element against the U.S.
Sorry, I do not understand you. Please stop waving your flag for one moment and maybe I will understand. You see, I speak ENGLISH, whereas you seem to speak flag waving language. OBL is still doing the same as before Saddam was caught. Saddam has nothing whatsoever to do with OBL. Yet, Bush is planning on using Saddam as some sort of election winner, given the fact that he can talk 911 in the same sentence as Saddam. Well, if this is all that he can come up with, then well done to Bush. I wish I could command a bunch of people so naive.
It means that you are full of sh*it... a chronic liar... and a propagator of communist propaganda. That's what it means.
--JV
You are right. Communist is what everyone that does not agree with you is.
Oh, how I wish I could be so taken in by Fox News. Then maybe I would not be a "Communist", or a "Terrorist", (Apparently the same thing). Everyone that does not believe that a person has the right to be killed is a "communist", and everyone that believes that anyone has a right to life deserves to be killed, the dirty commie. God bless America!!!!
No. A communist is someone who sounds just like you. In otherwords, you fit the modus operandi of a communist to a perfect tee.
--JV
No. A completely ignorant American Hick is someone who sounds just like you. In otherwords, you fit the modus operandi of a redneck 6 fingered hick to a perfect tee.
No. A completely ignorant American Hick is someone who sounds just like you. In otherwords, you fit the modus operandi of a redneck 6 fingered hick to a perfect tee.
Not No... but Yes. You are a communist. There is no doubt in mind. The only exception would be that you are just a hopelessly naive moron whose days are spent filling your head with communist propaganda.
Curley Joe said this in post #14 : JV, don't even bother with scottc. Truly, a more polluted, miserable outlook on life as his I have not come across on this forum.
I just wanted to reveal to the rest as to who he is and why he should be ignored.
The agendas of a communist are not pacifist and are not inspired by dissatisfaction with any particular American war, policy, etc... but with America itself. Their movement is a one that cannot be appeased and who is willing to collaborate, and has collaborated, with America's enemies. They are chronic liars and cunningly fierce propagators... a very unbecoming bunch.
I've had so much experience dealing with these clowns and their organizations in the past two years... that I can smell one a mile away.
Who controls Iraq? Hmmmm, Bush is in charge of Iraq, given the fact that he is the one that invaded and occupied Iraq. What shall we see? Bush is in charge of the country that he invaded, and won. What is the question here?
I guess "control" is the key word here. You imply that Bush will personally impose some sort of verdict that differs from that of the Iraqi's. That he will force them to do something they don't want to do. If anything, Bush/US will act as leveling factor. Can you imagine what would have happened to Saddam if some angry mob had found him first?
quote:
OK, so what you think is that an evil dictator, (which nobody is denying), deserves exactly the same as he "apparently" dealt out.
That's not what I think. I think that by law he deserves more. He deserves due process. "If" proven guilty, even better treatment than he would have provided others might mean death one hundred times over. Or maybe life in prison. We shall see. But I doubt much he will have his wife and daughters raped and disembowelled in front of him, or be strung up by his dislocated arms and given electroshock to his penis and testicles, then beaten and tossed off a 5 story building head first with his arms tied behind his back, or put in a sealed chamber with mustard gas so that the mucuous membranes rupture and burn making him drown violently in his own snot and fluids.
quote:
Obviously you do not believe in "due process", and the whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing.
You obviously are full of virulent and hateful thoughts.
quote:
I am proposing that the ICC deals the case and the punishment, given that is what the court was set up for. Obviously though, the ICC is terrible given it proposes that the USA are just as accountable as any other nation.
I'm not saying ICC is bad. I'm saying that the Iraqi's should decide first and foremost. They may decide in the end to let the good folk of the low countries decide what is best and just for their Saddam. Seeing as how the dutch and northern europeans suffered so much under Saddam, they might provide the most reasonable justice.
quote:
Try to stop waving your flag for a second and you may be able to see logic.
(looks around for a flag in confusion)
quote:
So, apparently you are incapable of admitting US involvment in Iraql.
Listen you twit, I admitted that you provided a great link! Its interesting. The private companies should be investigated and held to account if they violated the law. But if AT&T sold telephones to some private company who then turned around and sold them to Iraq's information ministry who placed regular calls to Saddam, I'm not going to condemn Bush.
Freedom and diversity in the US has a dark side too. Its hard to regulate every aspect of business at every company. It takes about $100 to register a corporation to do business. We have problems - like many other countries - with border control, legal/illegal immigration, etc.
Large corporations want to expand business and make profits. Sometimes they do this in a way that hurts our strategic interests. Sometimes its oversight - sometimes its deliberate. These points should be brought out and investigated. The system is far from perfect. The world is far from perfect.
quote:
I have never once said that no other nations have sold weapons to Iraq, BUT the US decided that Iraq had WMD, because it sold Iraq those WMD, and this is a reason to go to war.
Your key point seems to be that US was the big supplier to Iraq and that just isn't true. You are wrong. The stats clearly show that US was barely if even a drop in the bucket. Sure - loan guarantees to "US" exporters for AG products. Maybe the US should stop competing on world market in AG products? Maybe...
quote:
Without a doubt, Iraq had WMD. America knew this because it gave them the WMD. Soooo, how can America decide this is a reason for pre-emptive war? "I will give you weapons, then attack you for having them". This makes no sense.
You are either stupid or deliberately obtuse. US companies, as well as other countries and companies, traded with Saddam and lot's of the stuff was dual use. You are going way overboard to say we deliberately sold him sarin or mustard gas, etc., because its just plain wrong. Now if Saddam takes those precursers, and weaponizes them, then starts using them on neighbors and his own people, then its time to begin rethinking relationship. This the US did.
quote:
Well, Rummie visited in 83, just one week after learning of the "daily usage of chemical weapons". So, it looks like your argument sort of falls down.
What was my argument? I just wanted clarification. Saddam's relationship with US was definitely negatively impacted by his use of WMD. You ignored my point about Halabja. Within a couple of years we were on the border ready to invade.
I also know that we did support Saddam, however vomitously, against a fundamentalist Iran. This was especially the case when Iran was about to overrun Basra. We did not want this to happen.
quote:
Incidentally, the senior rep to the mid east within the CIA said that the Halabja gassing was the responsibility of the Iranians, not Saddam.
I'm sure you will dig up anything to defend your position and ignore the obvious. You may also investigate and discover that the Iraqi's themselves have provided detailed info on some of the kurd gassings. I think most information points to Saddam.
No. A completely ignorant American Hick is someone who sounds just like you. In otherwords, you fit the modus operandi of a redneck 6 fingered hick to a perfect tee.
Scott welcome to the club of terrorist supporters and communists. These same one's in your forum labeled me these exact same things weeks ago.
You are right on the dime with your assessment of jsvtr and ole Curly J. I suggest if you really want to debate with someone that is reasonable, try Charles. Although I don't agree with Charles, at least I can see the reason in his arguments because he can articulate them clearly.
Oh, and don't feel upset because you're not in the country. I am here in the US and have been labled the same as you. Other's here have also.
One thing remains though that they cannot answer, which is the root of their frustrations and hatred. WHERE ARE THE WMD?
This is where the heart of our fight for terror will reside. Iraq so far has distanced us from it. We appear to march to our own drum despite anyone's objection. I simply believe that because of this we are not safer.
Although I don't agree with Charles, at least I can see the reason in his arguments because he can articulate them clearly.
Um. Thanks I guess.
quote:
One thing remains though that they cannot answer, which is the root of their frustrations and hatred. WHERE ARE THE WMD?
One thing that you cannot fathom is that personally, I don't care. I am not frustrated and I do not feel any hatred that WMD have not been found. I think you invented that argument. I think many people that supported the operation, and continue to do so, feel perfectly comfortable becasue it was the right thing to do. The QUESTION of WMD, and the inherent risks attested to unanimously by the UNSC because of Saddam's past record, was only one of the issues. The point of 1441 was to tell Saddam that if he didn't come clean and turn over a new leaf on all outstanding issues, then he would be removed from the equation and compliance with all issues would be enforced externally. These issues include but are not limited to: WMD, prohibited weapons systems, oppression, support for terrorism, etc. None of these would be tolerated. Ommissions would not be tolerated. Conditions would not be tolerated.
Read the resolutions. He was given a clear ultimatum.
I am absolutely relieved that Saddam was just bluff and bluster. I am glad he did not use WMD and that Baghdad did not become a Stalingrad. These are all good things. Of course I feel real real bad for Saddam and all, but on the bright side compliance is being verified and enforced, there is a solid chance that a new regime will opt for a different course of development and choose a more liberal, less threatening posture to the west and its neighbors. This is all good - categorically.
There is much yet to be done.
You for some reason are stuck in the past. You call Bush a liar for acting on the well considered opinions of almost all mainstream political views since the early 90's. You call Bush a liar for executing an ultimatum agreed to unanimously by the UNSC.
You are stuck. Get over it. Consider the big picture. I know many of you are in mourning because the sky hasn't fallen and Iraq has not become the debacle you had hoped. Its time to move on and think of Iraq and what's best for Iraq.
peace,
It's just that you are in a rut and can't seem to get off the topic, "Where are WMD?" and because they have not found "tons" yet, you are convinced that they the sole subjec tof Iraq. You are wrong and many here have proven it but for some reason, you can't get past it. Every time someon posts, you come back with the same rhetorical statement. It' seems that the whole intent of your membership here is to convince the world that the whole purpose of this war was WMD and nothing more. You have also not been able to grasp that this is not finished and there are more people coming forward every day with information. Like the Iraqi who said they were ready to fire Chemical weopans via a RPG. Now, this isn't tons, especially if they were already broken down into smaller weopons alike RPGs. I am sure you will say., the Iraqi staemtne is a lie because it disagrees with your opinion.
As I said before, you have to be patient. Your percistance in posting the same, "WMD/Lies" is old to us all.
When we leave Iraq and they still have not found anything to support the claims, then I will look into why this was thought to be. If that turns out to be true, then yes, there was false or inacurate information provided. Does that make Bush a liar? No, it makes him the recipient of bad information. This will also have to go for every couuntry in the UN, as they believe it is true until proven otherwise.
So, move on and be patient.
Some of us enjoy your posts. It's just that it is getting reaaallly old.....
It wasn't EVER about WMD per se, it was about the perceived threat Saddam posed do to his inability to prove compliance with WMD requirements, among others.
The difference is too subtle for some to grasp.
We went in to resolve one way or another the issue of compliance. If we found WMD, we would destroy them. If we didn't find them, we would report back that there were none. We would force compliance on oppression, support for terrorism, etc. Once compliance was verified, Iraq could rejoin world community without sanctions etc., and no longer be considered a threat.
We should not be into the business of playing world police. It's too dangerous. We weren't told all the facts either Chuck about the WMD. We knew Saddam didn't have an affective stash, yet we invasion insinuating that.
I'm glad he's gone. I think however we should have given the inspectors time like it was requested. Bush was too adamant about going in there. He blamed Saddam at every hand for everything, even when we found our accusations were false, Bush simply moved on to a new one.
I just think this sets a dangerous precedent. I’m all for fighting terror, but I do not believe that with what we were given, Saddam was an imminent threat to us.
Charles I disagree. This entire war was based mostly on those WMD. This was Bush's ultimatum to Saddam. It's pretty clear.
Here are some remarks by Bush that spread the emphasis around pretty well. The WMD threat - was certainly one of the critical aspects, but again, the WMD threat was acknowledged by all.
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
The Bush administration lied. The Bush administration (and Blair) believed that with the demise of Sadam Hussein and the cake-walking-easy democratisation of Iraq, everyone would forgive and forget. You guys don't care that they lied. Fine, but stop pretending they didn't lie.
h@ts said this in post #27 : The Bush administration lied. The Bush administration (and Blair) believed that with the demise of Sadam Hussein and the cake-walking-easy democratisation of Iraq, everyone would forgive and forget. You guys don't care that they lied. Fine, but stop pretending they didn't lie.
Sorry. Other than repeating over and over that he lied, no one ever seems to provide evidence.
In hindsight it turns out that Saddam probably did destroy WMD, but calling them liars ignores the fact that there was uniform consensus that he was a threat.
US/UK and France et al simply diverged on what to do about it. US/UK wanted to enfore 1441. France wanted to ignore it and continue containment.
Sorry. Other than repeating over and over that he lied, no one ever seems to provide evidence.
In hindsight it turns out that Saddam probably did destroy WMD, but calling them liars ignores the fact that there was uniform consensus that he was a threat.
US/UK and France et al simply diverged on what to do about it. US/UK wanted to enfore 1441. France wanted to ignore it and continue containment.
Read the resignation speach made by British MP Robin Cook before the war. He saw the same intelligence information as Blair.
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.
I don't think the concern was that Saddam would attempt an amphibious invasion of the continental US.
quote:
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
We should base our geopolitical strategy on holding dangerous unpredicatable maniacal dictators to account, and back that up with military force when necessary. Our military should absolutely be ready to handle both large and small enforcement operations.
quote:
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
Again, the UNSC sonfirmed this threat - all it would take is a glass full of botulin or other toxin released at the right place/time to wreak havok. What would it cost in lives and disruption?
quote:
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
As per above. Times do change and its never to late to do the right thing. I agree its unfortunate and costly. I'm sure the US companies provided these same precursurs to other countries but it was Saddam who weaponized and used them on civilians.
quote:
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Because in 2001 US civilian targets were attacked by terrorists with huge loss of life. Terrorists and the countries that support terrorism must be confronted and held to account.
quote:
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
Because the UNSC passed a unanimous ultimatum that was not fulfilled and the US is at war and cannot allow such a blaring example of defiance continue. It would encourage others.
Etc., etc. Keep it coming. So Cook argued for continued containment - i don't see how that can be reconciled with 1441.
Read it again - We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
But that's what happened. Like I said, you don't care they lied, or more likely you will go on convincing yourself they were telling the truth but that's your prerogative.
h@ts said this in post #31 : Read it again - We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
But that's what happened. Like I said, you don't care they lied, or more likely you will go on convincing yourself they were telling the truth but that's your prerogative.
h@ts said this in post #31 : Read it again - We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
But that's what happened. Like I said, you don't care they lied, or more likely you will go on convincing yourself they were telling the truth but that's your prerogative.
LEt me explain again. If you try to couch it in terms of Saddam being a conventional military threat becasue of his capabilities of invading the US you are correct. That was never anyone's contention. He was classified and condemned as a continued threat to peace and security by the UNSC and found in material breach of cease fire obligations.
If I look at his resume, I see a threat. The UNSC looked at his resume and condemned him for being a threat. He was given a final opportunity to change this perception. No one claimed he was in compliance - the anti-war crowd simply wanted to continue containment strategy that flew in the face of UNSC ultimatum.
Are you trying to argue that he wasn't considered a threat?
Or that the threat should be contained rather than eliminated?
In this day and age, all you need is the will and motivation to cause harm. With modern weapons that we knew he had - and the resources as head of state, we found the risk intolerable. it was a threat to a strategic region, and a threat to the US.
LEt me explain again. If you try to couch it in terms of Saddam being a conventional military threat becasue of his capabilities of invading the US you are correct. That was never anyone's contention.
The lie that Saddam played a part in the 9/11 attacks was believed by 70 or 80% of Americans. When the Bush administration talked about mushroom clouds on American soil I think everyone got the picture they were supposed to get, no matter how false.
quote:
Are you trying to argue that he wasn't considered a threat?
I am trying to get any of you guys to to admit that the Bush adminstration lied through their teeth.
The lie that Saddam played a part in the 9/11 attacks was believed by 70 or 80% of Americans.
I also saw some poll that said 40% of americans don't know where NY is. I just don't believe it.
quote:
When the Bush administration talked about mushroom clouds on American soil I think everyone got the picture they were supposed to get, no matter how false.
The picture is clear. They will hit us when they can with as much as they can. A rogue dictator with risk of having or obtaining WMD is not acceptable. There is nothing "false" about it. Saddam just had nothing going for him. Zero redeeming qualities. No mitigating factors.
quote:
I am trying to get any of you guys to to admit that the Bush adminstration lied through their teeth.
And I keep asking you politely to be specific and give me examples of where George Bush lied.
I also saw some poll that said 40% of americans don't know where NY is. I just don't believe it.
Now that would make the US the prime candidates for a lie of this magnitude now wouldn't it?
There are some intelligent ones here to yanno. I don't think it's intelligent to simply take our government at its word despite evidence to the contrary. In this I think America hasn't learned much.
Charles said this in post #36 :
The picture is clear. They will hit us when they can with as much as they can. A rogue dictator with risk of having or obtaining WMD is not acceptable. There is nothing "false" about it. Saddam just had nothing going for him. Zero redeeming qualities. No mitigating factors.
You think "They will hit us when they can with as much as they can" is a clear picture? Pure propoganda of the kind Bush loves to peddle.
Of course there WILL be wars, people will be killed, rogue dictators will blow wind, bombs will fall, etc etc.
Bush wasn't talking about a possible future - he was talking about SADDAM being a threat NOW. It was propoganda and lies but the argument is tiresome, things have moved on. You believe what Bush said and nothing I say is going to change your mind.
Bush wasn't talking about a possible future - he was talking about SADDAM being a threat NOW.
No he wasn't you ignorant terrorist fool.
January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address:
George Bush said...
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)"
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)"
--JV
ignorant terrorist fool? Please explain?
"We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."
Oh no he didn't - oh yes he did - ho ho ho merry christmas to you.
h@ts said this in post #42 :
ignorant terrorist fool? Please explain?
Your quote doesn't save you.
Yes, you are an ignorant terrorist fool.
You are ignorant because you don't have a clue as to what goes on in the world around you.
You are a terrorist because you are a lying propaganding waste of bandwidth.
You are a fool even more so now, because you just attempted to justify your outright lie as to what Bush said by ponying up a media quip by Dick Cheney from March 16th.
In any case, I'll indulge you and waste my time in regards to Cheney, though. Here's what he actually said on March 16:
MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you?ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community, disagree.
And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq is concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don?t have any reason to believe they?re any more valid this time than they?ve been in the past.
On September 14th, in another interview (referring to above quotes):
MR. RUSSERT: Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show weapons capability. We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.
And that is absolutely right... he did simply misspeak because he is abundantly clear to the contrary, many times, both before and after that quip in the very *same* interview.
For example, (March 16):
CHENEY: And I think that would be the fear here, that even if he were tomorrow to give everything up, if he stays in power, we have to assume that as soon as the world is looking the other way and preoccupied with other issues, he will be back again rebuilding his BW and CW capabilities, and once again reconstituting his nuclear program.
CHENEY: We know he?s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization.
CHENEY: Well, I think I?ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
CHENEY: We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He?s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
CHENEY: And over time, given Saddam?s posture there, given the fact that he has a significant flow of cash as a result of the oil production of Iraq, it?s only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons.
CHENEY: And there?s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he?s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons.
You are ignorant because you don't have a clue as to what goes on in the world around you.
You are a terrorist because you are a lying propaganding waste of bandwidth.
You say I'm an ignorant terrorist fool because I don't know what's going on - presumably this means you do know what's going on (in your own ignorant little world at least) - and I'm a lying proganda whatever...blah blah... Good work, keep it up.
There are a few things I decidedly can't leave behind:
Colin Powell, by december 2001: "Saddam has not developped a program of WMDs as the embargo has been successful till now".
One year later: "We have clear and convincing evidence that he has weapons that cause an imminent threat to the USA".
Bush, at the beginning of the year, tells to the Congressmen that "Saddam has tried to get uranium through the Niger network - 500 kg (half a ton)". Cheney seats behind him and does not react. However, he knows this is BS - the former American ambassador in Gabon has already brought to him evidence that the document turned over to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna was a roughly done forgery, for he knows very well Africa and everything related to this uranium concern.
The document issued by the Bush administration, supposedly coming from a ministry of Niger and to be sent to Saddam about the uranium agreement, did mention the constitution of Niger as dating back to 1966 - although it does date back to 1999 only, while the signer is a person by the name of a minister who left the office more than ten years ago (1989).
Can anyone explain me how and why the intel agencies of the most powerful country of the world can hand over such a document to the President of the United States, as evidence of first importance, and then how can this one president produce this document to the representatives of his country ? Who lied ? What did happen ?
Top American executives - all of them far-leftists, I presume ? Un american folks ? - consider this affair as extremely serious. The general comment over there was that the American people know nothing in average about foreign countries and concerns, so the only motive to make them turning pro-war was to scare them by "clear and convincing evidence" of "imminent threat". Worst, nobody has officialy been able to explain in the US how such crap has been considered as major evidence and produced as so.
I am sorry, people. Whatever you are pro or anti-war, leftists or rightists, Americans or not, and although we all rejoice ourselves to see an evil bastard overthrowned and captured, you all should admit there is a real problem. And this problem is that the American people have been bullshitted in the first place, misled, and lied by officials who don't have any excuse since they have at their disposal incommensurate intelligence agencies means.
Please don't think the intelligence on this is soley from the U.S.
There were many countries involved in gathering this intelligence and I believe one of them was yours. Many countries ran independant investigations to gather intel. One would assume that this was handed over so that the UN could make intelligent decissions from each countries delegate. They all agreed.
h@ts said this in post #44 :
You say I'm an ignorant terrorist fool because I don't know what's going on
Yep, that's right... and you are a complete moron, too.
quote:
JY_French said this in post #45 : There are a few things I decidedly can't leave behind:
Colin Powell, by december 2001: "Saddam has not developped a program of WMDs as the embargo has been successful till now".
One year later: "We have clear and convincing evidence that he has weapons that cause an imminent threat to the USA".
Bush, at the beginning of the year, tells to the Congressmen that "Saddam has tried to get uranium through the Niger network - 500 kg (half a ton)".
Blah... Blah... Blah.
Frenchie, you are a complete disgrace... you deceptively and erroneously quote others in your own words. Quote exactly what was said and when... with links to full transcripts.
Yep, that's right... and you are a complete moron, too.
Frenchie, you are a complete disgrace... you deceptively and erroneously quote others in your own words. Quote exactly what was said and when... with links to full transcripts.
--JV
JV,
Frenchie is quite reasonable. I personally think he is on wrong track on many arguments/issues. I think you are much more effective when you don't bash. you are great at researching and backing up your position with primary source info. but sometimes you go to extreme with insulting/degrading the wrong people.
USA1 said this in post #46 : Please don't think the intelligence on this is soley from the U.S.
There were many countries involved in gathering this intelligence and I believe one of them was yours. Many countries ran independant investigations to gather intel. One would assume that this was handed over so that the UN could make intelligent decissions from each countries delegate. They all agreed.
Yeah like the British who continues to farg up the intel. Anything to desperately point to Saddam's guilt. Do you think they would publish anything exculpitory about Saddam? I'm sure they found some.
In fact, Colen Powel totally ignored defectors that stated Saddam got rid of his WMD back in 1995. That escapes his report to the UN.
We were blinded by our own ambitions ladies & gentlemen (I use that last term loosly for some). Indeed as of today 12/19/03, we have no justification and quite frankly searching for some 9 months after the fact is not compelling to retroactively justify the invasion in March.
Yeah like the British who continues to farg up the intel. Anything to desperately point to Saddam's guilt. Do you think they would publish anything exculpitory about Saddam? I'm sure they found some.
In fact, Colen Powel totally ignored defectors that stated Saddam got rid of his WMD back in 1995. That escapes his report to the UN.
We were blinded by our own ambitions ladies & gentlemen (I use that last term loosly for some). Indeed as of today 12/19/03, we have no justification and quite frankly searching for some 9 months after the fact is not compelling to retroactively justify the invasion in March.
MI6 has a whole division dedicated to providing lies to back up dubious claims. "Operation Mass Appeal".
I have only just managed to check out some of the replies to this thread, and one that stuck in my throat is from Charles, who I did respect for being able to present the only coherant argument for the war on this site. The quote is :-
"Because in 2001 US civilian targets were attacked by terrorists with huge loss of life. Terrorists and the countries that support terrorism must be confronted and held to account."
Now Charles, please explain this comment. The quote to which you were replying is :-
"Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?"
Now lets step through this one. OBL funds and sets up a terrorist attack on the US. The US invades a country in retaliation, apparently because he might be there. The US cannot find OBL and look like complete fools. 2004 is the year of the next election in the US, and not finding OBL will make the current "commander in chief" look like a total idiot. The US invades another "raghead" country, whereby finding the "satan" will be considerably easier. The US captures Saddam, and holds him to account for the actions of his mortal enemy. Bush considers himself vindicated for having captured someone that has NEVER commited any crimes against America.
Lets face it. GW Bush has been more of a threat to America when he jumped in a car whilst being drunk as a lord, and ran the car into a ditch. In this case, he actually represented a threat to Americans, ie if he ran someone over he could have killed them. Saddam has NEVER been a threat to Americans, since when he had any sort of military might, he was America's best friend, and when he stopped being America's best friend, he was depleted of any sort of strength.
Charles, please stop watching Fox News. It seems to be erading your brain cells.
The "Fair and Balanced" Bill O'Reilly, stated on march 18th, that if America removed Saddam, and did not find any WMD, he would apologise to the nation, and never believe anything that Bush said ever again.
Well, 276 days later, still no apology.
But obviously, the war had nothing to do with WMD, so that is why America's biggest right wing advocate stated this.
Frenchie is quite reasonable. I personally think he is on wrong track on many arguments/issues. I think you are much more effective when you don't bash. you are great at researching and backing up your position with primary source info. but sometimes you go to extreme with insulting/degrading the wrong people.
Some deserve it though.
Charles,
You're a fine American and an asset to the US.
That being said, Frenchie is a complete idiot... and I'll take accuracy over effectiveness any day of the week.
scottc said this in post #1 : Well, well, Saddam has been caught. Well done USA!!
You have managed to catch an old man hiding in a hole, BUT... where IS OBL??
That is right, what you want to do now is to murder an old man who is being given the role of scapegoat for a mass murderer who you cannot find. Kill Saddam, then we can have a piece of justice for a man that actually attacked us. We cannot find him, so lets get another raghead. Saddam, Ossama, they are all the same, right?
Please answer this question. Do you believe that the people that financed, and provided weapons to OBL should be punished? If so, and given the fact that you believe that Saddam is a "terrorist", do you believe that the people that financed and provided weapons to Saddam should be punished? Yes, I hear you chant in unison, so therefore, you believe that Bush senior, Ronald Raegon, Donald Rumsfeld etc need to be brought in front of the same court that Saddam is brought up in. They all provided funds and weapons to Saddam, so surely, if he is guilty of terrorism, so are the people that gave him the weapons.
Oh, thats right. Saddam is "evil", whereas Bush is "christian". Despite the fact that the vatican condemned this "evil" war as an act of pure "evil", apparently the guy that oversaw more state sponsored murders than any other governer in the history of the USA, is more "christian" than the pope. Maybe Bush is actually the son of God. After all, he knows what is more "christian" than the pope, so he must be closer to Mr God than the pope. Hypocracy is a legendary fact of the American religious right. Turn the other cheek indeed...
Here's what I think. You say some of the same idiotic things I have heard since 9/11. Let me explain a few things to you:
1) "We're not good, they're not evil, everything is relative." Listen carefully: We're good, they're evil, nothing is relative. Say it with me now and free yourself. You see, me saying "We're good" doesn't mean, "We're perfect." Okay? The only perfect being is the bearded guy who walked on water. The plain fact is that our country has, with all our mistakes and blunders, always been and always will be the greatest beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and affection in history. If you need proof, look at the immigration statistics. More foreigners move here than to any other country on earth. Why is that?
2) "Violence only leads to more violence." This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it. Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already: Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky, half measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully thought through, professional, well executed violence never leads to more
violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's right, dead. Not "on trial," not "reeducated," not "nurtured back into the bosom of love." Dead.
3) "The CIA and the rest of our intelligence community have failed us." For 25 years we have chained our spies like dogs to a stake in the ground, and now that the house has been robbed, we yell at them for not protecting us. Starting in the late seventies, under Carter appointee Stansfield Turner, the giant brains who get these giant ideas decided that the best way to gather international intelligence was to use spy satellites. "After all, (they reasoned,) you can see a license plate from 200 miles away." This is very helpful if you've been attacked by a license plate. Unfortunately, we were attacked by humans. Finding humans is not possible with satellites. You have to use other humans. When we bought all our satellites, we fired all our humans, and here's the really stupid part: It takes years, decades to infiltrate new humans into the worst places of the world. You can't just have a guy who looks like Gary Busey in a Spring Break '93 sweatshirt plop himself down in a coffee shop in Kabul and say "Hi ya, boys. Gee, I sure would like to meet
that bin Laden fella. "Well, you can, but all you'd be doing is giving the bad guys a story they'll be telling for years.
4) "These people are poor and helpless, and that's why they're angry at us." Uh-huh, and Jeffrey Dahmer's frozen head collection was just a desperate cry for help. The terrorists and their backers are richer than Elton John and, ironically, a good deal less annoying. The poor helpless people, you see, are the villagers they tortured and murdered to stay in
power. Mohammed Atta, one of the evil scumbags who steered those planes into the killing grounds is the son of a Cairo surgeon. But you know this, too. In the sixties and seventies, all the pinheads marching against the war were upper-middle-class college kids who grabbed any cause they could think of to get out of their final papers and spend more time drinking. It's the same today.
