[bubblewrap]

Did Saddam not continue to hinder inspectors?
And deny acess to sites?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

Don't break your arms patting each other on the back just yet...

Link to 1441 findings by the UN.

Not so great post.
Troll is wrong.

..this is.. irrelevant to troll's point. But thanks for the article

cheers

W-Y

[Troll]

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

Don't break your arms patting each other on the back just yet...

Link to 1441 findings by the UN.

Not so great post.
Troll is wrong.

What am I wrong about? The link you supplied does not record a breach of resolution 1441!

[Troll]

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

Did Saddam not continue to hinder inspectors?
And deny acess to sites?

I believe Blix said that the access that inspectors had was "unprecedented". That doesn't mean it was perfect and Blix did say that the Iraqis could have done more, but that's irrelevant. It was only for the UN Security Council to make a determination as to compliance or lack therof with 1441 and it never made that determination so Iraq was never in breach of resolution 1441.

The thing is that the US wanted regime change not the things UNSCR 1441 asked for. When it became clear that 1441 wasn't going to provide an excuse to effect regime change, 1441 became irrelevant to the US.

[Zimphire]

Yes Saddam had the power to stop the war. If that was the point in this thread, it failed Horribly.

Saddam had a chance to turn himself in. And stop the whole thing.

He choose pride over his people.

This apologetic Saddam sympathizing is just pathetic.

And it's not that people are doing this because they like Saddam.

It's that their hatred towards Bush is so irrational and extreme, they will side with the devil to try desperately to make him look bad.

This thread is a good example of that.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

Did Saddam not continue to hinder inspectors?
And deny acess to sites?

SHHHHH!!

"A diplomatic solution must include, or meet, a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard: Iraq must agree -- and soon -- to free, full, unfettered access to these (inspection) sites anywhere in the country," Clinton said.

The president urged Americans to be ready for a possible attack on Iraq, and he warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had used biological weapons against his own people -- and would likely use the weapons again unless he were prevented from doing so.

Hussein, said the president, "threatens the security of all the rest of us."

Bush made Clinton say above, knowing he would be president and topple Iraq folks. Bush is just THAT clever.

Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.

Indeed. And when you have been known to lie, you cannot be trusted. AKA Crying Wolf.

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.

Again, Damn Bush is good. He planned this way back then.

And

The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:

5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs

Yes sir folks, there is Iraq admitting to having a massive bio gear after 1990.

AGAIN Bush must have really been on top of things back then.

Clinton, who has ordered military forces to the gulf region in case a military strike is needed, warned Hussein not to continue to delay or oppose the U.N. demands on weapons inspections: "He, and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences."

Indeed. Those right there are indeed Facts.

Like it or not.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Yes Saddam had the power to stop the war. If that was the point in this thread, it failed Horribly.

Saddam had a chance to turn himself in. And stop the whole thing.

Sheesh, you're boppin' an' weavin' all over the place. Do you mind sticking to one argument and finishing it. Now your new argument is that Saddam could have avoided the war by "turning himself in"! As if he were an on the run criminal or something.

Did Resolution 1441 mention the requirement that he "turn himself in" to who-knows-who? No! Turn himself in for what anyway? He was never found guilty or even formally charged with any crimes! Who should he have turned himself in to?

If the only way in which Saddam could have avoided war was to turn himself in, what the hell was the US doing at the UN making demands that had nothing to do with "turning himself in" (or even stepping down for that matter)? Do you realise that you've just put another nail in your argument's coffin by once again showing that the US had a different agenda; that the US had decided that the outcome of the UN process had no bearing on whether it was going to go to war at all.

What arrogance to think you can decide who runs a foreign country anyway. You can't just go around threatening to invade countries that don't put leacers in power that you like. And still call yourself democratic! Besides, do you really think that changing the guy at the top of the pile would have made any difference at all? If Saddam had turned himself in (to whoever it is you think had jurisdiction over him), there would have been a thousand Baathists ready to replace him. That wouldn't have been acceptable to the US either, would it. So that was no guaranteed way to avoid war either.

P.S. I'm waiting for the Saddam quote.

[SVass]

A relevant article from history
http://archive.salon.com/news/1998/08/21newsc.html
"Two days after a 1983 terrorist bombing at the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon killed 241 Americans, President Reagan invaded the tiny island of Grenada in a move that seemed designed to substitute a military romp for a deadly disaster.

President Bush's invasion of Panama in 1989 was questioned as a politically convenient operation aimed to dispose of an embarrassment to the U.S. government: the drugged-up, onetime C.I.A. asset Manuel Noriega. The Panama action also afforded Bush the opportunity to counter criticism that he was a bit of a wimp.

In 1993 Clinton ordered the air strike on Iraqi targets in retaliation for an alleged assassination plot against former President George Bush. At that time, I asked a senior White House aide what justified this act of war. "If we don't do anything, the media will be all over us," he replied. The bombing appeared to work. Afterward, the Christian Science Monitor ran a piece that noted, "By slamming cruise missiles into Baghdad in retaliation for a plot to kill his predecessor, President Clinton has struck a blow that may help overcome his public image of wavering leadership."

They all do things to help their image. sam

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Yes sir folks, there is Iraq admitting to having a massive bio gear after 1990.

Do you actually understand English?

"The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:" != an admission that he had them after 1990! What that sentences records is when the statement was made not when it was valid.

But that's besides the point because we do indeed know that he had WMD after 1990. He was handing them over for destruction in 1991! And between 1991 and 1997 all known WMD were destroyed or tagged and tracked (and are safe today). From 1997 on there were no known WMD in Iraq. UNSCOM had "eliminated" Iraq's WMD program and destroyed every known stockpile of WMD.

Give it up. No one is stupid enough to not see that you're ignoring everything that happened from 1991 to 2002.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Troll

Sheesh, you're boppin' an' weavin' all over the place. Do you mind sticking to one argument and finishing it. Now your new argument is that Saddam could have avoided the war by "turning himself in"! As if he were an on the run criminal or something.

Boppin and weaving? No. I said Saddam could have stopped it any time he wanted. And he could have. you claimed he couldn't have. Now when I proved he could have, you claimed I am bopping and weaving, sorry, that doesn't work with me. You were wrong. Plain and simple.

Did Resolution 1441 mention the requirement that he "turn himself in" to who-knows-who? No! Turn himself in for what anyway? He was never found guilty or even formally charged with any crimes! Who should he have turned himself in to?

That is irrelevant Mr Strawman. You claimed he couldn't have stopped it. When indeed he could.

If the only way in which Saddam could have avoided war was to turn himself in,

Turned himself in, or complied with the inspections from the start. Sorry, I am not playing this dishonesty apologetic game with you.

Originally Posted by Troll

Do you actually understand English?

100% Silly.

"The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:" != an admission that he had them after 1990! What that sentences records is when the statement was made not when it was valid.

Lets go on to read before that quote.
It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.
SINCE 1991 AFTER 1991 Iraq admitted to HAVING, not HAD a massive offensive.

"The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:

Do you actually understand English?

But that's besides the point because we do indeed know that he had WMD after 1990. He was handing them over for destruction in 1991! And between 1991 and 1997 all known WMD were destroyed or tagged and tracked (and are safe today). From 1997 on there were no known WMD in Iraq. UNSCOM had "eliminated" Iraq's WMD program and destroyed every known stockpile of WMD.

Then why were they going back to look for more? You know the inspections. The ones that the inspector got tossed from?

Give it up. No one is stupid enough to not see that you're ignoring everything that happened from 1991 to 2002.

I am not the one ignoring it bub .

You act like this was some new thing Bush came up with to attack Iraq, and Saddam had no choice.

I disproved both accusations.

This ideal was going on way before Bush was in office, and Saddam had plenty of chances to make good, but didn't because of selfish pride.

End of story.

[Eynstyn]

After mentally removing myself from the task of trying to prove or disprove the various points I see this whole thing boils down to two main issues.

As President of the United States was Bush within his rights to have attacked Iraq and did he have sufficient justification for doing so?

The American people answered YES to both of those questions in November 2004.

However, the issue still won't die. So, for the sake of reassessing the matter in light of what's known today, here's my re-hash.

The President asserted in a public address that he needed no outside authority to legitimize his actions to protect the interests of the US and if you don't like it, tough noogies.

THERE.

That takes care of the question of his having the right to take action. He says he does and he's still running things, so that means we all agree.

Now for the matter of justification, which is a bit more complicated.

A significant factor in the question of justification is the fact that the president is a Texan. Like it or not there is something just a little different about Texans, many of whom have a belief system and subscribe to a code of conduct perhaps easiest described as the 'Cowboy' way.

A man is courteous to and protective of children and women-folk and rowdy with his buddies. A man will only abide a certain level of nonsense before feeling it his duty to take action. A man backs up his big talk but usually doesn't talk all that much. A man does not back down. A man has to settle the score before he can rest easy and instead of getting mad, gets even. Bigger is usually better with Texans.

Against everything that transpired since the Gulf War in 1991 it may be helpful to keep this code in mind. "Don't mess with Texas."

MINDSET

In the lead up to the invasion in March 2003, there was sufficient doubt in the minds of the United States government, the UN and its UNSCOM inspectors, foreign leaders, the majority of people around the world, the news organization CBS as well as other news organizations and distribution sources, that the threat of Iraqi WMD's could not be discounted.

No one really knew if Saddam Hussein had WMD's or not.

Troll may be one of macnn's leading war dissenters.

The game Saddam played was cat and mouse with inspectors. He wanted them to know he had destroyed his WMD but he wanted them to believe it without scoping his whole military arsenal out and plotting every weakness and part of his country's defences. Some of the UN members were arch enemies of Iraq. And the US proved his suspicions correct by using the inspections regime to designate targets for later airstrikes (80% of which had nothing to do with WMD). He was between a rock and a hard place - how to give enough info without comprising your security. He played it badly; that I give you.

Most of the world refused to conduct a war on the basis of the evidence of WMD that they had seen. THAT is where the US diverged from the rest of the world. The USA has wasted tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and all this time Sammy Joe wasn't even in the dark room.

...there is a massive chasm between belief and knowledge. Only when you have crossed that chasm are most people prepared to start slaughtering each other. That is, when you're sitting on the belief side, with nothing but unsubstantiated faith in Iraq's guilt, you're far, far less willing to take military action in case you wind up wasting lives and money than you are when you're sitting on the side where you KNOW they have them.

Maybe one testament to the effectiveness of Saddam's cat and mouse game is that it still confuses and teases those in both camps. But either way, the fact is that the very perception the mere possibility he MAY have possessed WMD's was justification enough for George W. Bush to give the order for the US invasion of Iraq.

It is difficult for anyone who doesn't live in the US to understand the anger and vulnerability we felt after the 9/11 attacks. It is also difficult for anyone who does live in the US to recognize the danger Saddam posed had he actually possessed WMD's unless the person knows the whole story of Saddam since 1991.

Even with both qualifications, (residency and knowledge of history and current affairs) many can't make up for the lack of good breeding, parenting, education or maturity.

Nonetheless, there was the perception among many in the US that Saddam was a direct and non-specific danger to the US, may have already been behind at least one previous attack on the US, had thumbed his nose at the UN and the US, had tried to kill the George Bush family and in short made himself a real pain in the ass for a number of years and should have been killed years ago, and for many reasons (all of them justified) over the years. In the minds of many he was as they say (and not only in Texas) living on borrowed time.

And THAT is where the majority of Americans diverged from the opinions of most non-Americans. Like the difference in commitment between a chicken and a pig to providing breakfast to mankind. A chicken may show commitment by contributing the eggs, a pig gives ALL to the cause.

The opinions of non-Americans may be impassioned but it is NOTHING like what knowledgeable Americans felt.

President Bush felt the same way and accurately understood what we were feeling and acted accordingly.

We'd passed on perfectly good opportunities to remove the current, future, real, imagined and potential threat of Saddam Hussein over the years. The invasion was simply long overdue. And if it also happened to be legally justified...OR NOT...then the most important thing was that he be gone and we'll just let the chips fall where they may.

'Badges? BADGES??!! We don't need no stinkin badges!'

As far as I'm concerned we didn't need no stinkin UN approval to do what we needed to do re: Saddam and Iraq. As it turns out Pres. Bush was legally justified in attacking Iraq but as far as the American people are concerned, that was secondary in importance.

The most ardent Saddam supporter has to wonder if the dictator blew what could have been his best last chance to wrangle one more victory from the mouth of defeat when he didn't submit to the UN where he doubtless would have been made a 'cause celebre' by the French and others had no WMD's been found.

Although, even with no proof of WMD's he still would have faced some kind of human rights tribunal such as the one for which he currently prepares.

This would explain his ruse. If he acted to remove ALL doubt Saddam would have been safe from one enemy, the US and our allies but vulnerable to the wolves at the door, his neighboring Arab countries.

So, Saddam sought to keep EVERYONE guessing by dangerously floating the idea that he might still pose a WMD danger to his enemies.

CBS 60 Minutes Dec. 8, 2002

Bob Simon’s CBS News colleague Mark Phillips marveled at how an Iraqi official “admitted there not only were plans to build a nuclear device, the Iraqis were tantalizingly close to having one."

In a surprisingly frank and brash admission, the man who has run Iraq's prohibited weapons programs admitted there not only were plans to build a nuclear device, the Iraqis were tantalizingly close to having one."

General Amir al-Sa'adi, Iraqi presidential advisor: "We haven't reached the final assembly of a bomb nor tested it, so if you want to follow that, there's no guarantee that you will succeed. It's for the IAEA to judge how close we were." ( I can just imagine the Texan's response to THAT remark!... eynstyn)

"It's generally assumed that Saddam does have chemical and biological weapons, but is he also on the verge of producing a nuclear bomb as the President says he's tried to do in the past?"

One of those enemies who took these false messages to heart was not a neighbor, but a country with a well demonstrated interest in the vital resources and the political/socio-economic conditions of the area...the U.S. The Iraqi mad man's actions had been the cause for alarm and prompted many dozens of diplomatic and military disciplinary measures by the UN and the US since US coalition forces won Iraq's conditional surrender in the 1991 Gulf War.

Through a litany of offenses: to his own people, numerous violations of the terms of the 1991 surrender and regular targeting of (and also launching missiles at) coalition planes on combat air patrol over the No-Fly-Zone, the UN did little but pass a number of resolutions which Saddam simply ignored.

A UN sponsored oil embargo and a subsequent humanitarian relief effort called the "Oil for Food" program - created to spare the Iraqi people the punitive effects of the embargo - became a source for Saddam to further pad his own personal fortune at the further expense of his people.

In 1993 US President Clinton was sufficiently motivated by Saddam's assassination attempt on President GHW Bush and family (as well as his affronts to humanity and justice? one wonders) that he launched a cruise missile attack against Iraq. The effect of the attack was not enough to keep Saddam in line.

During this time the world was outraged to see examples of Saddam's test of chemical and biological weapons against his own people. These and other offenses continued and were met with new UN resolutions.

Meanwhile, starting in 2000 and continuing until the invasion, the Iraqi dictator began a noteworthy to achieve his dream of ruling the entire Middle East.

To show support for a growing force in the middle east, Saddam started paying the families of dead Palestinian Islamic terrorists $10,000 each. In the aftermath of the disaster of 9/11/01(and when it looked increasingly likely that the US was seriously concerned with the mixed WMD messages) Saddam INCREASED these payments to $25,000.

This fact has gotten little play on these pages but it deserves to be carefully considered.

http://www.foxnews.com 3/26/02

Paul McGeough, reporting from the West Bank, was the only foreign correspondent in the hall Monday night when a Palestinian official handed out the checks. McGeough's story in today's Sydney Morning Herald describes a very hellish twist on the Academy Awards:

The men at the top table then opened Saddam's checkbook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for checks written in U.S. dollars.

Those of two suicide bombers were the first to be paid the new rate of $25,000 U.S. and those whose relatives had died in other clashes with the Israeli military were given $10,000 U.S. each.

The $500,000 U.S. doled out in this impoverished community yesterday means that the besieged Iraqi leader now has contributed more than $10 million to grieving Palestinian families since the new intifada began 18 months ago.

In another article published today in The Age, McGeough wrote, "The grieving mothers seemed comforted when the man from the Iraqi-funded Arab Liberation Front told them: 'Don't think that the martyrs are dead — they are alive and in the heavens and they are close to God.'"

Some misinformed war opponents have tried asserting there were no existing ties and no possible ties between Saddam -- whose ruling Baath Party is avowedly atheistic -- and any of the deeply religious Muslim groups in the middle east.

However, we see that is not true. Saddam, according to a Salon.com article on 9/21/01, "has altered the Iraqi flag to include an Islamic blessing."

Back to the foxnews.com article.

I reached McGeough on his mobile phone in the West Bank this morning and asked if he snuck into this gruesome town hall meeting, held by a PLO faction aligned with Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party. I mean, who would let a foreign journalist see this sort of Iraqi-Palestinian blood partnership?

"I asked the Ramallah office of the Arab Liberation Front," McGeough said. "They said I could go."

He was welcomed. So the Palestinian Authority is blatantly exposing its terrorist funding from Iraq? To foreign reporters?

"You can interpret it in various ways. One way is that it is a deliberate way for Baghdad to escalate the suicide bombings."

What other reason would Saddam have for so openly publicizing his ties and his benevolence to the Palestinian Authority, and most importantly, to the cause of terrorism?

What was the conventional wisdom among those in Washington regarding the effect the payments would have on the peace process, the balance of powers and the war on terror?

What about Washington? Is it worth pursuing a peace deal when the Palestinians are being paid by Iraq to blow up their sons and daughters? When the Palestinians are applauded by the Arab nations for the bloodshed? Should we even bother with heartfelt discussions about U.N. inspectors and diplomacy when Iraq is a proud example of state-sponsored terrorism? What do we get from ignoring Mohammed Atta's meeting with Iraqi spies in Prague? Should we play nice with the psycho who parades his enemies' families on satellite teevee just to teach those exiles a lesson?

A long history of Saddam's offenses, violations and warnings which went unpunished and unheeded was no longer tolerable as they once had been. A contest for the balance of power in the Middle East had quietly begun and though he didn't know it, he had already sealed his own fate.

His undisguised attempts to establish ties with the terrorist world, Islam and the Palestinian Authority along with his increased payments to the families in the spring of 2002, compounded by the suspicion he may have played a role in the 9/11 attack, against a background of lies and subterfuge, human rights violations, playing cat and mouse with UNSCOM inspectors and finally the boastful WMD messages, which might or might not have been true...all of that was enough for any reasonable American armed only with the conventional wisdom of the day to conclude that President Bush was more than justified in attacking Iraq.

Dennis Miller talking to Jay Leno after mid-term elections 2002 about the perceived threat from terrorists or Saddam or anyone for that matter:

Miller: “And you know what, what? Jay what, what are the Democrats really offering? You know I consider both sides in an election before I vote. I looked at what the Democrats are saying. They’re saying, 'Listen we want more of your money and we’re not really keen on preemptively protecting you from bad guys.' You know what folks? I don’t want the bad guys to have the next move. I don’t want to see two more big buildings blown up.”

Miller took on liberal wimpiness: “You know I find our approach to the, the war on terrorism to be amazingly non-chalant. I mean the simple fact is we are not being protective enough of ourselves. I think that was a mandate yesterday saying, 'Listen! We don’t want these morons trying to croak us!’

George W. Bush was legally and morally justified in invading Iraq. He deserves our eternal gratitude and support for doing so and as time goes on the rightness of his actions will be revealed.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Troll

Sheesh, you're boppin' an' weavin' all over the place.

The correct word is "BOBBIN," not boppin,

[SVass]

Excuse any problems as I have just installed Tiger and there are a few issues remaining:

Two points: bopping has to do with dancing (be-bop) and bobbing has to do with ducking as in bobbing and weaving by boxers and bobbin is a spool for thread.

Bush did not attack Iraq on his own as suggested by Eynstyn. He asked Congress for permission and in doing so, he LIED to them and to the American people. That is the only issue. No one objects to his asking, only to his LIES. Real men don't lie. When Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack, he did not even ask and Republicans accused him of trying to divert attention from his problems. He may have lied about sex; but, he did not lie in such a way as to get people killed. , (Give Texas back to Mexico or actually Bush is really from Connecticut or is that another lie.) sam

[tie]

Originally Posted by zigzag

I think they must have read one of my posts from 2 1/2 years ago - I was saying essentially the same things, as were many other people who supported the forcible removal of Saddam but think the whole thing was handled badly and dishonestly [/pats self on back but wishes it weren't necessary]. However, I also predicted that if the venture is ultimately successful, this sort of stuff will mostly become footnotes. We won't know for many years to come.

I think if it had been successful very quickly, then you would be right. Certainly everyone in the Bush administration predicted a very quick and easy success, because anyone who cautioned otherwise was kicked out. But at this point, even if things ultimately turn out well, the interim will have been bad enough that history won't forget the details.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

It also doesn't matter what Clinton DIDN"T DO... And the only difference between what Clinton did and Bush did, is Bush at least made an attempt to do something about the things going down there.

Of course it matters what Clinton didn't do. The "only difference"? Don't be so simplistic. Clinton engaged in the rhetoric to keep international support for strong sanctions, which prevented Iraq from developing any kind of military or WMD (as we now know well), or from becoming a threat to the US or its allies. Bush screwed up, and made Iraq into a threat to the US and its allies.

Also, despite your claim that Bush and Clinton used the same rhetoric, I disagree. Bush went quite a bit further, and was much more dishonest. For example, the famous aluminum tubes that Bush claimed were for nuclear centrifuges, but in fact the intelligence community thought (correctly) were for missiles. Did Clinton (or his administration) ever distort the intelligence he was given to the same extent? Not to my knowledge.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by SVass

Excuse any problems as I have just installed Tiger and there are a few issues remaining:

Yeah. The operator is a monkey. Haha, get it? Tigers eat monkeys. Ok, anyway...

Two points: bopping has to do with dancing (be-bop) and bobbing has to do with ducking as in bobbing and weaving by boxers and bobbin is a spool for thread.

Well, you are SOMEWHAT right here. Troll originally posted this:
"Sheesh, you're boppin' an' weavin' all over the place."

We will excuse you for taking my omission of the apostrophe literally. I know what a friggin bobbin is and I also know Troll wasn't talkin bout no friggin bobbin. Thanks pal.

Crocodile Rock by Elton John "...we were hoppin and boppin to the crocodile rock..."

Troll used "boppin'" when he should have used "bobbing."

I was using the colloquialized version of bobbing...sans the 'g.'

Bush did not attack Iraq on his own as suggested by Eynstyn. He asked Congress for permission and in doing so, he LIED to them and to the American people. That is the only issue. No one objects to his asking, only to his LIES. Real men don't lie. When Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack, he did not even ask and Republicans accused him of trying to divert attention from his problems. He may have lied about sex; but, he did not lie in such a way as to get people killed. , (Give Texas back to Mexico or actually Bush is really from Connecticut or is that another lie.) sam

You are the cats meow.


How many people breathe free because of Clinton's sex lies which we all saw on videotape?

Bush has done more for freedom and human rights than Clinton could even in his wettest dream.

He talked about wanting to do good? He left Saddam alive and in place even after he agreed that Saddam should have been dead or gone. Even when he recognized that Saddam DID have WMD's he just looked the other way. Before 9/11 and even up until the war began (and we STILL haven't gotten the definitive resolution to this) there was a strong case being made that Saddam was behind the 1993 WTC bombing.

Prevention is the thing YOU guys don't seem to have in your thought process. Lucky for you Bush DOES!

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by tie

I think if it had been successful very quickly, then you would be right. Certainly everyone in the Bush administration predicted a very quick and easy success, because anyone who cautioned otherwise was kicked out. But at this point, even if things ultimately turn out well, the interim will have been bad enough that history won't forget the details.

Try this on for size...

The ones who, as you put it, "cautioned otherwise" MAY have helped slow things down, confused some of the necessary decisionmaking, caused delays in procedures and divided what should have been a unified team into two (or more?) warring camps.

That's where I might find fault with your President.

I'd have told Colon Powell, "We're going to do this thing and we're going to do this thing my way. If you can't give it your whole hearted support I want your resignation on my desk by 9 am. Otherwise, stf up and help our boys win."

I think that's what he finally did but he did it too late.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by tie

Of course it matters what Clinton didn't do. The "only difference"? Don't be so simplistic. Clinton engaged in the rhetoric to keep international support for strong sanctions, which prevented Iraq from developing any kind of military or WMD (as we now know well), or from becoming a threat to the US or its allies. Bush screwed up, and made Iraq into a threat to the US and its allies.

Also, despite your claim that Bush and Clinton used the same rhetoric, I disagree. Bush went quite a bit further, and was much more dishonest. For example, the famous aluminum tubes that Bush claimed were for nuclear centrifuges, but in fact the intelligence community thought (correctly) were for missiles. Did Clinton (or his administration) ever distort the intelligence he was given to the same extent? Not to my knowledge.

Please explain how Bush, to quote you, "screwed up, and made Iraq into a threat to the US and its allies." And, "Also, despite your claim that Bush and Clinton used the same rhetoric...Bush went quite a bit further, and was much more dishonest. "

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by tie

Of course it matters what Clinton didn't do. The "only difference"? Don't be so simplistic. Clinton engaged in the rhetoric to keep international support for strong sanctions, which prevented Iraq from developing any kind of military or WMD (as we now know well), or from becoming a threat to the US or its allies. Bush screwed up, and made Iraq into a threat to the US and its allies.

Wow, I never read some much tripe in awhile.

While you are more than welcome to think that. It's what we call a baseless accusation.

Also, despite your claim that Bush and Clinton used the same rhetoric, I disagree.

Well again, disagree all you want. I remember once someone posting the exact same words Bill said, without mentioning Bill's name. Of course the anti-Bush haters came in and went on about how Bush was an idiot for saying those things etc.. until of course they were told it was Clinton.

Then the excuses started flying like they are now.

Clinton and Bush sound very similar in this matter. As a matter of fact, Clinton himself said the only cure for Iraq is a complete upheaval of their gov. and Saddam gone.

Bush went quite a bit further, and was much more dishonest.

How do you know he was dishonest? Unless you know what he knew before hand you are again making baseless accusations.

For example, the famous aluminum tubes that Bush claimed were for nuclear centrifuges, but in fact the intelligence community thought (correctly) were for missiles. Did Clinton (or his administration) ever distort the intelligence he was given to the same extent? Not to my knowledge.

Not to your knowledge because you didn't care, you didn't hate Clinton.

Just like when Clinton Bombed Iraq and said he didn't need UN approval. Not one lefty cried fowl.

It's this double standard poop that cracks me up.

At least I stood with Bill when he tried to do something with Iraq even though I was never a big fan of his.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I said Saddam could have stopped it any time he wanted. And he could have. you claimed he couldn't have. Now when I proved he could have, you claimed I am bopping and weaving, sorry, that doesn't work with me. You were wrong. Plain and simple.

First you said he could have stopped it if he had complied with Resolution 1441. Then we pointed out that he did comply with 1441 so you changed your argument to say that he could have stopped it if he had "turned himself in". That is simply ridiculous. Turning himself in was as relevant a barrier to war as Saddam buying George Bush a pack of Chupa Chups! How was he supposed to know that he needed to turn himself in to stop the war and how was he supposed to know who to turn himself in to? The demand that was made of Iraq was that it comply with Resolution 1441. During the whole process to avoid war that George Bush told Congress he was taking seriously, not a single country on this planet ever demanded anything else of Iraq.

Just before invading Bush did add a new demand which was contained in the ultimatum. The US demanded that Saddam Hussein resign. That is completely irrelevant to the present argument because of a concept known as time which you seem to be battling to understand. The Bush Administration told Congress, the American public and the world that it wasn't committed to war but that it was honestly pursuing a resolution to the conflict through the UN. When the US went to the UN, it never said we demand regime change and the UN never demanded that of Iraq (it's not legal anyway). So if you're saying now that Saddam's resignation was the way to stop the war then, as I pointed out previously, you're shooting yourself in the foot. Because you're admitting that the UN approach was a farce, that Bush had a hidden agenda and that he wasn't doing what he said he was - pursuing a peaceful outcome in the UN. And that dear Sir is precisely what the argument in this thread was about from the start - does this memorandum add more weight to the argument that Bush pretended to be seeking a solution to the problem through the UN when all along he was simply trying to justify a war? You're essentially admitting that by saying that Saddam could have stopped war by turning himself in, or resigning or buying George Bush Chupa Chups or anything else that was not raised at the UN.

Besides, if all Bush wanted was for Saddam to step down then he's more stupid than I thought. Anyone with half a brain realises that if Saddam stepped down, there were enough Baathists who wanted a great and powerful and aggressive Iraq to replace him. Saddam disappearing != regime change.

Maybe there is something that Saddam could have done to stop the war. Maybe if Bush had played his cards straight and told Saddam and the world what he really wanted, then we could have avoided war. He didn't do that. He told Saddam, he wanted inspections when he really wasn't interested in the outcome of those inspections. As you've admitted, his agenda was a bouquet of other objectives such as liberating Iraqis, prosecuting the criminal Saddam, regime change which he never raised at the UN. He was hoping that WMD would be the slam dunk and when they weren't, he had to connive an invasion in order to secure the other interests he was pursuing less openly - or go back to the UN and make a human rights argument which might not succeed and certainly wouldn't result in a nice little succesful war by Nov 2004.

As to what the inspectors were doing back in Iraq in 2002, this is not difficult to understand really. The inspectors were in Iraq looking to disprove the assumptions they had made so that Iraq's statements could be reconciled with their report. If they had found WMD that would have been a smoking gun. They would have packed up and gone home and told the UN to invade.

Originally Posted by Zimphire

You act like this was some new thing Bush came up with to attack Iraq, and Saddam had no choice.

Take the statement that there are rockets under palm trees in Western Iraq aimed at Israel as just one example and then tell me with a straight face that ANYONE else, including Clinton, ever said the same thing. The claim that the US had direct KNOWLEDGE that Iraq had WMD was indeed something new that Bush came up with.

Your argument assumes we're all stupid. You try to make out as if everyone was on the same page as Bush and the rest of us are now are using the wisdom of hindsight to criticise. Hello - did you not see countries fighting tooth and nail at the UN - we were NOT on the same page as Bush. The rest of the world was making worst case ASSUMPTIONS about Iraq; assumptions that, on the eve of the war were being disproved by Blix's team. The rest of the world wanted Blix to confirm or disprove the assumptions that UNSCOM had made precisely because they were not secure with the ASSUMPTIONS they had. At least not secure enough to go to war. Bush said he already knew that Iraq had WMD and he felt justified killing tens of thousands of people because Iraq was dangerous. The other leg of your argument take us for temporal idiots. You say Iraq admitted having WMD in 1991 and therefore the US was justified in invading in 2003. I'm not going to argue with you about Clinton's statement because I agree with the statement the way you wish to construct it. In 1991 Iraq was handing WMD over to UNSCOM for destruction so it would be ludicrous to suggest that they didn't have them in 1991. You ignore the period 1991 to 1997 which culminated in an American who was head of UNSCOM telling the world that Iraq's capability had been ELIMINATED, that every WMD that they had ever seen had been accounted for and that all that remained was an explanation from Iraq about stockpiles that might have existed because Iraq's claims regarding destroyed stockpiles had not been verified 100% as the UN resolutions required. And you ignore the period 1997 - 2003. You assume we're too stupid to realise that an admission in 1991 or 1992 means nothing in 2003 especially when everything said since them pointed away from Iraq having WMD.

I'm still waiting for your quote from Saddam.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Yeah. The operator is a monkey. Haha, get it? Tigers eat monkeys. Ok, anyway...



Well, you are SOMEWHAT right here. Troll originally posted this:
"Sheesh, you're boppin' an' weavin' all over the place."

We will excuse you for taking my omission of the apostrophe literally. I know what a friggin bobbin is and I also know Troll wasn't talkin bout no friggin bobbin. Thanks pal.

Crocodile Rock by Elton John "...we were hoppin and boppin to the crocodile rock..."

Troll used "boppin'" when he should have used "bobbing."

I was using the colloquialized version of bobbing...sans the 'g.'

Off topic:

The fact that you frequently abuse the English language in your posts doesn't really make you look good when you nitpick the spelling of a poster whose native language isn't English. Extremely laughable when it is taken into account you claim to be a native English speaker.



cheers

W-Y

[Troll]

Oh God, how arbitrary can people get. Yes, in boxing it's called bobbing and weaving. In music, artists often contort the boxing term, viz UB40's famous pre live show statement: "It's taim for sum boppin' un weavin' and weavin' un boppin'." Heck Everlast, AC/DC, B*Witched even Whitney Ford has used the expression. I put the apostrophes in there so you'd realise I wasn't talking boxin', mon. I thought the image of Zimphire twisting on the dance floor was funnier than the image of him ducking punches. What a waste of bandwidth.

Oh, and English is my native language. It's not the first language I ever spoke, but I do consider it my native language.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Another off topic:

No language other than you spoke first can ever become your native language. Why is that I hear you ask? (or was it just my neighbor shouting really loud, I'm not sure) - well, anyone can learn more than one language and master them all to speak as if native. I can do this with 3 languages (and am proficient in 4 others) and yet only one is my native. The one I learned first. This will be demonstrated as I grow older and begin to dement. One by one the languages fade away, like all my knowledge and ultimately only one remains.

An extreme case is when people get a severe stroke they can lose all ability to talk in any other language than their native. This has happened with immigrants who have lived for decades in a new country then suddenly lost all ability to express themselves in anything but the language they learned first. It seems to imprint differently. Our mind and thoughts are abstract and our ability to put them into words is nothing short of amazing but that contact between the abstract and structured words is imprinted for ever in only one way. No-one can be 100% bi-lingual. In practice, yes but when the **** hits the fan so to speak, then no.

All the languages you learn you can forget. The first language you learn, you can never forget. That is the native language. For all intents and purposes I can speak 3 languages as a native. I can talk flawlessly, express myself at will, I can write poetry in those languages, I can express my heart and I have a feeling for them all. There is nothing particularly wrong in saying one is a native speaker in another language than the language one grew up with when it reflects your abilities in it and that isn't my point. Simply that while we can learn an incredible amount of languages only through the first one we learned can we learn the other ones. That first language is the bridge we have between our abstract thoughts and the structured way we express ourselves in words.

THEN there is the written language and that's a whole different enchillada
(ever noticed people who are better at talking than writing?

/off topic

cheers

W-Y

[SVass]

To veer back towards the original thread, today I saw an announcement that Netscape 8.0 is out so I went to their web site and found this restriction:
"Netscape Browser software contains encryption technology that is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and other U.S. law, and may not be exported or re-exported to certain countries (currently Afghanistan (Taliban-controlled areas), Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria)..."
Someone else believes that we aren't yet successful in our military ventures. sam

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

No language other than you spoke first can ever become your native language.

My problem is that I can no longer say more than a few words in Zulu which is the first language I learned so calling it my native language would be very strange.

[Zimphire]

Troll do you know you take personal assumptions and treat them as fact, then act like you disproved something by doing so?

You've been doing it the whole thread. And it's your arguments that assume we are all stupid.

Esp your insistence that Saddam couldn't have stopped this.


Your blind hatred towards Bush, or even American politics has made your reasoning distorted.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Another off topic:

No language other than you spoke first can ever become your native language. Why is that I hear you ask? (or was it just my neighbor shouting really loud, I'm not sure) - well, anyone can learn more than one language and master them all to speak as if native. I can do this with 3 languages (and am proficient in 4 others) and yet only one is my native. The one I learned first. This will be demonstrated as I grow older and begin to dement. One by one the languages fade away, like all my knowledge and ultimately only one remains.

An extreme case is when people get a severe stroke they can lose all ability to talk in any other language than their native. This has happened with immigrants who have lived for decades in a new country then suddenly lost all ability to express themselves in anything but the language they learned first. It seems to imprint differently. Our mind and thoughts are abstract and our ability to put them into words is nothing short of amazing but that contact between the abstract and structured words is imprinted for ever in only one way. No-one can be 100% bi-lingual. In practice, yes but when the **** hits the fan so to speak, then no.

All the languages you learn you can forget. The first language you learn, you can never forget. That is the native language. For all intents and purposes I can speak 3 languages as a native. I can talk flawlessly, express myself at will, I can write poetry in those languages, I can express my heart and I have a feeling for them all. There is nothing particularly wrong in saying one is a native speaker in another language than the language one grew up with when it reflects your abilities in it and that isn't my point. Simply that while we can learn an incredible amount of languages only through the first one we learned can we learn the other ones. That first language is the bridge we have between our abstract thoughts and the structured way we express ourselves in words.

THEN there is the written language and that's a whole different enchillada
(ever noticed people who are better at talking than writing?

/off topic

cheers

W-Y

Yeah, mister smug guy...so how well did you speak it or write it before you became proficient at it???

How did you practice it? How did you feel when people put you down when you were trying and studying as hard as you could and people who can barely speak or write their own, ONE, SINGULAR, language put you down for not being perfect in their attempt to master their seconbd language.

Then, tell me what you think about Martin Luther King's statement on the Washington, DC mall when he said he dreamed of the day when his children would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?

Then contrast that with the crime of being judged not by the quality of the message, or the CONTENT of their communication but by someone's valient but not always successful attempts to communicate.

Now, tell me what a great, smart person you are.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Wow, I never read some much tripe in awhile.
...
Well again, disagree all you want. I remember once someone posting the exact same words Bill said, without mentioning Bill's name.
...
How do you know he was dishonest? Unless you know what he knew before hand you are again making baseless accusations.

Not to your knowledge because you didn't care, you didn't hate Clinton.

Just like when Clinton Bombed Iraq and said he didn't need UN approval. Not one lefty cried fowl.

It's this double standard poop that cracks me up.

At least I stood with Bill when he tried to do something with Iraq even though I was never a big fan of his.

I gave you a specific example of Bush's dishonesty, the aluminum tubes, which you of course ignore. You give me, "I remember once.." for Clinton. Oo-kay. But as you say, I didn't hate Clinton, so you'll forgive me if I don't consider that to be rock-solid proof.

Then you start on about a double standard regarding UN approval... I think you are lumping me in with some of the more extreme liberals in this forum. Otherwise, I'm not sure when we starting arguing about UN approval.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by SVass

To veer back towards the original thread, today I saw an announcement that Netscape 8.0 is out so I went to their web site and found this restriction:
"Netscape Browser software contains encryption technology that is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and other U.S. law, and may not be exported or re-exported to certain countries (currently Afghanistan (Taliban-controlled areas), Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria)..."
Someone else believes that we aren't yet successful in our military ventures. sam

So which came first the chicken (your dislike, distate, distrust, disillusuioning of America) or the egg (Clinton's giving away to red China all the military and nuke and missile secrets)?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Try this on for size...

The ones who, as you put it, "cautioned otherwise" MAY have helped slow things down, confused some of the necessary decisionmaking, caused delays in procedures and divided what should have been a unified team into two (or more?) warring camps.

That's where I might find fault with your President.

I'd have told Colon Powell, "We're going to do this thing and we're going to do this thing my way. If you can't give it your whole hearted support I want your resignation on my desk by 9 am. Otherwise, stf up and help our boys win."

I think that's what he finally did but he did it too late.

It's the people Bush kicked out who turned out to be right. E.g. Shinseki. I don't see how kicking out the more competent people (as has been proved in hindsight) sooner could possibly have helped things. It just seems illogical, as is your whole fantasy of how these people "MAY" have helped slow things down.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by tie

It's the people Bush kicked out who turned out to be right. E.g. Shinseki. I don't see how kicking out the more competent people (as has been proved in hindsight) sooner could possibly have helped things. It just seems illogical, as is your whole fantasy of how these people "MAY" have helped slow things down.

If you and I are on a team and we differ in opinion and you have the better idea between the two of us but before I am kicked out I disrupt the time schedule or breed disharmony in the remaining team/staff members, I plant little seeds of problems which will hamper your efforts after I am gone.

My idea may have worked if given a chance just like your idea might have worked without my sabotaging it.

You can't say either way because you don't know the details. I DO KNOW SOME OF THE DETAILS! That's why I say what I do here. It's always easy to speculate as to what may or may not have been according to your own personal wishes.

I believe either group, left on their own to implement their respective plans under ideal conditions without the problem of the other group to deal with, could have done a good job.

And if you can't understand the concept of sour grapes causing even decent people to do things which would 'show up' their opponents you aren't being honest or you aren't old enough.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Troll do you know you take personal assumptions and treat them as fact, then act like you disproved something by doing so?

You've been doing it the whole thread. And it's your arguments that assume we are all stupid.

Esp your insistence that Saddam couldn't have stopped this.


Your blind hatred towards Bush, or even American politics has made your reasoning distorted.

Another post that contains nothing useful. I posted direct quotes here from UNSCOM countering your point. You STILL haven't posted a quote from Saddam to back yours up. If my posts are mere opinion, then yours are even moreso and at least my opinion is informed. The only way your points make sense is if one ignores large chunks of history.

That you continue to insist that Bush was merely reactionary and acting reasonably since everyone thought the same thing he did is frankly ridiculous. Goodnight.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by zigzag

This was all self-evident in 2002. Nothing had changed on the ground in Iraq since Colin Powell and Condo Rice had declared Saddam to be well-contained. The administration had to hype the urgency of the WMD threat in order to sell the invasion to the public. It was obvious that Bush intended to invade no matter what, and that the U.N. stuff was window dressing. It doesn't mean there were no good reasons to invade - I thought there were - it just means that the reasons given to the public were mostly misleading. I can't believe this is even being debated, it's been so obvious for so long.

The tragedy for me is not the fact of the invasion, it's that it was so poorly conceived.

I can't tell you how happy this post made me.

If we could clone you a few dozen times this forum might be worth visiting more often.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Yeah, mister smug guy...so how well did you speak it or write it before you became proficient at it???

At the risk of sounding smug: how well did I speak or write what exactly before becoming proficient at it?

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

How did you practice it? How did you feel when people put you down when you were trying and studying as hard as you could and people who can barely speak or write their own, ONE, SINGULAR, language put you down for not being perfect in their attempt to master their seconbd language.

Funny (as in strange - not ha ha), in every single case when I've learned a new language I have always had full support and encouragement of the native speakers. I have always found people slightly flattered that one even bothers to learn their language. Nobody ever put me down for it. Why would they

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Then, tell me what you think about Martin Luther King's statement on the Washington, DC mall when he said he dreamed of the day when his children would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?

It was a great speech. Would have been great to be there. But I wasn't born at the time.
(wow that was off topic off my off topic mister!)

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Then contrast that with the crime of being judged not by the quality of the message, or the CONTENT of their communication but by someone's valient but not always successful attempts to communicate.

Heh, one has to know one's limits. Languages are immensely complex while that is not noticed by the native speaker. Funny (both strange & ha ha funny this time) how that works. Try for instance to chat up a girl in a language you barely know. Although the international language of love goes a long way it's going to be very difficult to make her understand you like her - at least in a way that won't make her slap you or walk away

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Now, tell me what a great, smart person you are.

...am I the one who chose the nickname "einstein" on this forum?

cheers

W-Y

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

I can't tell you how happy this post made me.

That's kind of you, but I can see that I probably engaged in a bit of overstatement: I'm not sure the reasons given to the public were "mostly" misleading - as Simey points out, if you were really paying attention (few do), you could discern a variety of reasons, and if you were well-versed in international law (perhaps three voters per state, not counting Alaska and Hawaii), you might even grasp the finer points of the U.N. business. Indeed, that there were more noble reasons than WMDs allowed me to support the invasion in principle. However, the average voter didn't know ****-all about Iraq or WMDs or UN resolutions, and didn't give a **** about democracy promotion, and the administration knew that and exploited it by deliberately hyping the urgency of the WMD threat, which by their own account had been well-contained. That's what I meant by "mostly misleading."

Maybe it'll work out, though, I dunno. I hope so.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by zigzag

Maybe it'll work out, though, I dunno. I hope so.

Everything "works out". Time passes and no matter the outcome some will say it was the intended outcome all along and others will disagree.

In the meantime, however, we are guilty of increasing human suffering for a period of time. Whether or not that is perceived as "worth it" will be judged by only by the survivors.

As near as I can tell, "winning" from the US POV is a stable Iraq that isn't a threat to US interests. That outcome has many possible avenues not all of which will be "worth it" to Iraqis.

If we are really idealistic we can hope for a stable Iraq that isn't a threat to US interest and respects human rights. That outcome will surely be sacrificed in deference to the former outcome if necessary. Just as it is in Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan, Pakistan, Columia, Israel, Indonesia, etc ad naseum.

A stable Iraq that isn't a threat to US interests is a realistic goal. Whether or not the human rights aspiration is expendable will probably determine which side of the "worth it" question most people will assume.

[budster101]

One could argue that we could have allowed Hitler to do as he would to Europe...

Saddam was Evil and was single-handedly dissecting his people and their lives. Now they have a chance to take charge of their own future, and will not be a threat to anyone of their neighbors.

A stable and self-governing Iraq can only be a positive for those in Democratic Nations, and an allie in the War against terrorism. They will no longer be a home to factions of terrorist groups for training and a safe haven. Pakistan has proven to be a positive in this respect as well, as we hunt down OBL.

Syria will be a non-issue fairly soon.
Egypt? pffft.
Iran? They are going to get some whoop-a ss real soon if they keep up their Nuclear ambitions.
Saudi Arabia? We got their number coming up quick as well. We will not be dependent on them for long.

What's the problem?

Look at all the wars in history, and the victims, both military and civilian. We cannot pull out early from Iraq and leave them to the dogs of war.

I'm hopeful that we can get them on their feet rather quickly so they can start to successfully fight insurgents, and any future threats to their soveriegnety (sp).

[thunderous_funker]

Any comparison between Saddam and Hitler is ignorant.

"stable and self-governing" are not value neutral. Saddam's Iraq was stable and self-governing. That didn't make it a nice place, even when Iraq was playing nice with the west.

Pakistan and Uzbekistan are interesting touch stones. Both are stable and self-governing. Both have rather atrocious human rights records. And i'm not sure you could really argue that Pakistan is NOT a threat to its neighbors.

Saddam successfully fought insurgents for decades. Does that mean it was a good thing?

The current political discourse is being dominated by very abstract and value neutral notions that will make any emerging government in Iraq a "success" simply because its leader is not named Saddam.

My contention is that any government in Iraq without a real committment to human rights will be a failure. We'll have fought a bloody, brutal and massively expensive war to reset the Iraqi Timeline to the 1980s.

[budster101]

Wait. Hitler ran France and Italy pretty well... they were stabilizing.

I mentioned Pakistan because they are aiding us in the search for OBL... and will be a non-issue eventually.

Saddam was also killing people by the thousands and the secret police were torturing and murdering people in public for any reason. Dipping people in vats of acid, and tossing them off of buildings like in gangster movies... sure he fought insurgents successfully... but were his people free to run their own lives and government? No.

Not true for the any government being adopted as long as it's leader is not Saddam. It has to be a government not dominated by their RELIGION, but rather representative of the PEOPLE. Big difference.

If the emerging government fails in the human rights area, the people of Iraq will rise up themselves this time. They have tasted freedom, and once that is done, there is no returning to a dictatorship where human rights are nil.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by budster101

One could argue that we could have allowed Hitler to do as he would to Europe...

The US did enable Hitler as we entered that war only after Hitler declared war on us.

Originally Posted by budster101

Syria will be a non-issue fairly soon.
Egypt? pffft.
Iran? They are going to get some whoop-a ss real soon if they keep up their Nuclear ambitions.
Saudi Arabia? We got their number coming up quick as well. We will not be dependent on them for long.

You do well following the nuclear line as it is an obsolete technology and a useful bogeyman for demagogues. Do you check under your bed every night also for monsters?

Originally Posted by budster101

Look at all the wars in history, and the victims, both military and civilian. We cannot pull out early from Iraq and leave them to the dogs of war. I'm hopeful that we can get them on their feet rather quickly so they can start to successfully fight insurgents, and any future threats to their sovereignty (sp).

Bush will pull out as he has from Afghanistan. He is currently supporting/arming dictators in Uzbekistan and Pakistan, and winking at Jordan. sam

[budster101]

Here I thought it was that little thing called "Pearl Harbor".

Why does Iran want to be Nuclear... they do have a bunch of OIL after all. It's for weapons, and selling them to terrorists that bother me. Ever hear of a 'dirty bomb'?

Why do you feel the need to belittle people by way of hyperbole? It's really annoying and leaves you wanting in the credibility department.

Last time I checked they had free elections in Afghanistan and were doing quite well. "Supporting Dictators in Uzbekistan / Pakistan? You mean like giving aid, such as we do to North Korea in the way of FOOD?

Where were you when Clinton was GIVING our nuclear secrets to the CHINESE?

Right.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by budster101

Wait. Hitler ran France and Italy pretty well... they were stabilizing.

I mentioned Pakistan because they are aiding us in the search for OBL... and will be a non-issue eventually.

Saddam was also killing people by the thousands and the secret police were torturing and murdering people in public for any reason. Dipping people in vats of acid, and tossing them off of buildings like in gangster movies... sure he fought insurgents successfully... but were his people free to run their own lives and government? No.

Not true for the any government being adopted as long as it's leader is not Saddam. It has to be a government not dominated by their RELIGION, but rather representative of the PEOPLE. Big difference.

If the emerging government fails in the human rights area, the people of Iraq will rise up themselves this time. They have tasted freedom, and once that is done, there is no returning to a dictatorship where human rights are nil.

We're talking past each other.

You started by saying the goal was a "stable and self-governing" Iraq. As you admit yourself in this post, those don't necessarily mean a good thing. Sometimes "stable and self-governing" are horrific things.

You think Saddam's government was dominated by Religion? Yet another example of how American can't win the War on Terror as long as it can't seem to figure out who the enemy is.

The Ba'ath regime was SECULAR which is why they had opportunities to slaughter lots and lots of Islamic Radicals.

The Ba'ath regime was also an instance of a brutal ethnic minority plundering a country. Which is why Saddam had opportunities to slaughter lots and lots of ethnic sepratists.

The Ba'athist insurgency is NOT fighting against "freedom". They are fighting against their loss of priviledge and power. You can say they are fighting against "democracy" because that is inherently the same as loss of priveledge and power since they are a minority.

"freedom" isn't value neutral. If "freedom" means the Kurds think they can form their own country and take the oil fields of Mosul with them, is that a good thing? If "freedom" or "democracy" mean that a Shia majority decide they'd rather have an Islamic state, is that a good thing?

I fully recognize that there are a lot of moderate, reasonable and compromising people working out their differences within the artificial sanctuary of The Green Zone. They have expressed noble aspirations for their country. But noble aspirations are just words. And those words are quickly losing their meaning against the backdrop of an emerging civil war.

[SVass]

Hitler did not attack Pearl Harbor!
Processing your own nuclear fuel is one way to keep US politicians out of internal Iranian politics. Of course, US oil companies would never attempt to control all coal and nuclear energy as well as world oil. Who eliminated our funding for fusion research?
The US of course never supported those who terrorized Cuba. (I am NOT defending Castro.)
Remember that any weapon system or "new" energy source endorsed by the press and the politicians is probably obsolete. Politicians always have their own self-interest at heart and have no idea about science. Think of Reagan and the battleship and now we have Bush and defense against North Korean missiles. They are demagogues and you listen to them.
sam

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

At the risk of sounding smug: how well did I speak or write what exactly before becoming proficient at it?

Before you became proficient at any of the languages you speak wouldn't you sometimes sound (or still do sound) like Eynstyn?

Funny (as in strange - not ha ha), in every single case when I've learned a new language I have always had full support and encouragement of the native speakers. I have always found people slightly flattered that one even bothers to learn their language. Nobody ever put me down for it. Why would they

Did you ever try practicing your new language(s) at an online forum where you were slammed so bad for your English that you asked a native speaker to help you out or sit in for you?

...am I the one who chose the nickname "einstein" on this forum?

cheers

W-Y

Cheap shot. You are like a bully, a language bully.

Eynstyn decided to relinquish the name to me. He didn't want to put up with the put downs. Too bad because he might have shared some good stuff with you. Some of the slams made him wonder what it takes to be a good American. That's what started the other thread.

cheers

[lurkalot]

Originally Posted by budster101

Here I thought it was that little thing called "Pearl Harbor".

Right. Pearl Harbor in the Sandwich Islands or were they called the Kingdom of Hawaii back then? U.S. territory because...??

Look at all the wars in history, and the victims, both military and civilian and stop believing the myths about the United States and accept that "you" are one of the dogs of war. Perhaps not a pitbull but not exactly a chihuahua either.

What was the Iraq war started for in March 2003? And when was the decision made that the "real" goals could not have been achieved by any other means but war?
What was achieved by the war started in March 2003 that could not -with lesser or comparable costs- have been achieved by those other means? Was war truly the only possible solution for the "question" of Iraq at the time when the decision was made to go to war? Sometime prior to July 23, 2002.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by budster101

One could argue that we could have allowed Hitler to do as he would to Europe...

Saddam was Evil and was single-handedly dissecting his people and their lives. Now they have a chance to take charge of their own future, and will not be a threat to anyone of their neighbors.

Somehow I think the US MIGHT have figured out how to accomplish it's goals in a better way but it really didn't understand what it was getting into. If you were a middle management level exec and proposed opening a new branch office without knowing the market and the competition THOROUGHLY and have a solid plan which tells how you were going to win market share, you'd be shown the door and the new branch would never open.

Your speil sounds robotic or constipated in light of what has happened the last few months. If you keep saying that, you will be eatin them words before it's all said and done.

A stable and self-governing Iraq can only be a positive for those in Democratic Nations, and an allie in the War against terrorism. They will no longer be a home to factions of terrorist groups for training and a safe haven. Pakistan has proven to be a positive in this respect as well, as we hunt down OBL.

We will be lucky if the insurgents don't turn the hearts and minds of even the most progressive and moderate Iraqis against the west and Iraq into a symbol of what can be done simply by threatening the citizens with death and using a few IED's.

Syria will be a non-issue fairly soon.
Egypt? pffft.
Iran? They are going to get some whoop-a ss real soon if they keep up their Nuclear ambitions.
Saudi Arabia? We got their number coming up quick as well. We will not be dependent on them for long.

The US only hope is either some super secret new weapon that will prevent or detect ied's at a distance or harmlessly puts whole neighborhoods to sleep instantly so we can catch the bad guys in the act of preparing to attack us.

You are whistling in the dark. Ok tough guy. How will Syria be a non-issue? As for Saudi Arabia, can you even describe the socio-economic-political dynamic going on there and what our relationship is with the Saudis? We won't be dependent on them for long??? Haaaawwwww!!

Why don't you tell us how this all will happen?

Lots of tough talk. Show me HOW Mr. Rummy.

Look at all the wars in history, and the victims, both military and civilian. We cannot pull out early from Iraq and leave them to the dogs of war.

I'm hopeful that we can get them on their feet rather quickly so they can start to successfully fight insurgents, and any future threats to their soveriegnety (sp).

If you are a citizen of Bagdad and just want to live a normal life with your family and all you have to do to be safe is help the insurgents you'll do it.

The Iraq army and police can't keep you safe. If you help the insurgents at least they might give you a heads up to keep you out of an attack maybe.

You like freedom, yes. But what does freedom mean if your wife and children die because the friggin US won't hurry the Fxxx Up and get the Fxxx Out!?

A big new US push needs to take back the initiative and TOTALLY DEMORALIZE IF NOT TOTALLY SHUT DOWN ALL OPPOSITION.

Get medievel on their asses. Show them that the US IS THE BIG DADDY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE IT. THE UN DON'T HAVE TO LIKE IT. But this is what will work.

Maybe the kindest, most merciful way to wage war is HARSH, BRUTAL and COMPLETELY.

Nah! The Nazis lost and the Japanese lost.

But as far as the middle east, as soon as we tried dropping nukes the whole world would be ready to take arms against us and there's the ball game.

We lose.

[nath]

Anyway, back on topic...

US members of Congress to visit the UK to investigate memo claims that the path to war was predetermined

“There are members saying that if they knew then what they know now they wouldn’t have given him those powers (to wage war),” Congressman John Conyers said.

By sending investigators to London, Conyers hopes to stir the US media into re-examining a story largely ignored in America since Bush’s re-election victory in November.

“I deplore the fact that our media have been so reticent on the question of whether there was a secret planning of a war for which neither the Congress nor the American people had given permission,” Conyers said.

“We have The Sunday Times to thank for this very important activity. It reminds me of Watergate, which started off as a tiny little incident reported in The Washington Post. I think that the interest of many citizens is picking up.”

[Gregory]

The neocon's planned for Iraq before they were in office. No?

Saddham would have been over run if his neighbors knew the truth and that he was posturing and bluffing.

Bush #43 was just paying back #41.

And arrogance that it would be a "slam dunk" to overthrow Saddham, and no plans for the day after.

Bush (or more likely Cheney, who doesn't go for bike rides when a Cessna buzzes the W.H.) believes - and I think wants - war. Star Wars. Space-based defense, missile defense, and offense (pre-emptive is offensive). Even to come up with new nuclear bunker busters.

No weapons? Syria? No? hum. No weapons. But, we want oil, we want to promote our brand of democracy in the Mid-East.

With Iran and N. Korea the next "axis of evil" and the idea that the Senate with majority Republicans will rubber stamp what the White House wants, and load the supreme court and the courts with people they can control and do their bidding...

Bush came in not knowing, and proud of it, that he is ignorant of "foreign" policy, and was not going to touch or tackle the "Mid-East Peace" issue with a 10 ft pole.

Newsweek: dollar on a dime, the WH knew who the trusted source is/was, and put the screws (as they have so many times before) to pay back and leash in Newsweek - and the media - and to achieve what Nixon only hoped for in the "Administration vs Free Press" only dreamed of.

It is a nightmare.

[nath]

Update, 12/06/05

The Sunday Times today published a second British government document confirming that the decision to go to war was taken earlier than either the Bush or Blair administrations have previously admitted, and that the facts were indeed fixed around the policy. This one is a UK government Cabinet Office briefing paper, from July 21, 2002.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...648758,00.html

Interesting excerpts (emphasis mine):

Ministers are invited to:
- Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.
- Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action

US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law.

When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said the UK would support military action to bring about regime change.

This new leak seems likely to increase the determination of the 89 Democrat senators who have yet to receive a response to their letter to the President requesting an explanation of the claims made in the Downing Street memo already published by the Times.

One of these senators, John Conyers, has promised to deliver a petition requesting disclosure to the White House later this week. Although he had originally requested 250,000 signatures before doing so, the total is now approaching 500,000 signatures and seems likely to be near 1m by the time he collects the petition. Clearly the public at large are more concerned by this developing scandal than the mainstream media in the US; interested readers can add their signatures here. The Washington Post, New York Times and NPR have all recently been criticised by their respective ombudsmen and some editorial staff for their lack of attention to this issue.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Troll

Oh God, how arbitrary can people get. Yes, in boxing it's called bobbing and weaving. In music, artists often contort the boxing term, viz UB40's famous pre live show statement: "It's taim for sum boppin' un weavin' and weavin' un boppin'." Heck Everlast, AC/DC, B*Witched even Whitney Ford has used the expression. I put the apostrophes in there so you'd realise I wasn't talking boxin', mon. I thought the image of Zimphire twisting on the dance floor was funnier than the image of him ducking punches. What a waste of bandwidth.

Oh, and English is my native language. It's not the first language I ever spoke, but I do consider it my native language.

See, in relevance to this thread and many others like this one, it is called "diversion". Specifically, here, it is used as a way to regain control of the topic, i.e.: gaining power. Many use these threads to build their self-esteem, so they try to get it with the best way they can.

It reminds me of this story:

A guy was walking at night on the side walk. Saw a guy on his four, visibly drunk.
"What are you doing?"
"Looking for my keys! I lost them over there" pointing away in the dark.
"Well if you lost your keys there, why are you looking here under the street-lamp?"
"'Coz there's light here you silly you!"

In a sense, most debates surrounding 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq fall under the same process. Arguments are being pulled here and there to build a story that will correspond to self-interests, like, the pro-Bush and the anti-Bush factions. Of course, this plays in the detailed arguments, yet, the answer to such debates is not so much the moral justifications to act or not, or whether that legally, the whole process was allowed or not, but rather, that Superpowers are allowed to act whenever they please because they can.

The U.S. had a choice of not invading Iraq (as Clinton chose to) but Bush did. The reasons for doing so are totally irrelevant, as they fall in the category of political marketing; we will never really know or trust whatever happened to make it happen. So what's left?

The results. They are mitigated, of course. In the perspective of American interests, and in a marginal measure, for the West in general, Hussein gone is a plus, even though the sale of oil and the arms sales were interrupted. The debt of Iraq will increase and facilitate commerce with the rich countries, putting Iraq down for some time at least, making it dependant of the U.S. and its allies. This is all good economically speaking and ensures a strong foothold in the area.

The loss of life is probably the worst aspect of it. We do not know how many civilians died for sure (the military do not count in this because, first, it is their job, as so many proponent of the war argued for so long, and second, the U.S. government does not want anyone to know for reason of morale (i.e. maintaining a positive attitude regarding the war allowing more recruits and political support)). This uncertainty is troublesome and although, as zigzag said, such details could turn into footnotes whenever this operation will turn successful, is morally challenging, for how can you free people by killing them, even accidentally?

In a sense, the whole process of going in Iraq is already a footnote. What is turning into disinterest is that civilians still die in Iraq, and to not care about that is in direct opposition to one of the 8 objectives of this operation.

To stay stuck arguing about the past events is totally pointless, in my mind, and in light with actual events. What is done is done. What are we going to do about now?