30 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirNo, but we thought he did, no reason to believe otherwise. Ooooops, so sorry. Saddam could've stopped the entire mess by allowing the UN inspectors to do their job, so too bad for him.
The US showed the willingness to supply them...
And besides, he DIDN'T have them in 2003. Did he?
I'm sorry, did you say the US gave him those nerve agents?
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydI am surprised you deviate from advice given by one of your leaders:
Agreed. The "hugest" of differences. Clinton saw the same threat and the same reports that GW saw. The difference was that Bill knew that playing head games with inspectors and doin' the diplomatic dance charade was just not worth going to war over--I don't care HOW many violations of a worthless UN sanctions Saddam accrued. You don't put guys lives on the line when a protracted pissing contest will suffice.
"We have found the only purpose of diplomacy - to prolong a crisis indefinitely." Lt. Commander Spock, StarTrek '69
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamWell, old Rumsfield wasn't over there promoting Aspartame now, was he?
No, but we thought he did, no reason to believe otherwise. Ooooops, so sorry. Saddam could've stopped the entire mess by allowing the UN inspectors to do their job, so too bad for him.
I'm sorry, did you say the US gave him those nerve agents?
And the CIA told Bush he didn't have the weapons. MI6 told Bush he didn't have the weapons. The UN told Bush he didn't have the weapons.
So, as I've already pointed out, Bush lied or was heavily influenced by the weapons fairy.
30 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirPretty sure Saddam made his own nerve gas. I'm sure if that's not right you'll let me know and list the sources.
Well, old Rumsfield wasn't over there promoting Aspartame now, was he?
And the CIA told Bush he didn't have the weapons. MI6 told Bush he didn't have the weapons. The UN told Bush he didn't have the weapons.
So, as I've already pointed out, Bush lied or was heavily influenced by the weapons fairy.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sam The Shamhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
Pretty sure Saddam made his own nerve gas. I'm sure if that's not right you'll let me know and list the sources.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1223-11.htm
U.S. officials colluded with Saddam's regime for over 28 years. Like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein became another son of Frankenstein, a creature of U.S. foreign policy.
In 1963 the CIA helped the Ba'athist Party overthrow General Abdel-Karim Kassem, who was gunned down with other leaders from a list supplied by the CIA. One of the conspirators was a young, ruthless insurgent named Saddam Hussein. After a purge and revolt, the Ba'athists took total control of Iraq, and Saddam Hussein took power in 1979. Together, the U.S. and its surrogate waged a brutal, illegal war against Iran for eight years. In violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (which outlaws chemical warfare) the Reagan-Bush Administration authorized the sale of poisonous chemicals and deadly biological stocks, including anthrax. Iraq was already was using chemical weapons-on an "almost daily basis," according to the Washington Post-when envoy Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in 1983, an historic meeting that consolidated an active military partnership. The repression and brutality of Saddam's regime was not a secret when U.S. and Iraqi officials coordinated their military efforts. Not only did the U.S. supply planes, munitions and bombs, it supplied the satellite images that enabled Saddam to massacre thousands of Iranians. Twenty-four U.S. firms exported arms and material to Baghdad. France also sent 200 AMX medium tanks, mirage bombers, and Gazelle helicopter gunships.
Considering who the executives of some of the US companies (even at the time... with Rumsfield even shaking hands and all that malarky) are... Bush lied.
30 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe house saw the exact same intel the Whitehouse did. They did not get whitewashed intel handed to them by the whitehouse.
Just as a matter of interest (I dont know a whole lot about US politics), did congress make their decision based on:
1. intel they received seperately, or intel from the White House.
2. public pressure due to speeches / statements made by the president and his aids.
I am not disagreeing with you, I just want clarification. I do agree that blame shoul ...[text shortened]... President was not telling the truth, whether or not the president knew he was telling the truth.
That's not why congress voted to go to war though. We both know that politicians vote for whatever gives them the best chance to get reelected.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by MerkIt stings you, doesn't it? Being ruled over by morons and criminals...
The house saw the exact same intel the Whitehouse did. They did not get whitewashed intel handed to them by the whitehouse.
That's not why congress voted to go to war though. We both know that politicians vote for whatever gives them the best chance to get reelected.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamSam The Sham,
Pretty sure Saddam made his own nerve gas. I'm sure if that's not right you'll let me know and list the sources.
How could you NOT POSSIBLY KNOW that the US GAVE IRAQ THE NERVE [WORD TOO LONG]
Please explain how your education system, news outlets, print media, television stations, current affairs magazines, hell even your local TV guide could not have somehow informed you of this rather glaring detail?
This is 2008, not 1908. Come on dude...wake up
30 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamWe did have reason to believe otherwise: After the first gulf war we demanded that they destroy those weapons. That argument was refuted back in 1991.
No, but we thought he did, no reason to believe otherwise. Ooooops, so sorry. Saddam could've stopped the entire mess by allowing the UN inspectors to do their job, so too bad for him.
I'm sorry, did you say the US gave him those nerve agents?
Hussein couldn't have stopped the entire mess: It wasn't the Hussein regime who didn't allow the inspectors to do their jobs, it was the Bush regime. Saddam Hussein could've flown to the US and gone downtown on each and every member of the federal government as a gesture of goodwill, and we still would've gone to war with Iraq.
**Sorry if this sounds too polemical, but the "left" won this debate years ago. To raise this question in this way is to defer the more important and realistic discussion of how it happened, what it caused, and what's to be done.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by MerkPublic Law No: 107-243 passed on October 16, 2002 is entitled:
The house saw the exact same intel the Whitehouse did. They did not get whitewashed intel handed to them by the whitehouse.
That's not why congress voted to go to war though. We both know that politicians vote for whatever gives them the best chance to get reelected.
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
And lists a number of reasons for the Iraq War. Some, with hindsight, seem to have been incorrect.
But don't forget -- we knew Saddam had gas. He had used it against the Iranians and the Kurds. We didn't know how much was left or whether it was all gone -- how could we? He wasn't letting good ol' Hansie Blix have complete run of the place.
So:
"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability
and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other
nations and its own people;"
"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President
Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United
States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;"
"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338)
expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy
of the United States to support efforts to remove from power
the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime;"
So if you like, preparations for war against Iraq began in 1998 3 years before 9/11.
This war was only a matter of time.
30 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by duecer(Posted this on another thread, but since the arguments the same here, it is still relavent.)
They are still lying: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/disarm.html
Anyone can read this and draw their own conclusion, if capable. I posted a bit from the speech, but go to the site - there is much, much more. I’m sure Clinton wishes there was someway he could have Sandy Berger steal these speeches, as they are impossible to refute.
Point being; If Bush is a lying, misleading bastard, because no one would believe that intelligence rubbish...What was his predecessor and where was the outcry? Only difference a decerning person can see is: one was liberal the other is almost conservative.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - 16 Dec, 1998
CLINTON: "Good evening."
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."