jimbarry 0
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuote
Ummm - did he use gas on Kuwait, on us in the 1991 Gulf War,
Because before the campaign, GHWB threatened SH with the use of tac nukes if he deployed chem/bio. And SH knew the mission was to push him out of Kuwait and destroy as much of his military as possible, not overthrow him. And since he personally wasn't threatened (only the lightly armed front line conscripts for the most part), and neither was his best airforce and troops (hid in Iran and pulled back to Baghdad, respectively) he wasn't pinned into a corner to use them. Remember, he convinced his own people at the end of the first Gulf War that it was Iraq which was victorious and defeated the coalition.Quote
or to prevent Iraq being overrun in 2003?
And prove to the world that he had them, when he'd been denying it all along? IMO, the 'yes-men' military leaders around him probably convinced him that they could repel our invasion. And then by the time we made it to Baghdad, drop chem on himself? (my conjecture on that one)
Besides, distributing chem/bio weapons to terrorist groups was the most likely scenario, not to use them to defend a combined arms frontal assault from the south.QuoteWe were told by our lying leader (Rose Garden speech, September 2002) that they could deploy WMD in 45 minutes.
Some believe it was a lie and some believe that this was what he knew based on intel he had. And I don't think anyone knows for sure, and most already have their minds made up, so that's going to need to be a stalemate debate-wise. Bottom line is SH had 12 years to comply with getting rid of the wmd or proving that he did, and during that time he did everything possible to smokescreen, including bribing the UN, it seems...
Well, you omitted the statement to which I addressed my questions, which was:
"Plus there was the whole gassing his own countrymen with mustard gas (WMD), I mean if he'd do it to his own people do you honestly think he would have stopped and thought before using gas on another country?"
And the answer is that since he didn't do what LoudDan said he would, the premise of the question is false.
Bush's lies are lies, spin them how you may.
Particularly the one about 45 minutes to deploy WMDs, since it is now known that the White House had been told 2 weeks previously that this story was false, but he used it anyway. Just like he used the known false story about uranium from Niger in his 2003 State of the Union address.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,111
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Remember, it wasn't the Inspectors' job to search and find wmd, it was
>supposed to be the Inspectors' job to supervise or verify Iraq's destruction
>of them.
Agreed. And per their last report before we invaded, they were within a few months of doing just that. A shame that we ended their work prematurely.
>We're fighting a war against those who have declared the US to be their
>enemy (to deflect their own domestic problems). You can't just ignore it
>and it'll go away. If you love this country and want it to survive, you have
>to defend it against attack, yes . . .
Absolutely.
>pre-emptively when necessary.
Absolutely not. Suppose China (or North Korea) got the same idea? A philosophy that works only for the biggest bully is no rational philosophy at all.
>but the overall goal is right and just. In this one American's opinion, of course.
Agreed that the overall goal is a good one. However, you can eradicate a disease by killing all the carriers; in our system of morals, antibiotics are a better idea. Both can work. Which one you choose depends on which set of morals you believe in.
>What, SH's regime had no connections with anti-western terror groups?
Of course; we do exactly the same thing. We've often funded terrorists to kill our enemies; we funded radical Islamic terrorists so they'd kill Russians for us, and we made several attempts to fund anti-Saddam terrorists within Iraq. And whether that's right or wrong, it certainly makes us hypocrites when we claim we can kill tens of thousands when another country does that.
>supposed to be the Inspectors' job to supervise or verify Iraq's destruction
>of them.
Agreed. And per their last report before we invaded, they were within a few months of doing just that. A shame that we ended their work prematurely.
>We're fighting a war against those who have declared the US to be their
>enemy (to deflect their own domestic problems). You can't just ignore it
>and it'll go away. If you love this country and want it to survive, you have
>to defend it against attack, yes . . .
Absolutely.
>pre-emptively when necessary.
Absolutely not. Suppose China (or North Korea) got the same idea? A philosophy that works only for the biggest bully is no rational philosophy at all.
>but the overall goal is right and just. In this one American's opinion, of course.
Agreed that the overall goal is a good one. However, you can eradicate a disease by killing all the carriers; in our system of morals, antibiotics are a better idea. Both can work. Which one you choose depends on which set of morals you believe in.
>What, SH's regime had no connections with anti-western terror groups?
Of course; we do exactly the same thing. We've often funded terrorists to kill our enemies; we funded radical Islamic terrorists so they'd kill Russians for us, and we made several attempts to fund anti-Saddam terrorists within Iraq. And whether that's right or wrong, it certainly makes us hypocrites when we claim we can kill tens of thousands when another country does that.
jimbarry 0
Quotefrom jimbarry
it's pretty clear he had connections with alqaeda
Says who? prove it.
Funnily enough, lots of people assume this, but no-one has ever proven it.Just a 10 minute googling brings up many sources of this. Again, perhaps no one's linked Saddam behind al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks, but many sources, inside the US, republican, democrat (pre-2004 only), intelligence, military, outside the US, friends, foes, defectors, OJ Simpson (attention check), it's all out there, depending on how much of it you choose to believe or disbelieve.
Here is just one of many dozens:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/274fwxli.asp
Certainly there are a lot of other sources on the web which do not link AQ and SH, but many of those seem to connected to election year politics.
jimbarry 0
Quote
Well, you omitted the statement to which I addressed my questions, which was:
"Plus there was the whole gassing his own countrymen with mustard gas (WMD), I mean if he'd do it to his own people do you honestly think he would have stopped and thought before using gas on another country?"
And the answer is that since he didn't do what LoudDan said he would, the premise of the question is false.
I didn't omit it. I covered it by saying:
Quote
And then by the time we made it to Baghdad, drop chem on himself? (my conjecture on that one)
Besides, distributing chem/bio weapons to terrorist groups was the most likely scenario, not to use them to defend a combined arms frontal assault from the south.
...Meaning, that the weapons and tactics you use are discretionary. Just because he has unconventional weapons and has used them against his own people doesn't mean he would use them in any/all situations. Might, might not. A chem attack on the Kurds worked because they had little to strike back with. A chem attack against the US would be suicide. The Kurds were stationary, the US/UK forces were on the move... etc.
And I'm not convinced SH even considered the Kurds "his own people", at least when compared to Tikriti's or others in the Triangle.
Quote
Bush's lies are lies, spin them how you may.
Particularly the one about 45 minutes to deploy WMDs, since it is now known that the White House had been told 2 weeks previously that this story was false, but he used it anyway. Just like he used the known false story about uranium from Niger in his 2003 State of the Union address.
Whether he lied or not, or whether he had intel that turned out to be inaccurate, or whether your sources or mine are flawed, of course neither you or I have any proof. But then I guess democratic presidents have never lied. If he did, and there's proof, then he must be held accountable, either criminally or at the ballot box. As for me, I choose to stand back and look at the big picture. Military action should only be used as a last resort. SH pushed the world into that last resort situation. Only Bush choose to act on it.
jimbarry 0
Quote
Agreed. And per their last report before we invaded, they were within a few months of doing just that. A shame that we ended their work prematurely.
I see where you're going Bill, but I've just got a problem with the 'prematurely' part. I'd buy your statement if I was convinced that SH always cooperated with the UN on this, did destroy his wmd in a way that was verified, never expelled inspectors (in some cases, for years), allowed inspectors free reign and unannounced access to sites, including palaces, free ability to interview scientists, on and on...
Without hurdles thrown in their way, this should not have taken 12 years. He knew the rules, he knew the consequences, he bribed the UN, then rolled the dice that the US/UK would not act unilaterally. Snake eyes.
Only when SH saw the US was serious about action did they throw together inspection access. Too late.
Quote
>pre-emptively when necessary.Quote
Absolutely not. Suppose China (or North Korea) got the same idea? A philosophy that works only for the biggest bully is no rational philosophy at all.
Same rules apply. I never said they didn't.
I believe all soverign countries have the right to defend themselves. If China or North Korea were attacked, they would defend and fight back. If they had proof of a growing threat against them, I would hope that they would use all means necessary short of military action to avert it. Then use their military as a last resort. I also believe that's how we've dealt with SH's Iraq.
Quote
However, you can eradicate a disease by killing all the carriers; in our system of morals, antibiotics are a better idea. Both can work. Which one you choose depends on which set of morals you believe in.
Agreed. No one's suggesting the use of force until there are no more alternatives left.
Quote
Of course; we do exactly the same thing. We've often funded terrorists... it certainly makes us hypocrites
No it doesn't. Just because the tools are the same doesn't mean we're hypocrites. A hammer on a nail is good, a hammer on my thumb is bad. The US attacking Germans in Normandy was good, but Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was bad. All depends on your perspective of what is right and wrong. (and your definition of the word "terrorist")
The US has flaws, but I will (and have) defend(ed) it. And I will not limit my defense of my country to only those times when all planets are aligned and we're in a position of flawless perfection.
damion75 0
Quote"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"-alone could overshadow the other differences between AQ and SH. They both wanted the reduction of US influence in the middle east, and that's all they need to have in common to cooperate, regardless of ideological differences.
I am no expert on Al Quaeda but I am pretty sure that they want much more than that - probably something along the lines of the 'humbling and destruction of the Great Satan'
Quote
I've never seen it refuted that AQ had camps in northern Iraq before the war. (I'll find some references--at work right now) And imo it wouldn't be beyond the intelligence of SH to support AQ to do some of the dirty work that he as a head of state wouldn't do.
Unfortunately I have a really slow connection here which precludes me from extensive googling
but from the article you provided:
QuoteDaniel Benjamin, a top counterterrorism official on Clinton's National Security Council, makes the strongest case that intelligence cited by Clinton officials did not amount to a direct Iraq-al Qaeda connection. Benjamin has pointed out that it is unclear that the Iraqis knew the chemical weapons technology they provided to the Sudanese Military Industrial Corporation would end up in the hands of al Qaeda or that al Qaeda knew that the assistance it was receiving came from Iraq.
All the quotes which do tie AQ together with SH were 'such and such a politician said' and 'from this newspaper' - bitter experience has led me to an utter lack of faith in both politicians and the media. I find it key here that intelligence sources refuse to go on the line and say that there was a connection.
Quotewe didn't invade Iraq because they were behind AQ and 9/11, as much as the anti-Bush crowd would like everyone to think Bush did.
To this day I am not sure WHAT the reason was? And I am in the middle of it!! WMD? AQ? Regime change? who knows...
QuoteSo when would you like SH to be reinstated as Iraq's leader? I know that sounds like an easy cheap shot, but c'mon, this war against enemies of the US is broad and is not going to be easy or quick, neat or clean.
What we really need is a strong leader who can pull the tribes and sects together, and is not afraid to use force to put down rebellions... where can we find one...
Nothing about TWAT - the war against terrorism - is going to be easy or cheap! Agreed...
***************
Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.
Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.
LoudDan 0
Never mentioned a word about Kuwait, I simply stated that he gassed his own people. Did it, documented it, can't deny it.
Now perhaps it would be better if instead of taking the fight to their doorstep, we waited for 10 or 15 years, and let them figure out a way to bring the fight to our door step on a grander scale than 911. Would that be a better idea? Ya know just kind wait out the inevitable?
Howcome nobody seems to remember what a lying motherfucker SH was??? Rarely gets mentioned, I find that odd.
Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!
Now perhaps it would be better if instead of taking the fight to their doorstep, we waited for 10 or 15 years, and let them figure out a way to bring the fight to our door step on a grander scale than 911. Would that be a better idea? Ya know just kind wait out the inevitable?
Howcome nobody seems to remember what a lying motherfucker SH was??? Rarely gets mentioned, I find that odd.
Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!
kallend 2,146
QuoteNever mentioned a word about Kuwait, I simply stated that he gassed his own people. Did it, documented it, can't deny it.
Now perhaps it would be better if instead of taking the fight to their doorstep, we waited for 10 or 15 years, and let them figure out a way to bring the fight to our door step on a grander scale than 911. Would that be a better idea? Ya know just kind wait out the inevitable?
Howcome nobody seems to remember what a lying motherfucker SH was??? Rarely gets mentioned, I find that odd.
I recall that we had him effectively bottled up for 12 years with minimal loss of American lives and at minimal cost. He was impotent from 1991 to 2003.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteNow perhaps it would be better if instead of taking the fight to their doorstep, we waited for 10 or 15 years, and let them figure out a way to bring the fight to our door step on a grander scale than 911. Would that be a better idea? Ya know just kind wait out the inevitable?
Yes, in all situations there are only 2 options. War or nothing. There's that clear vision of GWB that everyone talks about.
LoudDan 0
I'm fairly certain his political prisoners, his conections in Syria, all of the women and girls he allowed his son to rape and ruin, and the hundreds of citizens his other son had ritualistically tortured and killed for his ammusement may tend to disagree that SH was held impotent. Just a hunch.
GW is still the bad guy right?? I guess all we should care about is our rights being trampled by the officer at the airport asking you a few questions over a few minutes, not the basic human rights SH denied his countrymen over decades. Great plan.
Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!
GW is still the bad guy right?? I guess all we should care about is our rights being trampled by the officer at the airport asking you a few questions over a few minutes, not the basic human rights SH denied his countrymen over decades. Great plan.
Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!
billvon 3,111
> Never mentioned a word about Kuwait, I simply stated that he gassed
>his own people. Did it, documented it, can't deny it.
Yep. And we know because we kept the receipts for the poison gas he sold us. Heck, he was our ally back then - he was killing Iranians for us.
>Now perhaps it would be better if instead of taking the fight to their
>doorstep, we waited for 10 or 15 years, and let them figure out a way to
>bring the fight to our door step on a grander scale than 911.
Yeah, just like North Vietnam took over the US after we failed to win the war there! I notice we're all speaking Vietnamese now.
>Howcome nobody seems to remember what a lying motherfucker SH
>as??? Rarely gets mentioned, I find that odd.
?? It gets mentioned every other post here. You must not be reading posts from any of the right wingers.
>his own people. Did it, documented it, can't deny it.
Yep. And we know because we kept the receipts for the poison gas he sold us. Heck, he was our ally back then - he was killing Iranians for us.
>Now perhaps it would be better if instead of taking the fight to their
>doorstep, we waited for 10 or 15 years, and let them figure out a way to
>bring the fight to our door step on a grander scale than 911.
Yeah, just like North Vietnam took over the US after we failed to win the war there! I notice we're all speaking Vietnamese now.
>Howcome nobody seems to remember what a lying motherfucker SH
>as??? Rarely gets mentioned, I find that odd.
?? It gets mentioned every other post here. You must not be reading posts from any of the right wingers.
billvon 3,111
> I'm fairly certain his political prisoners, his conections in Syria, all of the
> women and girls he allowed his son to rape and ruin, and the hundreds
>of citizens his other son had ritualistically tortured and killed for his
>ammusement may tend to disagree that SH was held impotent. Just a
>hunch.
Hmm. If a man had his daughter killed by a US bomb, had his son tortured to death by American soldiers in Abu Ghiraib, and had his wife held in a secret prison for years by the US, which do you think he's going to think is the greater threat? We do the Iraqis no service by torturing, raping and killing their relatives. Saddam Hussein was an evil guy; it would be a good idea to not try to emulate him.
> women and girls he allowed his son to rape and ruin, and the hundreds
>of citizens his other son had ritualistically tortured and killed for his
>ammusement may tend to disagree that SH was held impotent. Just a
>hunch.
Hmm. If a man had his daughter killed by a US bomb, had his son tortured to death by American soldiers in Abu Ghiraib, and had his wife held in a secret prison for years by the US, which do you think he's going to think is the greater threat? We do the Iraqis no service by torturing, raping and killing their relatives. Saddam Hussein was an evil guy; it would be a good idea to not try to emulate him.
LoudDan 0
North Korea did not have the strength to bring a fight to our shores after we went there, that is my point.
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone what went on as far as torture and the like on the part of the American Soldiers, and I don't buy the "War is Hell" thing either. All I ever did at forward locations was get drunk and work out.
What the American soldiers did was criminal (aggravated assault) no doubt in my mind.
However what SH did is known as GENOCIDE (def: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group),
Kinda similar to what was happening in 1992-94 (pre GWB) in Mogadishu, Somalia ................you remember Somalia, where 19 US troops died, a few rather horrifically. Even thought they died, it still needed to be done. We got our asses handed to us there too.
Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone what went on as far as torture and the like on the part of the American Soldiers, and I don't buy the "War is Hell" thing either. All I ever did at forward locations was get drunk and work out.
What the American soldiers did was criminal (aggravated assault) no doubt in my mind.
However what SH did is known as GENOCIDE (def: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group),
Kinda similar to what was happening in 1992-94 (pre GWB) in Mogadishu, Somalia ................you remember Somalia, where 19 US troops died, a few rather horrifically. Even thought they died, it still needed to be done. We got our asses handed to us there too.
Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!
QuoteNorth Korea did not have the strength to bring a fight to our shores after we went there, that is my point.
And Iraq did?
What about Cuba, hell, they're only a couple miles from our shores, and they had the support and backing of the Soviet Union. Somehow we kept them contained without invading....well, errr, successfully.
QuoteQuoteNorth Korea did not have the strength to bring a fight to our shores after we went there, that is my point.
And Iraq did?
What about Cuba, hell, they're only a couple miles from our shores, and they had the support and backing of the Soviet Union. Somehow we kept them contained without invading....well, errr, successfully.
It took a near nuclear exchange with the Soviet....well, err.
--------
billvon 3,111
> North Korea did not have the strength to bring a fight to our shores after
>we went there, that is my point.
Just like Iraq!
>What the American soldiers did was criminal (aggravated assault) no
> doubt in my mind. However what SH did is known as GENOCIDE.
I agree with you there. We're in a whole different league than Hussein, even if sometimes we don't act like it. Our best option now is to get Iraq back on its feet and get out; it's the least bad of several bad options.
>we went there, that is my point.
Just like Iraq!
>What the American soldiers did was criminal (aggravated assault) no
> doubt in my mind. However what SH did is known as GENOCIDE.
I agree with you there. We're in a whole different league than Hussein, even if sometimes we don't act like it. Our best option now is to get Iraq back on its feet and get out; it's the least bad of several bad options.
jimbarry 0
QuoteQuote"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"-alone could overshadow the other differences between AQ and SH. They both wanted the reduction of US influence in the middle east, and that's all they need to have in common to cooperate, regardless of ideological differences.
I am no expert on Al Quaeda but I am pretty sure that they want much more than that - probably something along the lines of the 'humbling and destruction of the Great Satan'
Agreed. I didn't say this is ALL al Qaeda wants. Not sure how you got that out of me. Your point was that it would be unlikely that they were ever cooperate against the US simply due to some ideological differences.
AQ/SH connection or not (and I still believe there was, so ok, we'll disagree on that one), military action was the course of last resort. SH knew it was an option on the table, agreed to 13 years ago. He just rolled the dice that no one would follow through and bribed the UN to help keep it from happening with their approval.
Mirage63 0
Bill,
Certainly your not saying that our failures place us at the same level as SH?
"Saddam Hussein was an evil guy; it would be a good idea to not try to emulate him."
I don't believe that the facts show us "emulating him" we have made some BAD mistakes, and it is to easy for us to say "sorry" that was a mistake but we have not intentional kill inocent people - he did. Did we know it would happen - yes but we tried to avoid it.
Certainly your not saying that our failures place us at the same level as SH?
"Saddam Hussein was an evil guy; it would be a good idea to not try to emulate him."
I don't believe that the facts show us "emulating him" we have made some BAD mistakes, and it is to easy for us to say "sorry" that was a mistake but we have not intentional kill inocent people - he did. Did we know it would happen - yes but we tried to avoid it.
QuoteQuoteQuoteNorth Korea did not have the strength to bring a fight to our shores after we went there, that is my point.
And Iraq did?
What about Cuba, hell, they're only a couple miles from our shores, and they had the support and backing of the Soviet Union. Somehow we kept them contained without invading....well, errr, successfully.
It took a near nuclear exchange with the Soviet....well, err.
Yeah it did. We also had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they were building silos for nukes. Still though Kennedy had some major brass balls to do what he did.
--------
billvon 3,111
>Certainly your not saying that our failures place us at the same level as SH?
Not at all; usually we are not even in the same ballpark.
>I don't believe that the facts show us "emulating him". . .
Reopening the torture chambers and rape rooms is sorta following in his footsteps, no? I still can't believe we did that. We have to make sure that never happens again, because we're better than that.
Side note- to the people who say we're not better than that, who try to list excuses that explain why it's OK to torture people a la Saddam - you must not be living in the same USA that I am.
Not at all; usually we are not even in the same ballpark.
>I don't believe that the facts show us "emulating him". . .
Reopening the torture chambers and rape rooms is sorta following in his footsteps, no? I still can't believe we did that. We have to make sure that never happens again, because we're better than that.
Side note- to the people who say we're not better than that, who try to list excuses that explain why it's OK to torture people a la Saddam - you must not be living in the same USA that I am.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNorth Korea did not have the strength to bring a fight to our shores after we went there, that is my point.
And Iraq did?
What about Cuba, hell, they're only a couple miles from our shores, and they had the support and backing of the Soviet Union. Somehow we kept them contained without invading....well, errr, successfully.
It took a near nuclear exchange with the Soviet....well, err.
Yeah it did. We also had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they were building silos for nukes. Still though Kennedy had some major brass balls to do what he did.
--------
Balls hell!
The Soviet perception that he was young, weak and an appeaser is was led them to place the missles there in the first place.
Strength deters enemies. Cowardice encourages them.
---------
Because before the campaign, GHWB threatened SH with the use of tac nukes if he deployed chem/bio. And SH knew the mission was to push him out of Kuwait and destroy as much of his military as possible, not overthrow him. And since he personally wasn't threatened (only the lightly armed front line conscripts for the most part), and neither was his best airforce and troops (hid in Iran and pulled back to Baghdad, respectively) he wasn't pinned into a corner to use them. Remember, he convinced his own people at the end of the first Gulf War that it was Iraq which was victorious and defeated the coalition.
And prove to the world that he had them, when he'd been denying it all along? IMO, the 'yes-men' military leaders around him probably convinced him that they could repel our invasion. And then by the time we made it to Baghdad, drop chem on himself? (my conjecture on that one)
Besides, distributing chem/bio weapons to terrorist groups was the most likely scenario, not to use them to defend a combined arms frontal assault from the south.
Some believe it was a lie and some believe that this was what he knew based on intel he had. And I don't think anyone knows for sure, and most already have their minds made up, so that's going to need to be a stalemate debate-wise. Bottom line is SH had 12 years to comply with getting rid of the wmd or proving that he did, and during that time he did everything possible to smokescreen, including bribing the UN, it seems...
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites