Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Neurotoxin on March 11, 2008, 06:50:42 AM
-
March 10, 2008
Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.
The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report
NT
-
This is what I find fascinating.
There are still people on this board that do not believe the Bush Administration lied about the reasons it gave for attacking Iraq.
We usually hear, "Bush got bad information from the CIA..."
That itself is an untruth.
Bush got reasonably good intel from the CIA and his people twisted it to the point where there were mushroom clouds, Hussein and OBL were Buddies, and Iraq was planning to take down the US with 'nucular' bombs.
-
Almost always, in their short term simpleton intellect, your basic "tool" will always bring up AQ in their reasoning for invading Iraq.
-
If presented with this Bush would just say he "rejects" those conclusions and we still live in a dangerous world and only he knows how to protect us best
wow - I could be a Bush speech writer
-
This reason alone is enough..
5. The humanitarian reasons are compelling. Tens-of-thousands of people are being tortured and murdered in Iraq each year. This is an internal war--to end it is to be on the side of peace. The UN sanctions regime has left children dying without food and medicine, while Saddam builds palaces and funds terror groups and corrupts Western governments with kickbacks. And we are INVOLVED in the sanctions perversion--we have a responsibility to end it. Saddam is waging an internal war against his people. Pacifists are enablers of Saddam's war and want it to go on forever—America should end it.
from this: http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/002558.html
-
This reason alone is enough..
No, it's not.
We flew planes over far worse humanitarian crisii to land in iraq.
we're there for the oil and bases, dont be naive.
-
This reason alone is enough..
5. The humanitarian reasons are compelling. Tens-of-thousands of people are being tortured and murdered in Iraq each year. This is an internal war--to end it is to be on the side of peace. The UN sanctions regime has left children dying without food and medicine, while Saddam builds palaces and funds terror groups and corrupts Western governments with kickbacks. And we are INVOLVED in the sanctions perversion--we have a responsibility to end it. Saddam is waging an internal war against his people. Pacifists are enablers of Saddam's war and want it to go on forever—America should end it.
from this: http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/002558.html
Pacifists are not enablers of the US driven sanctions resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands Iraqis. Pacifists are not enablers of Saddam Hussein.
Who did create this mess in Iraq?
Gee willikers, it was the good ol' USA that helped install and maintain Hussein's rule.
Almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed that Saddam was strongly linked with the CIA, and that the US intelligence, under President John F. Kennedy, helped Saddam seize power for the first time in 1963. [16] [17]
"American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name (with Iraq)."[28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Links_with_CIA
Let's not forget this chestnut from the Reagan administration:
(http://www.blunks.net/images/random/rumsfeld_hussein.jpg)
Can you see why your thinking is inverted on the matter? The pacifists create the problems and neocons solve the problems.
-
No, it's not.
We flew planes over far worse humanitarian crisii to land in iraq.
we're there for the oil and bases, dont be naive.
I said it was reason enough to go there.. not THE only reason we went there.
And are you telling me that Saddam wasn't a genocidal, torturous dictator who murdered and imprisoned hundreds of thousands??
.. don't be ignorant.
-
Pacifists are not enablers of the US driven sanctions resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands Iraqis. Pacifists are not enablers of Saddam Hussein.
Who did create this mess in Iraq?
Gee willikers, it was the good ol' USA that helped install and maintain Hussein's rule.
Almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed that Saddam was strongly linked with the CIA, and that the US intelligence, under President John F. Kennedy, helped Saddam seize power for the first time in 1963. [16] [17]
"American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name (with Iraq)."[28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Links_with_CIA
Let's not forget this chestnut from the Reagan administration:
(http://www.blunks.net/images/random/rumsfeld_hussein.jpg)
Can you see why your thinking is inverted on the matter? The pacifists create the problems and neocons solve the problems.
Anyone who graduated 6th grade should be able to see thru this, why can't you??
The point was that the only justification necessary for disposing of him was undisputable and obvious.
And by your point does that mean that we shouldn't have destroyed the Taliban even tho we helped them many years ago as well?
-
lets not forget saddams testimony. he said he was affraid of iran attacking them. so he made them believe he had wmd's when he didnt.
this is why every intelligence agency believed he in fact did. thats not bad intel, its not wrong intel. it was a misleading source.
he said he didnt think the US would invade since we were involved in afganistan.
were did we find the #2 al-qaida leader al-Zarqawi? -iraq. thats not a link?
-
were did we find the #2 al-qaida leader al-Zarqawi? -iraq. thats not a link?
what year?
was iraq under saddam or US rule at the time? ;)
-
lets not forget saddams testimony. he said he was affraid of iran attacking them. so he made them believe he had wmd's when he didnt.
this is why every intelligence agency believed he in fact did. thats not bad intel, its not wrong intel. it was a misleading source.
he said he didnt think the US would invade since we were involved in afganistan.
were did we find the #2 al-qaida leader al-Zarqawi? -iraq. thats not a link?
oh yea KH... go read, slowly ::) my job thread again and tell me where you think you might have ASSumed way to much with your stupid fucking comments.
-
Anyone who graduated 6th grade should be able to see thru this, why can't you??
The point was that the only justification necessary for disposing of him was undisputable and obvious.
And by your point does that mean that we shouldn't have destroyed the Taliban even tho we helped them many years ago as well?
I don't know what you are talking about. Some crackpot quote about an alleged sin of inaction is enabling Hussein? That's foolish. An obvious subterfuge of faulty reasoning.
The mass killings where Hussein crushed an uprising of Kurds was done during the Bush Administration.
President Bush almost stopped his golf game in response. Almost.
Bush promised the Kurds American assistance if they would rise up against Hussein; when they did, he reneged and made sure Hussein was allowed to keep his helicopter gunships which were used to slaughter the Kurds by the thousands. Interviewed on the golf course with club in hand, Bush said 'That's not our problem, those people have been killing each other for years.'
See, Pres. Bush promised to help the Kurds in their uprising. He didn't. He let them die. And Hussein was just defending himself in a monstrous way.
There were no mass killings going on; war was not the only option - legal, economic and political measures could have been taken; there was no evidence that humanitarian purpose was the main one for launching the invasion; the attack did not have the backing of the United Nations or any other multinational body, and the situation in the country has not got better.
It is absurd to argue that military action to overthrow the regime was justified on humanitarian grounds in March 2003 because of what happened more than a decade earlier, but was no longer happening. Predictably, military action in March 2003, and its aftermath, has merely added greatly to the toll of Iraqi (and other) deaths.
http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/humanitarian-intervention.htm
-
I don't know what you are talking about. Some crackpot quote about an alleged sin of inaction is enabling Hussein? That's foolish. An obvious subterfuge of faulty reasoning.
I wasn't referring to any sin of inaction. That just happened to be included with what I consider a valid reason.
The mass killings where Hussein crushed an uprising of Kurds was done during the Bush Administration.
President Bush almost stopped his golf game in response. Almost.
Bush promised the Kurds American assistance if they would rise up against Hussein; when they did, he reneged and made sure Hussein was allowed to keep his helicopter gunships which were used to slaughter the Kurds by the thousands. Interviewed on the golf course with club in hand, Bush said 'That's not our problem, those people have been killing each other for years.'
See, Pres. Bush promised to help the Kurds in their uprising. He didn't. He let them die. And Hussein was just defending himself in a monstrous way.
There were no mass killings going on; war was not the only option - legal, economic and political measures could have been taken; there was no evidence that humanitarian purpose was the main one for launching the invasion; the attack did not have the backing of the United Nations or any other multinational body, and the situation in the country has not got better.
It is absurd to argue that military action to overthrow the regime was justified on humanitarian grounds in March 2003 because of what happened more than a decade earlier, but was no longer happening. Predictably, military action in March 2003, and its aftermath, has merely added greatly to the toll of Iraqi (and other) deaths.
http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/humanitarian-intervention.htm
Saddams human rights abuses extended far beyond the kurds and were still present right into the invasion.
A report from an anti-bush/anti-war organization I would expect to downplay saddams atrocities.
-
Saddams human rights abuses extended far beyond the kurds and were still present right into the invasion.
Cool. Can you share some statistics? You choose the source. I'd like to hear about the human rights abuses from 98 thru 2003.
-
Cool. Can you share some statistics? You choose the source. I'd like to hear about the human rights abuses from 98 thru 2003.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec17.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html
Amazing.. "Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003) o Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. o Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
-
I wasn't referring to any sin of inaction. That just happened to be included with what I consider a valid reason.
Saddams human rights abuses extended far beyond the kurds and were still present right into the invasion.
A report from an anti-bush/anti-war organization I would expect to downplay saddams atrocities.
Most of the civilized world is anti-bush b/c of the administrations various crimes including war crimes in Iraq.
Human rights abuses? You mean like torturing detainees who have not been tried in a court of law. That type of human rights abuse?
I suppose you are for invading China, Korea, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Iran (don't answer this one), Afghanistan, Sudan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon....
The UN resolution that Bush sought to enforce against Iran was not concerned with humanitarian violations of two decades earlier. That resolution was a disarmament resolution.
How exactly did Bush's invasion curtail the pain and deaths occurring in Iraqi life? Have you seen the casualty numbers? Are you aware that the standard of living for Iraqis under Hussein was higher than at any point after the invasion?
-
Wow.. "No single human rights report – by the Department of State, the United Nations, or independent monitoring organizations – can encompass the scope of human rights abuses under Saddam’s regime."
http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/iraqfocus1.pdf
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_human_rights_abuses_did_Saddam_Hussein_commit
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm
http://www.defendamerica.mil/specials/june2003/atrocities.html -this one has a cute little list of various tortures involved, oooohhh
-
...Amazing.. "Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003) o Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. o Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
If the sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 400,000 children, wouldn't the responsible thing to do include ending the homicidal sanctions?
The US's policy was to place a de facto trade embargo on Iraq and strangle it until Hussein stepped down--we restricted trade and we created no-fly zones out of thin air. Those are a stupid policies....and deadly for the Iraqi people.
We knew the deaths were happening, yet Madeliene Albright thought those were acceptable deaths for regime change.
That's mighty warped if you ask me.
-
Frankly i don't think it's our responsibility to police the world of Human rights violations. First off, there are too much going of it on out there than what Saddam was doing and the real fact of the matter is that there were many other benefits strategically for us to "choose" Iraq as our platform for human rights heroics. Besides we have enough of our own problems.
-
Most of the civilized world is anti-bush b/c of the administrations various crimes including war crimes in Iraq.
Human rights abuses? You mean like torturing detainees who have not been tried in a court of law. That type of human rights abuse?
I suppose you are for invading China, Korea, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Iran (don't answer this one), Afghanistan, Sudan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon....
The UN resolution that Bush sought to enforce against Iran was not concerned with humanitarian violations of two decades earlier. That resolution was a disarmament resolution.
How exactly did Bush's invasion curtail the pain and deaths occurring in Iraqi life? Have you seen the casualty numbers? Are you aware that the standard of living for Iraqis under Hussein was higher than at any point after the invasion?
Wow.. does it hurt to be that misled?
Bush committed no war crimes.. get over it. Obviously when dealing with Iraq things were going to get worse before they get better. The point is that they have a chance now that they never would have had under Saddam.. the human rights conditions would have continued indefinitely.
-
If the sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 400,000 children, wouldn't the responsible thing to do include ending the homicidal sanctions?
The US's policy was to place a de facto trade embargo on Iraq and strangle it until Hussein stepped down--we restricted trade and we created no-fly zones out of thin air. Those are a stupid policies....and deadly for the Iraqi people.
We knew the deaths were happening, yet Madeliene Albright thought those were acceptable deaths for regime change.
That's mighty warped if you ask me.
You blame MA yet you hold back any blame for Clinton? I'm not surprised.
And your position that Saddams treatment of his people was our fault is absurd and further evidence of your extreme leftist views and hatred for this president and the efforts of the US. I'm even less surprised.
-
Wow.. does it hurt to be that misled?
You are doing your damndest. But as noted, there was no ongoing genocide in Iraq at the time of invasion. Iraq tortured dissident citizens? So do the Russians, the Chinese, Koreans...are you for invading those countries as well.
Bush committed no war crimes.. get over it. Obviously when dealing with Iraq things were going to get worse before they get better. The point is that they have a chance now that they never would have had under Saddam.. the human rights conditions would have continued indefinitely.
What was the legal justification for Bush's invasion of Iraq and subsequent overthrow of the Iraq government, the murder of Iraq's people, and the co-opting of its resources? I can't find it. The ABA (American Bar Association) can't find it.
But Brixtonbulldog has the answer.
Please, indulge me.
-
The arguments stating that we went into Iraq on grounds of humanitarian reasons are ridiculous. Often, that is people's last ditch argument on validating our reasons to go into Iraq after all the other reasons have been proven time and time again to be proven wrong(AQ presence, WMDS, etc..).
If the US were to actually live up to it's moral standards on preventing massive crimes against humanity, then why did we not act on the following?:
-The 1994 Rwandan Genocide where the most recent reports put the number of deaths at just over 1 million.
-In the Congo alone, over 5.5 million people have died as a direct or indirect result of the civil wars of the early to late 90s that to this day still plague the region. Deaths from starvation, malnutrition, pneumonia, and violence are commonplace.
-The conditions in Darfur have killed over 400,000 people and displaced 2 million more under the brutal Janjawid regime. The UN's presence is small.
-In WW2, the US did not immediately jump in during or after the Holocaust.
It's plain and simple: the US will involve itself on behalf of humanitarian reasons if there is advantage for them to do so. However, we should either intercede in all genocides and other heinous crimes against humanity or stay completely out of the way. It seems as if we are abiding by a double standard.
-
You blame MA yet you hold back any blame for Clinton? I'm not surprised.
And your position that Saddams treatment of his people was our fault is absurd and further evidence of your extreme leftist views and hatred for this president and the efforts of the US. I'm even less surprised.
Why would you say this?
I just pointed out that Clinton's lady on the seen, Albright, is a monster. Clinton was as bad for his misguided policy.
You are seeing what you want to see.
If the civilized US knew that such sanctions would result in the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis and still continued that policy, then the US is as culpable for those deaths as Saddam ever was.
The tactic that hoping things become so bad in Iraq, due to sanctions, that political upheaval resulting in regime change occurs is flat out evil.
-
You are doing your damndest. But as noted, there was no ongoing genocide in Iraq at the time of invasion. Iraq tortured dissident citizens? So do the Russians, the Chinese, Koreans...are you for invading those countries as well.
Not at nearly the rate of Saddam.. nice try tho.
What was the legal justification for Bush's invasion of Iraq and subsequent overthrow of the Iraq government, the murder of Iraq's people, and the co-opting of its resources? I can't find it. The ABA (American Bar Association) can't find it.
I can agree that it warrants debate but I think the answer is clear.
An excerpt: The U.S. administration argued that it had enough legal support for its subsequent military action, based on resolution 1441 as well as two previous Security Council resolutions: 678, which in 1990 authorized the U.N. to take military action against Iraq, and 687, which set the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Administration lawyers said that because Iraq never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire, the use force was now valid.
In answer to a question in parliament, Great Britain’s Attorney General Lord Goldsmith issued a March 17th statement supporting the use of force against Iraq. The Australian Attorney General’s Department issued a memorandum on March 18th, also supporting the use of force against Iraq.
http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html
-
Not at nearly the rate of Saddam..
How do you know what the rates of torture/human rights violations were for the various countries mentioned?
I can agree that it warrants debate but I think the answer is clear.
An excerpt: The U.S. administration argued that it had enough legal support for its subsequent military action, based on resolution 1441 as well as two previous Security Council resolutions: 678, which in 1990 authorized the U.N. to take military action against Iraq, and 687, which set the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Administration lawyers said that because Iraq never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire, the use force was now valid.
In answer to a question in parliament, Great Britain’s Attorney General Lord Goldsmith issued a March 17th statement supporting the use of force against Iraq. The Australian Attorney General’s Department issued a memorandum on March 18th, also supporting the use of force against Iraq.
http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html
That's a good resource you posted.
UN Resolution 1441 comprehended all the former resolutions since the conclusion of Desert Storm. 1441 was explicit that no individual member nation could initiate a use of force against Iraq without the approval of the Security Council.
The US did not have that approval. From that, it follows that the US's use of force was not legal.
As for attacking a country that is complying with requested/ordered inspections, i.e., complying with international law, well, that's horrible policy as well as illegal.
If we ask Iran to acquiesce to inspections, they agree, and we attack anyways, there is just no reason for Iran to comply in the first place nor is that a peaceful or sensible measure for securing some semblance of security in a dangerous world.
-
How do you know what the rates of torture/human rights violations were for the various countries mentioned?
That's a good resource you posted.
I'm not looking up the numbers but if you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.
UN Resolution 1441 comprehended all the former resolutions since the conclusion of Desert Storm. 1441 was explicit that no individual member nation could initiate a use of force against Iraq without the approval of the Security Council.
The US did not have that approval. From that, it follows that the US's use of force was not legal.
As for attacking a country that is complying with requested/ordered inspections, i.e., complying with international law, well, that's horrible policy as well as illegal.
If we ask Iran to acquiesce to inspections, they agree, and we attack anyways, there is just no reason for Iran to comply in the first place nor is that a peaceful or sensible measure for securing some semblance of security in a dangerous world.
Having the support of certain other nations is the condition on which we invaded. Not to mention the numerous violations and flip flopping of compliance Saddam was guilty of.
-
Having the support of certain other nations is the condition on which we invaded. Not to mention the numerous violations and flip flopping of compliance Saddam was guilty of.
Thats the point. We didnt have permission according to 1441. We acted with 'shock and awe" to flex our muscles. (which of course didnt work as of 7-8 yrs later)
The other countries acted as hyenia's and thought itd be an easy victory to follow.
An international law was broken on 1441.
-
Thats the point. We didnt have permission according to 1441. We acted with 'shock and awe" to flex our muscles. (which of course didnt work as of 7-8 yrs later)
The other countries acted as hyenia's and thought itd be an easy victory to follow.
An international law was broken on 1441.
No it wasn't but on a similar note.. how do you feel about everything that Saddam had done? How many crimes did he commit? Did you care? What would you have done if you were president? I can't wait to hear this.
-
I'm not looking up the numbers but if you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.
Having the support of certain other nations is the condition on which we invaded. Not to mention the numerous violations and flip flopping of compliance Saddam was guilty of.
If you make the assertion, the burden is on you to back up your conclusion(s). Iraq was bad. I cannot deny that and I wouldn't. Hussein was a monster. But Nicaragua, El Salvador, Peru, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Honduras and more all qualify as countries that have horrendous human rights records.
The support of various countries is not legal justification. They are criminal accomplices.
Hussein's cooperation was not good with inspections. He was a recalcitrant child. But that changed. Iraq was very cooperative in the final months before the attack.
Iraq actively cooperated, says Blix
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/123.html
UNITED NATIONS, March 5: The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said on Wednesday that Iraq had actively cooperated with the UN inspectors in the past months and expressed hope that Baghdad would continue to cooperate.
-
what year?
was iraq under saddam or US rule at the time? ;)
He formed al-Tawhid, which later became the group called Al-Qaeda in Iraq, in the 1990s
-
No it wasn't but on a similar note.. how do you feel about everything that Saddam had done? How many crimes did he commit? Did you care? What would you have done if you were president? I can't wait to hear this.
I would have sent in a mercernary to take care of it. Nice and simple, and go on with business. I would do the same thing with Osama bin laden...but i guess everything is too hard for a bushy!! :P
-
oh yea KH... go read, slowly ::) my job thread again and tell me where you think you might have ASSumed way to much with your stupid fucking comments.
go ahead and read my comments again. i asked questions which you didnt answer. its hard to ASSume when your asking questions and not making statements
-
If you make the assertion, the burden is on you to back up your conclusion(s). Iraq was bad. I cannot deny that and I wouldn't. Hussein was a monster. But Nicaragua, El Salvador, Peru, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Honduras and more all qualify as countries that have horrendous human rights records.
The support of various countries is not legal justification. They are criminal accomplices.
Hussein's cooperation was not good with inspections. He was a recalcitrant child. But that changed. Iraq was very cooperative in the final months before the attack.
Iraq actively cooperated, says Blix
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/123.html
UNITED NATIONS, March 5: The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said on Wednesday that Iraq had actively cooperated with the UN inspectors in the past months and expressed hope that Baghdad would continue to cooperate.
You honestly don't see through that? He would pretend to cooperate, move everything he didn't want us to see, and hide as much as he could every time the US started bearing down on him and then he would go back to noncompliance. He did this many times over. The UN was a joke to Saddam. Not laughing now is he? ;D
-
You honestly don't see through that? He would pretend to cooperate, move everything he didn't want us to see, and hide as much as he could every time the US started bearing down on him and then he would go back to noncompliance. He did this many times over. The UN was a joke to Saddam. Not laughing now is he? ;D
Take into account he couldnt act to passive as Iran and other countries wanted his head on a platter. It was alot of posing to look tough while he was still in compliance for the most part and was completely innocent of WMDs.
If your driving with your family in the middle of the night, take a wrong turn and break down in the middle of a gang slum somewhere and you see guys start coming out of the shadows toward you, what are you going to do??? Youre kids are sleeping in the back seat, theres no street lites around....If its obvious they want trouble you may concede on your wallet, but what if they decide your wife looks good too and your kids are crying???
Tell em you got a gun in your pocket, get fucking mad and do what you can...thats what. These guys are like hyenia's waiting for a weakness..... Thats the things saddam was faced with. No excuses but he did what he had to do for compliance and lost his life anyway.....
-
You honestly don't see through that? He would pretend to cooperate, move everything he didn't want us to see, and hide as much as he could every time the US started bearing down on him and then he would go back to noncompliance. He did this many times over. The UN was a joke to Saddam. Not laughing now is he? ;D
The WMD inspectors had the capability to verify whether weapons were moved from the spots they investigated under suprise inspections.
The inspectors were world class scientists.
The Duelfer Report concluded that Iraq did not move any WMDs out of the country. In fact, here're the main findings of the report:
"Saddam ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."
"Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of [Biological Warfare] weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction."
-
He formed al-Tawhid, which later became the group called Al-Qaeda in Iraq, in the 1990s
There was no proven functional relationship btn Al-Qaeda and Hussein's government. By your criterion, the US also had a relationship with Al Qaeda b/c the pilots that flew the 9/11 planes lived and trained in the US.
-
There was no proven functional relationship btn Al-Qaeda and Hussein's government. By your criterion, the US also had a relationship with Al Qaeda b/c the pilots that flew the 9/11 planes lived and trained in the US.
ok fine. and what havnt we done to fix that
-
Take into account he couldnt act to passive as Iran and other countries wanted his head on a platter. It was alot of posing to look tough while he was still in compliance for the most part and was completely innocent of WMDs.
If your driving with your family in the middle of the night, take a wrong turn and break down in the middle of a gang slum somewhere and you see guys start coming out of the shadows toward you, what are you going to do??? Youre kids are sleeping in the back seat, theres no street lites around....If its obvious they want trouble you may concede on your wallet, but what if they decide your wife looks good too and your kids are crying???
Tell em you got a gun in your pocket, get fucking mad and do what you can...thats what. These guys are like hyenia's waiting for a weakness..... Thats the things saddam was faced with. No excuses but he did what he had to do for compliance and lost his life anyway.....
Aw.. poor Saddam.
This is a complete cop out. The man was guilty beyond belief and you actually sit here and flat out ignore all of it. You must be the opitome of spineless.
And he was no where near innocent of WMDs but thats something the american public wont hear about for years.
-
The WMD inspectors had the capability to verify whether weapons were moved from the spots they investigated under suprise inspections.
The inspectors were world class scientists.
The Duelfer Report concluded that Iraq did not move any WMDs out of the country. In fact, here're the main findings of the report:
"Saddam ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."
"Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of [Biological Warfare] weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction."
The report was wrong. Not only that but he made every effort to undermine the inspectors. When everything was moved or hidden they would be allowed back in. Then it would start all over again.
-
Aw.. poor Saddam.
This is a complete cop out. The man was guilty beyond belief and you actually sit here and flat out ignore all of it. You must be the opitome of spineless.
And he was no where near innocent of WMDs but thats something the american public wont hear about for years.
Oh really......Well if we can invade and occupy random countries who have civil right violations then why arent we in Africa protecting 100s of thousands of genocides right now??? Why not pick any country and lets kill em all cuz we can...
-
The report was wrong. Not only that but he made every effort to undermine the inspectors. When everything was moved or hidden they would be allowed back in. Then it would start all over again.
How do you know these things?
Why are world class scientists and investigators wrong and you are right?
-
Oh really......Well if we can invade and occupy random countries who have civil right violations then why arent we in Africa protecting 100s of thousands of genocides right now??? Why not pick any country and lets kill em all cuz we can...
I'm saying it justifies it if we are inclined to go.. which we are not when it comes to lost causes like most of Africa. We had a lot of reason to go to Iraq.
-
How do you know these things?
Why are world class scientists and investigators wrong and you are right?
It's called a clearance. The US military was privy to things those scientists, no matter how "world class" they are, are not.
-
It's called a clearance. The US military was privy to things those scientists, no matter how "world class" they are, are not.
I will trust the inspectors's scientific methodology over your clearance any day of the week. You present me with nothing but speculation and innuendo. That's an awful sort of proof for your arguments.
If what you say is true and you have such evidence, I'm certain the president would have that evidence too and he'd broadcast it on the front page of the liberal media. (mixing like a like a blender)
-
I will trust the inspectors's scientific methodology over your clearance any day of the week. You present me with nothing but speculation and innuendo. That's an awful sort of proof for your arguments.
If what you say is true and you have such evidence, I'm certain the president would have that evidence too and he'd broadcast it on the front page of the liberal media. (mixing like a like a blender)
That's fine.. it's certainly understandable since I have no way of showing you anything to the contrary.
One day, hopefully in the next 5- 10 years, it will be made public. It will probably come when we are forced to go after one or both of the other countries involved.
-
That's fine.. it's certainly understandable since I have no way of showing you anything to the contrary.
One day, hopefully in the next 5- 10 years, it will be made public. It will probably come when we are forced to go after one or both of the other countries involved.
Have fun, when the draft comes then. 24yrs old is a perfect fighting age ...as the mind has not caught up with the body.
-
That's fine.. it's certainly understandable since I have no way of showing you anything to the contrary.
One day, hopefully in the next 5- 10 years, it will be made public. It will probably come when we are forced to go after one or both of the other countries involved.
OK. That still does not absolve the Bush Administration from ordering the invasion of Iraq--1441 clearly requires permission from the Security Council and Bush never got that.
Assume you are right and that Saddam was fooling the world with his WMD stockpiles.
Was the war worth it? Was Iraq a threat to the US & in cahoots with Al Qaeda?
Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq were enemies.
Even if the WMDs existed, Hussein had no way to deliver them to US territories.
In short, Iraq was no threat to the US. The pre-war CIA reports showed that until the speculative statements in those reports became certainties and Saddam became a world beater.
-
Have fun, when the draft comes then. 24yrs old is a perfect fighting age ...as the mind has not caught up with the body.
Oh gimmie a break.. there's not going to be a draft, moron.
I've already served, how bout you?
-
OK. That still does not absolve the Bush Administration from ordering the invasion of Iraq--1441 clearly requires permission from the Security Council and Bush never got that.
Assume you are right and that Saddam was fooling the world with his WMD stockpiles.
Was the war worth it? Was Iraq a threat to the US & in cahoots with Al Qaeda?
Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq were enemies.
Even if the WMDs existed, Hussein had no way to deliver them to US territories.
In short, Iraq was no threat to the US. The pre-war CIA reports showed that until the speculative statements in those reports became certainties and Saddam became a world beater.
Absolutely, and I can say with full confidence you will also find out more about the role of Al Queda in Iraq. They were not enemies at all.
And I'm just curious but would you rather have waited until he could have reached Europe? Or even the US? How dangerous does he have to be before you do something or do you wait until he acts first?
-
Absolutely, and I can say with full confidence you will also find out more about the role of Al Queda in Iraq. They were not enemies at all.
And I'm just curious but would you rather have waited until he could have reached Europe? Or even the US? How dangerous does he have to be before you do something or do you wait until he acts first?
When would I have thought military force against Iraq was necessary?
If I am basing my intent to attack on the procedure outlined in UN Res 1441, I would go to the security council with evidence of Hussein's non-compliance with the resolution--namely inspections and the voluntary provision of information related to forbidden weapons.
If that evidence is non-existent, then I don't order the attack.
-
Absolutely, and I can say with full confidence you will also find out more about the role of Al Queda in Iraq. They were not enemies at all.
And I'm just curious but would you rather have waited until he could have reached Europe? Or even the US? How dangerous does he have to be before you do something or do you wait until he acts first?
I love how you completely ignore anything past 1 move with Saddam. Saddam was a thug. No different then your neighborhood gangster. Iran on the other hand, feel as if their actions carry religious significance. that's more dangerous than 10 Saddams surrounding the USA.