AURaptor I have a question... by RiveR6213

America loves a winner!

Now you're just revising history , for no god damn reason what so ever.

I'm tired of this pointless discussion now.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 5:43 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
We waited 10+ yrs. That was enough time.

So in other words it was a completely pointless decision? The reason was... just because?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:00 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Saddam and his sons were actually thoughtful fellows. After they would kidnap and rape their young schoolgirl of the day, they would always place a thank-you card to the parents inside the box they'd leave on the front doorstep, containing the young lady's severed head. Only tender and caring men would leave a note. Who would want to kill such teddy-bears as these? Another example of their generous kindness were the mutiple mass graves we uncovered. Row after row, pit after pit, thousands upon thousands of dead civilians, women & children, all buried in perfect geometric balance to the surrounding environment. The Heusseins were quite Green, to the surprise of many. Again, why kill people who were just trying to heal the Earth. And of course, every town had their own police station, where their local pride shown brightly in the form of torture rooms and rape rooms. Nothing wrong here folks. Certainly nothing that anyone who values human life would even care a scintilla about, for sure. Saddam's payments for decades to Palestinian suicide bombers...just a myth dontcha know. Sum it all up, big mistake to take out Saddam. All the goodness he created, and the wonderful society of millions of people he molded, will now forever be a vanished mystery for the ages. Maybe PBS can do another Nova episode where they go back and revisit the ancient land of the fertile crescent, trying to recapture the joy and fun times of the lost Huessein era.

Ummm, Jongstraw, have you converted to the looney lefty liberal plague which supports these dictatorships? Oh, I get it, you're being condescending.
Good of you to point out who and what the Party of Tolerance and Divisivness supports and protects - and still to this day defends, as seen in this thread. But I was hoping you'd mention the wonderful USA exportation of woodchipping machines direct to Saddam, and how he learned that it's much less effective to lower his dissidents in head first, because the screaming is so much more brief.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:30 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

BSCM - I've been trying to keep up with the massive amount of posts in this thread, and have been resisting the urge to reply in hope of not hijacking it.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
...and sacrifice the lives of servicemen at Pearl Harbor just to play politics is certainly henious.

Have you picked up an outlandish partisan view on history here? I've heard historians dismiss this idea.

Heads should roll

Yes, I'm sure we have all heard the looney lefty liberal historians dismiss many truths unflattering to FDR, LBJ, Jiminy Cotta, Slick Willie, and the Obamination, but the facts still remain if you choose to think for yourself and read about history.
Yes, FDR was elected in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. You may have heard rumors that Nazi Germany (under Hitler) had invaded other sovreign Nations, and begun extermination of Jews, prior to 1940, and that England was sure to fall without direct US combat intervention. Hitler was fighting war on 5 fronts, and winning on every one of them, Japan was making progress in Pacific and all of Asia they wanted. Most have read that FDR understood all this, and knew the US must enter the war, but still campaigned as an Isolationist, promising to not enter the war even if we were the last nation on Earth not a Axis Power - because winning election was more impotant than saving the lives of Yurpeens and Jews. After winning election in 1940, he then needed to convince the American public that we needed to enter the war - which he had just won re-election by promising not to. Most sensible people now know that our cryptographers had broken the Japanese codes and had known several days before 7 Dec that the Japanese Navy was going to attack Pearl Harbor. FDR also knew this, and had also been told the same by Churchill in a phone conversation 11 days before the attack. FDR chose to not inform Admiral Kimmel, or anybody else in Hawaii, so that many American servicemen could be sacrificed and US citizens would be convinced to support the entering into the war. Kimmel was the scapegoat, and in 1999 the US Senate passed a resolution to exonerate Adm Kimmel.
After 50 years of classification, the documents became public in 1991, exposing FDR's deceit.
In the election of 1944, the GOP candidate was informed, upon selection as the candidate, that the code had been broken, and FDR had sacrificed the lives and ships at Peral Harbor. With this information, he could have exposed FDR for the conniving weasel that he was and ensured victory in the election, but he would have been endangering the lives of Americans in the Pacific (Marines and Sailors) by letting the Japanese know we were reading their secret messages. With the choice of endangering the servicemen and prolonging the war, or keeping quiet about FDR's betrayal and just hoping the American voter wasn't too stupid to re-elect FDR, Gov Dewey chose the honorable option and kept the cryptography program a secret.
He lost the election by being honorable, just as FDR won by being the coniving deceitful weasel.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 11:35 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:

So in other words it was a completely pointless decision? The reason was... just because?

17 UN Resolutions, 15-0 Security council vote, breaking of existing cease fire agreements, and this is all you see?

No wonder there's such a disconnect here.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 12:46 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 2:18 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Saddam and his sons were actually thoughtful fellows. After they would kidnap and rape their young schoolgirl of the day, they would always place a thank-you card to the parents inside the box they'd leave on the front doorstep, containing the young lady's severed head.

To quote Geezer's favorite phrase...

"Cites, please?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 2:29 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
BSCM - I've been trying to keep up with the massive amount of posts in this thread, and have been resisting the urge to reply in hope of not hijacking it.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
...and sacrifice the lives of servicemen at Pearl Harbor just to play politics is certainly henious.

Have you picked up an outlandish partisan view on history here? I've heard historians dismiss this idea.

Heads should roll

Yes, I'm sure we have all heard the looney lefty liberal historians dismiss many truths unflattering to FDR, LBJ, Jiminy Cotta, Slick Willie, and the Obamination, but the facts still remain if you choose to think for yourself and read about history.
Yes, FDR was elected in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. You may have heard rumors that Nazi Germany (under Hitler) had invaded other sovreign Nations, and begun extermination of Jews, prior to 1940, and that England was sure to fall without direct US combat intervention. Most have read that FDR understood all this, and knew the US must enter the war, but still campaigned as an Isolationist, promising to not enter the war even if we were the last nation on Earth not a Axis Power - because winning election was more impotant than saving the lives of Yurpeens and Jews. After winning election in 1940, he then needed to convince the American public that we needed to enter the war - which he had just won re-election by promising not to. Most sensible people now know that our cryptographers had broken the Japanese codes and had known several days before 7 Dec that the Japanese Navy was going to attack Pearl Harbor. FDR also knew this, and had also been told the same by Churchill in a phone conversation 11 days before the attack. FDR chose to not inform Admiral Kimmel, or anybody else in Hawaii, so that many American servicemen could be sacrificed and US citizens would be convinced to support the entering into the war. Kimmel was the scapegoat, and in 1999 the US Senate passed a resolution to exonerate Adm Kimmel.
After 50 years of classification, the documents became public in 1991, exposing FDR's deceit.
In the election of 1944, the GOP candidate was informed, upon selection as the candidate, that the code had been broken, and FDR had sacrificed the lives and ships at Peral Harbor. With this information, he could have exposed FDR for the conniving weasel that he was and ensured victory in the election, but he would have been endangering the lives of Americans in the Pacific (Marines and Sailors) by letting the Japanese know we were reading their secret messages. With the choice of endangering the servicemen and prolonging the war, or keeping quiet about FDR's betrayal and just hoping the American voter wasn't too stupid to re-elect FDR, Gov Dewey chose the honorable option and kept the cryptography program a secret.
He lost the election by being honorable, just as FDR won by being the coniving deceitful weasel.

I understand that 2 of the British code breakers wrote a book years ago about the Pearl Harbor attack. They said exactly what you are saying here. But, I do not believe it for one second. If even the premise was true, that FDR was looking for a way to mobilize Americans to want to join the war, he certainly could/would have taken some steps to reduce the enormous scope and total devastation we sufferered. Some of the battleships on Battleship row could have been sent out to sea back in the direction of the mainland. Why would FDR sacrifice our entire Pacific Fleet? It doesn't make any sense. It took us years to recover from that, and by then Japan had extended it's control over all of Asia and the Pacific. Also, it seems a bit of a strecth to think that a secret as deep and dark as this could have been kept by all those who were in the know all these years. The Japanese " Tanaka Plan " had been widely known for years, just like Bin Laden's desire to crash planes into buildings had been known for years. I think Pearl Harbor was just a case of us knowing of a possible threat, but not taking it serious.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 3:35 AM

Quote:
The Japanese " Tanaka Plan " had been widely known for years, just like Bin Laden's desire to crash planes into buildings had been known for years. I think Pearl Harbor was just a case of us knowing of a possible threat, but not taking it serious.

Bingo. All the rest is just so much conspiracy theory.

Did we "know" the Japanese were likely to attack us? Well, we knew there was that possibility, because we'd essentially backed them into a corner with our embargoes. That in no way should suggest that we didn't have our reasons for such actions, or that we were unwarranted in blocking trade with the Japanese, but that by doing so, we were in effect forcing their hand. They struck at Pearl Harbor not to destroy the United States or to utterly defeat us, but in the hope of crippling us militarily so that they would be able to demand more favorable terms to resume the "peace" with us.

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure", by Lightning Seeds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 3:36 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
17 UN Resolutions, 15-0 Security council vote, breaking of existing cease fire agreements, and this is all you see?

Iraq was an open sore, no question. So is North Korea and zimbabwe at the moment, and other regimes throughout history - is invasion always justified, whenever the US and allies see fit? Or did the iraq situation reach a tipping point? You kind of hint that 9-11 shifted this tipping point, but can you say what it was? if not the decision to go to war is still arbitrary, don't you see?

Which I'm afraid is how your judgement is, arbitrary, emotional - that if a nation obstructs the will of the USA long enough, then it's 'got it coming', and outraged patriots such as yourself are best placed to say when that moment has truly arrived:

Quote:
We waited 10+ yrs. That was enough time.

Which isn't cowboy diplomacy so much as angry bear/incredible hulk diplomacy - that if a hostile nation jabs you enough times with a stick you just SNAP, and no UN fact-finding mission can hold you back, or slow you down?

Do you think that the rest of the civilised world can respect you like this, or do you care?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 3:38 AM

RIPWASH

Not that this entirely answers your question or that you'll find this information credible. But here is a report (a "working document") from the UNMOVIC that states what they found and they're major concerns.

www.nti.org/db/profiles/iraq/fulltext/unmovic_jan6.pdf

And this from Hans Blix:

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html

Neither are glowing accounts of Iraq's cooperation OR compliance with previous resolutions or demands from the other organization (UNSOCOM I think it was?). In fact, the UNMOVIC report has an assesment section of each area they were accountable for and almost every one of those sections contain wording similar to: "Iraq has failed to provide adequate documentation" or "Iraq's numbers don't add up and there may be more out there we're not aware of." And to say Saddam couldn't for fear of invasion from Iran is a sad excuse. It's because of his neglect and shameful pride that caused the world to discredit him and any "word" he gave. Almost like a used car salesman. "TRUST ME!" with that big fake smile on his face.

Say what you want, Sigy, but I'm not even sure 3 months or 6 months would have made a difference. It only would have given Saddam more time to twiddle around and laugh at everyone while he did his own thing. Despite Hans Blix's words at the end that the committee was getting bigger and better all the time . . . there is absolutely NO guarantee that Saddam would not have thrown them out when he tired of their intervention like he did numerous times before.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 3:45 AM

Quote:

Yes, I'm sure we have all heard the looney lefty liberal historians dismiss many truths unflattering to FDR, LBJ, Jiminy Cotta, Slick Willie, and the Obamination, but the facts still remain if you choose to think for yourself and read about history.

Or, read another way, through the same lens of history:

Yes, I'm sure we have all heard the right-wing whackos dismiss many truths unflattering to GWB, GHWB, and Ronnie "Ray-Gun", but the facts still remain if you choose to think for yourself and read about history.

Bush was warned specifically about Osama Bin Laden's plans to fly planes into buildings, and he chose to do nothing about it - if fact, he chose to LET HIM DO IT, if not outright help him pull it off. And this was all put in place dating back to Reagan's support of terrorists in Afghanistan and radical revolutionaries in Iran, with whom he'd had numerous negotiations even prior to the 1980 election.

Quote:
...hoping the American voter wasn't too stupid to re-elect FDR, Gov Dewey chose the honorable option and kept the cryptography program a secret.
He lost the election by being honorable, just as FDR won by being the coniving deceitful weasel.

Can also be read,

"...hoping the American voter wasn't too stupid to elect Dubya Bush, Vice President Al Gore lost the election by being honorable, just as Dubya won by being the connniving, deceitful weasel."

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure", by Lightning Seeds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 3:49 AM

Quote:

Do you think that the rest of the civilised world can respect you like this, or do you care?

Or, to be even more blunt, why do you accept this kind of behavior from your own government when you would never accept it from another country?

Are you one of those "My country right or wrong" people, who believe that if his country does it, it CAN'T be wrong?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 6:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Awww, shit... my whole post went into the ether! Ah well...

Quote:
17 UN Resolutions, 15-0 Security council vote, breaking of existing cease fire agreements, and this is all you see? No wonder there's such a disconnect here.

Rapo, the impression I get out of your answers is that GWB spent 4000+ American lives, 100,000 Iraqi lives, three trillion dollars, and the goodwill of the vast portion of the world to GET WHAT HE COULD HAVE GOTTEN FOR FREE FROM UNMOVIC: THE ASSURANCE THAT SADDAM NO LONGER HAD WMD. On that basis, it seems a brainless decision.

I can think of only ONE security reason to invade Iraq, and that is the concern that Saddam might use oil money to re-arm himself in secret. I had a whole post as to why was was not going to happen, but I've run out of time and I'll have to get back to you later.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 6:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Say what you want, Sigy, but I'm not even sure 3 months or 6 months would have made a difference. It only would have given Saddam more time to twiddle around and laugh at everyone while he did his own thing.

Which was....? Producing more chemical weapons? Er, no. Creating nuclear bombs? Eh- wrong aqain! Devising bioweapons? No, not that either! Whatever Saddam was doing, it didn't have anything to do with creating WMD.

Quote:
Despite Hans Blix's words at the end that the committee was getting bigger and better all the time . . . there is absolutely NO guarantee that Saddam would not have thrown them out when he tired of their intervention like he did numerous times before.

In which case the United States could have made a VERY powerful argument for invasion.

I guess what I'm loooking for is a focused discussion of our interests (not hand-waving rhetoric) , the interests of others, and how we can achieve our goals in the long-run.

Since we supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, and aided and abetted Saddam's production and use of WMD in the 1980s, the lesson that I'm getting in REAL realpolitik is "what goes around comes around". I would like to see us avoid the mistakes of the past when confronting our current dilemmas.

ETA: Of course, in order to avoid the mistakes of the past we have to decide whether or not something WAS a mistake, and if it was we have to acknowledge it.... not keep defending it.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 7:37 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

Rap has serious emotional problems. He can't follow a train of logic b/c his problems will not allow him to think certain things.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 7:46 AM

RIPWASH

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Say what you want, Sigy, but I'm not even sure 3 months or 6 months would have made a difference. It only would have given Saddam more time to twiddle around and laugh at everyone while he did his own thing.
Which was....? Producing more WMD? Er, no. Creating nuclear bombs? Eh- wrong aqain! Devising bioweapons? No, not that either! Whatever Saddam was doing, it didn't have anything to do with creating WMD.
Quote:
Despite Hans Blix's words at the end that the committee was getting bigger and better all the time . . . there is absolutely NO guarantee that Saddam would not have thrown them out when he tired of their intervention like he did numerous times before.
In which case the United States could have made a VERY powerful argument for invasion.

I guess what I'm loooking for is a focused discussion of our interests, the interests of others, and how we can achieve our goals in the long-run.

Since we supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, and aided and abetted Saddam's production and use of MWD in the 1980s, the lesson that I'm getting in REAL realpolitik is "what goes around comes around". I would like to see us avoid the mistakes of the past when confronting our current dilemmas.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

There's no telling WHAT his own thing would have been, but I can tell ya it wasn't planting a garden or teaching his sons how to be polite, thoughtful human beings. But he DID have a history of pursuing that type of program. He gave us absolutely NO reason to think that he wouldn't have done anything other than what he'd done in the past and that was to procure knowledge, information and material to produce WMD's. And the UNMOVIC report shows clearly that Iraq wasn't even in compliance with the previous regulations set against them; that required paperwork was missing or destroyed, and that former claims didn't match current ones, that material listed as coming from domestic sources actually came from overseas, etc. And then we should trust Saddam's word that he had no connections or dealings with any terrorists EVER? Please.

And your persistant claim that the UNMOVIC assured that there were no WMD'S. The report I linked to does say that also, but they also say a slew of other things that raised their suspicions about what was actually done with the components to those devices. Separately, they're harmless, but combined? Deadly.

I agree completely that we should avoid the mistakes of the past, but sometimes action must be taken pre-emptively to avoid a possible catastrophe and you simply have to hope for the best outcome. Seeing as how the previous administration did absolutely nothing when we were attacked three times (and even passed on the opportunity to eliminate Bin Laden on three different occassions), we needed to make a stand this time around at even a hint of possible agression by a dictator with a history of pursuing WMD's and even using them against his own people. Just my opinion. The world fiddled around with him for long enough, if you ask me. Urgency in terms of the possibility of a threat is there, he's not complying, it's time to let him know we mean business and the time for "time outs" (which were all the resolutions and sanctions against him really were) have passed. So what if he was facing a threat from Iran? Weigh the options . . . "Iran or the US? If I comply with the US I might get UN help against Iran. If I lie to the US in order to save face with Iran, the US may kick my butt. Hmmmmmm. Decisions, decisions." Pride made him chose the "saving face option."

Basically, it's Saddam Hussein who is to blame for all of this because he kept screwing around, didn't do as he was ordered to do by the UN's first task force, lied, cheated, etc. The death of our troops, our debt, etc. all lay squarely on his shoulders because of his prideful actions.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 8:33 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"SignyM

Rap has serious emotional problems. He can't follow a train of logic b/c his problems will not allow him to think certain things."

This coming from Rue...

Hehhehheheh HAHAHAHAHAHAHBAHAHAHAHA

*gasp*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, but c'mon. As if ALL the regular posters here don't...

(including YOU, Rue)

Lol

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

WULF- Rue pursues all relevant facts.

RIP- thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Quote:
There's no telling WHAT his own thing would have been, but I can tell ya it wasn't planting a garden or teaching his sons how to be polite, thoughtful human beings.

Agreed. But can we also agree that calling Saddam an "imminent", "urgent" "immediate" "growing" threat was hogwash, and that the real concern was in the realm of what Saddam MIGHT do in the intermediate future?

Quote:
But he DID have a history of pursuing that type of program. He gave us absolutely NO reason to think that he wouldn't have done anything other than what he'd done in the past and that was to procure knowledge, information and material to produce WMD's.

Part of my ether-eaten post dealt with this. The fear is that Saddam would do what he'd done in the 1980s: Burst on a horrified world with previously unsuspected, covertly-produced WMD capability.

But that did NOT happen. "The world" may not have know what Saddam was up to, but our intelligence and military people certainly did. Saddam's WMD program was fostered under the protective wing of Reagan and Rumsfeld. They KNEW Saddam had chemical weapons, in fact, they helped him choose targets. When Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds, our State Department ran interference for him at the UN with its patently fabricated "Iran too" claims.

Quote:
On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, "Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas". Quoting anonymous US "senior military officers", the NYT "revealed" that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided "critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war". ... not only did Ronald Reagan's Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

If we were horrified at the prospect of Saddam using chemical weapons, what does that say about us? We helped him build and target them. Are we any better? Should we then fear ourselves? But aside from the psychological and ethical understanding that we helped create the monster and therefore it should be familiar, I think there is another lesson to be learned: I don't think it's possible for ANY nation or organization to create meaningful amounts of WMD without flags going up on someone's radar. THIS is the critical point, not only to decide whether invasion was a mistake, but also to determine our level of concern about any other rogue nation.

Quote:
And the UNMOVIC report shows clearly that Iraq wasn't even in compliance with the previous regulations set against them; that required paperwork was missing or destroyed, and that former claims didn't match current ones, that material listed as coming from domestic sources actually came from overseas, etc. And then we should trust Saddam's word that he had no connections or dealings with any terrorists EVER?

The word "trust" doesn't belong the same breathe as "international politics". Every nation has its own interests and secrets. Like Reagan said: Trust but verify.

It goes back to whether or not our surveillance programs can detect covert WMD production. The phrase "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" is commonly used. However, it's also true that you can't PROVE a negative. I have yet to definitively decide whether our surveillance programs can rule out covert WMD production beyond a reasonable doubt. (Not beyond an SHADOW of a doubt, 'cause someone will always find a way of introducing doubt, if they really want to.)

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:06 AM

America loves a winner!

I reject the term 'cowboy diplomacy'. It's based on a false image of what a cowboy is, thanks to silly Hollywood stereo types from movies.

Cowboys are resourceful, hard working and simply want to be left to live their own lives. Anyone who uses the term 'cowboy diplomacy' as to mean anyone being rash, irresponsible, and aggressive is simply an idiot, who has no clue of what they're talking about, and just wants to trash America.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:16 AM

America loves a winner!

Sig,

UNMOVIC or who ever wasn't going to get rid of Saddam. THAT was the problem, and it should have been taken care of back in '91. But because of legitimate concerns about the coalition breaking a part if we pushed any further,( and because of Powell's bleeding heart ) we called off the dogs of war. Then we screwed ourselves at the bargaining table. I believed back then what so many said at the time, that leaving Saddam in power only meant we'd be back 10 yrs later. And we were dead on right.

Saddam was absolutely going to reconstitute anything that the U.N. didn't confiscate as soon as he was 'free' to do so. There's no question Saddam was going to pick up right where he left off, and we weren't going to allow that to happen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:19 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SignyM

Rap has serious emotional problems. He can't follow a train of logic b/c his problems will not allow him to think certain things.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

I can, and usually do follow a logical train of thought. But the fact that I'm not beholden to your Left wing indoctrination is not tantamount to me having "emotional problems". You simply don't like my answers, and can't logically reply to them, so instead, you offer up nonsensical ad hominem attacks.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
UNMOVIC or who ever wasn't going to get rid of Saddam. THAT was the problem

But WHY was it a problem??? Was Saddam a bad man and a vicious tyrant? Sure. But there are plenty of vicious tyrants in the world whom we haven't deposed. So why Saddam specifically?
Did he have a history of making and using WMD? Yes, but only with our active particpation. And there are plenty of other rogue nations which already have WMD, so why Iraq specifically?
Did he invade Kuwait? Yeah, but only after we gave him the go-ahead. And there are plenty of other nations involved in cross-border incursions, so why Iraq specifically?

I saw no reason to trust Saddam, but no reason to invade either. You keep saying the same thing over and over again: Saddam had to be removed. I keep keep asking WHY? And so far, you haven't given me one, except to repeat your mantra... again... and again... and again.

So please fill in the blanks. Try to provide a FOCUSED expression of your SPECIFIC concerns, either because of what Saddam was doing at the time, or what you think he might do in the future.

We had to remove Sadam because ________ would __________.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:29 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

What the hell is that suppose to even mean? Do you even KNOW ?

It means you prolly want to err on the side of established authority rather than individuals or small groups.

Quote:
It's my OPINION, and has not one damn thing to do w/ anything remotely "authoritarian" .

Wrong.

Quote:
That's just a clever way you attempt to dismiss my views.

Nothing clever about it, merely a substantive observation.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:31 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
tantamount

Big word for a small thinker.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:35 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Did he invade Kuwait? Yeah, but only after we gave him the go-ahead.

Oh Signy, don't even go there...that's a whole 'NOTHER branch of denial. With crocks even.
Factual satellite evidence of our knowledge of his advance in that direction won't hold up to Far-Right revisionism, you MUST know that.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:01 AM

America loves a winner!

He had a history of using WMD not JUST with our participation, but also w/ other countries as well.

The claim we gave Saddam " the go ahead " to invade Kuwait is dubious , at best. We may have telegraphed him a message that he could use force to some extent, but I doubt we thought he'd go for a full scale invasion.

Clinton thought Saddam should be removed, but meekly just passed an E.O. on the issue, and didn't do much more.

We had to remove Sadam because IT WAS BELIEVE BY THE BUSH ADMIN AND MANY OTHERS IN THE PREVIOUS ADMIN THAT Saddam would likely sell/share his WMD info w/ terrorist or hostile nations. Saddam had already invaded or attacked 4 of his neighbors, including launching Scuds at Israel, which was completely outside of the conflict, and had no role what so ever in the invasion of Iraq.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
likely sell/share his WMD info w/ terrorist or hostile nations

But one must have WMD to share or sell.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:04 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Oh Signy, don't even go there...that's a whole 'NOTHER branch of denial. With crocks even.
Factual satellite evidence of our knowledge of his advance in that direction won't hold up to Far-Right revisionism, you MUST know that.

The laughing Chrisisall

So, you'll buy satellite imagery when it supports what ever dubious claim you have, that we gave Saddam the green light, but you'll dismiss it, totally out of hand, when it shows suspicious activity at supposed WMD sites.

I see how it works now.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:05 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
likely sell/share his WMD info w/ terrorist or hostile nations
But one must have WMD to share or sell.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Saddam had WMD. Ask the Kurds.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

HAD. The operative word is HAD. As in "Yesterday I HAD $1000."

The question was: Did he CURRENTLY have WMD?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:17 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
HAD. The operative word is HAD. As in "Yesterday I HAD $1000."

The question was: Did he CURRENTLY have WMD?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

And the merry-go-round circles back again.

*sigh*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Only because you refuse to get off.

Rapo, I can't sell or give away what I don't HAVE. A non-existant WMD is no threat to ... anyone. So what is your concern?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:25 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Only because you refuse to get off.

Rapo, I can't sell or give away what I don't HAVE. A non-existant WMD is no threat to ... anyone. So what is your concern?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Sig, at issue is whether or not he HAD them. Everyone, based on the intel we had, knew Saddam had them or had the means ( and more importantly, the intent ) to make them. This is why I find this topic so GOD DAMN tedious. You simply refuse to accept history and blindly cling to the UN for all your answers.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, so your problem with Saddam was his demonstrated INTENT. Do you feel, then, that at the point of invasion he was toothless in the WMD-department? That your concern was NOT that he constituted an immediate threat, but that he would be a threat in the future?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:49 AM

We know that once apone a time Saddam had Chemical and Biological weapons, after all we've still got the bill of sale.

He didn't have any at the time of the invasion though, so claiming he 'had' them being a legitimate reason to invade, is tantamount to a lie

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:57 AM

America loves a winner!

Aww...the poor widdle parrot is delirious. He's speakin' nonsense again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 12:04 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Could you answer my question please? I feel like I'm FINALLY getting a handle on your concerns, I'd like to know if I'm going off-track.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 12:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Aww...the poor widdle parrot is delirious. He's speakin' nonsense again.

Yeah, but recognising that is the first step to dealing with your problem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 12:05 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, so your problem with Saddam was his demonstrated INTENT. Do you feel, then, that at the point of invasion he was toothless in the WMD-department? That your concern was NOT that he constituted an immediate threat, but that he would be a threat in the future?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

I contend that after the MONTHS long lead up to the invasion, Iraq very well may have been free of WMD. Doesn't matter. I say what ever Saddam had was buried and / or ferreted out of the country , likely to Syria. Point is, Saddam gambled, and lost - BIG time.

*NOTE* Over a week since River posted this thread , and not once has there been ANY reply. Curious, that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 12:07 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Christ....

Saddam had enough evidence that the current (at the time) administration could hogswallow the country into warring with them.

How hard is that to understand? Did he have WMD's? Maybe. Maybe not.

But thats not the point.

The point is always so simple that I cant believe people dont get it.

You kill 1 of us... we kill 100 of you. Period.

For every U.S. citizen that dies, 100 of yours die.

Look at Vietnam, Korea, ect ect.

It may sicken the weaker of our citizens, but its still true.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 12:26 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Wulf ?

An eye for an eye till everyone is blind ?

That's ridiculous, it's an endless cycle, we kill mossdeigh, they lynch the shah, we prop up saddam, back and forth, back and forth like a pair of three year olds playing tug of war with a toy in the sandbox screamin and cryin ?

Someone has to be an adult here.

Besides which, most of the folk we're killin hated that bastard as much or more than we did, and NOW hate *us* even worse cause our actions have heaped more misery on em than the bastard we swung from a rope.

It sounds impressive, most feelgood pieces do - but it falls apart completely when held up to the realities of the situation.

That's not to say I woulda had that much an issue with dropping a Tomahawk cruise missile right smack on his podium during one of his little speeches even with a wince over collateral damage.

THAT message woulda been cheaper, more pointed, and quite easily understood with a minimum of casualties incurred.

Never for a moment forget who propped that bastard up in the first place, either.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I contend that after the MONTHS long lead up to the invasion, Iraq very well may have been free of WMD. Doesn't matter. I say what ever Saddam had was buried and / or ferreted out of the country , likely to Syria. Point is, Saddam gambled, and lost - BIG time.

And why would the man who would defiantly use those weapons, send them to another country when the one time he needed them came a knocking? So he could say "ha, take that America"? Would that be before or after he was executed?

So he had them, but he was so adversed to using them, he hid them in Syria? If he finds the idea of using these weapons so distasteful he wouldn't even use them on enemy troops invading his country, the question would be, why was the invasion necessary? It obviously wasn't to stop him using the weapons, since he was so desperate not to use them he sent them to Syria.

You can find illogical conspiracy theories in all sorts of places. The "Saddam's WMD's are buried under a berry bush in Syria" one is right up there with Kennedy being assassinated by aliens, though well above the "9/11 was an inside job" one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I contend that after the MONTHS long lead up to the invasion, Iraq very well may have been free of WMD. Doesn't matter. I say what ever Saddam had was buried and / or ferreted out of the country , likely to Syria. Point is, Saddam gambled, and lost - BIG time.

Oy. So, at the time that we invaded the WMD were off in Syria? Or buried? C'mon rapo. This is just far off the charts and into fantasyland. Even Rumsfeld didn't say that. HE thought they were deployed! (They can't be in three places at once, can they???

) And if they were in Syria they were out of Saddam's cotnrol. So... WHY did we invade, again?

Look, WMD decay. We've been through this before. Why would anyone want to send degraded Sarin or VX and spoiled liquid anthrax to Syria? Or bury them, for that matter? It's not like they would do anyone any good, or any harm. In order for Saddam to have meaningful amounts of WMD... enough to pose a security threat to anyone... he had to have been producing them through late 1990s and early 2000s. Anything else... pphhffffttt!

So, honestly, truly, what was your REAL concern again? If you want to say that you thought that Saddam would re-arm himself as soon as possible with all that oil money, just come out and say so. Do REALLY want to point to 1980s-vintage WMD as a significant problem????

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:05 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

WULF

Quote:
You kill 1 of us... we kill 100 of you. Period.

Even if I accept that... did Saddam or his soldiers KILL any of us????

Eh... no.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, so your problem with Saddam was his demonstrated INTENT. Do you feel, then, that at the point of invasion he was toothless in the WMD-department? That your concern was NOT that he constituted an immediate threat, but that he would be a threat in the future?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

[snark]
Well, saying "Saddam Hussein is an eventual threat" in the State of the Union Address just wouldn't have conveyed the urgency that the Bush Administration didn't feel...

I don't know how come you don't GET this, Signy!

[/snark]

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure", by Lightning Seeds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Aww...the poor widdle parrot is delirious. He's speakin' nonsense again.

Yes, you are speaking nonsense. Again.

Same as it ever was...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Christ....

Saddam had enough evidence that the current (at the time) administration could hogswallow the country into warring with them.

How hard is that to understand? Did he have WMD's? Maybe. Maybe not.

But thats not the point.

The point is always so simple that I cant believe people dont get it.

You kill 1 of us... we kill 100 of you. Period.

For every U.S. citizen that dies, 100 of yours die.

Look at Vietnam, Korea, ect ect.

It may sicken the weaker of our citizens, but its still true.

And speaking of "simple"... Does anyone ever say "Dee-dee-dee" to you, Wulfie?

How is it that almost eight years after 9/11, you STILL think that Osama = Saddam? How many of "us" did Saddam kill on 9/11?

And you might want to check yourself on your examples. "Look at Vietnam, Korea, etc." - you DO realize that none of your examples listed were actual victories for the U.S., right? One (Korea) was a stalemate (and still technically is in limbo); the other, we lost. Not putting your love of going to war with Iraq in too good a light, not even by your own examples!

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure", by Lightning Seeds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Anyway rapo, so far your "reasons" for invading Iraq have been

Saddam's time was up
He had WMD in the 1980s

So, REALLY, what was your concern again?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:48 PM