Inescapable Conclusion [Archive]

eeyore1954

2nd May 2007, 10:38 PM

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8409

Post By 8bitagent

9/11 points toward David Rockefeller, Kissinger, Israel and the top of the global elites.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bush. People really think these knuckleheads did 9/11? No, they...like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia just played their role.

AND THANK YOU for exposing the left. I used to be part of the left activist crowd, but you know what? &*^% em. Ive been called MORE NAMES from the so called "anti Bush" crowd than even the right wing. There WAS a time in America where the right was constitutionalist and anti government, anti nwo and anti UN...not Bush loving war mongers.

Pretty much the elite WAY at the top control BOTH Islamic terrorism and America/Britian. al Qaeda and US millitary might fight eachother, but they are puppeteered by the same groups.

Yes, Islamic terror is real...its just that its controlled, its part of the Hagelian pressure from above/below dialect, order out of chaos. Even the truthers have a hard time seeing that.

9/11 WAS an Inside Job EVEN IF the official story is true. How?
Because BOTH America and "al Qaeda" are puppeteered by the same
European/Israeli/Arab elites, bottom line folks.

They are just puppets and don't know it? Of course thats it. I am sure evidence is not needed for this profound claim.

gumboot

2nd May 2007, 10:45 PM

I knew it. The entire Crusades were nothing more than a ruse to fool us sheeple into thinking Arabs, Christians and Jews don't like each other.

The silly thing is if the NWO stopped causing untold death and destruction with their puppets - purely to fool the sheeple into thinking they don't control everything - we'd actually have unending peace and stability around the world, and no one would complain about their government.

Oh the irony.

-Gumboot

Corsair 115

3rd May 2007, 12:39 AM

Horatius

3rd May 2007, 09:30 AM

9/11 WAS an Inside Job EVEN IF the official story is true. How?
Because BOTH America and "al Qaeda" are puppeteered by the same
European/Israeli/Arab elites, bottom line folks.

Well, that's it then. We might as well close up shop, because even if we prove every single physical aspect of the attacks beyond any doubt, it's still an inside job.

"Inside what?", is my question.

grmcdorman

3rd May 2007, 09:56 AM

Well, that's it then. We might as well close up shop, because even if we prove every single physical aspect of the attacks beyond any doubt, it's still an inside job.

"Inside what?", is my question.Inside humanity, of course.

It's all an inside job! Everything! :D

gumboot

3rd May 2007, 10:04 AM

FactCheck

3rd May 2007, 11:09 AM

C'mon be fair Pomeroo. The Deniers' proposed conspiracy is not that vast.

I'd call it half-vast.I just love the artistry in your writing. :P

jaydeehess

3rd May 2007, 11:20 AM

Yes, but he did get his Medal of Freedom though, didn't he? (I think I've remembered the name of the award correctly.)

Yes he did , and yes, I believe you did.

FactCheck

3rd May 2007, 11:21 AM

It has come to my attention that the Bush administration is very, very bad at silencing critics.It's hard to stop a critic who's right. People may ask questions and expect answers.

Tenet joins a large group of people who have said the same thing.

Dick Durban as also came out saying the administration was saying one thing behind closed doors and another to the public and congress. As a member of the arms services committee and someone who was in those closed door sessions, he voted no on the war. It was illegal to say a word before the documents were declasified.

This is EXACTLY what breeds conspiracy theorists.

To me it just prove yet again how everything the administraion touches turns to a poster child for how not to do it. Why should a conspiracy to blow up the towers be any different?

negativ

3rd May 2007, 02:35 PM

OMFGWTFBBQ!

It's the evil centuries lasting all powerful humans! Be amazed by their vast organisational structure, tentacles spanning the globe. Shudder at the depths of their... er... our infiltration into...er...our societies.

Cower at their heinous plan to conquer the entire world!

The devilish fiends! Have they...er...we... no shame?

-Gumboot

You may have independently arrived at one of the core tenets of the Church of the Subgenius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subgenius).

When Subgenii speak of The Conspiracy, they are referring to the source of the world's problems... the base from which springs the hatred, the insanity, the intolerance, the indifference, and the acceptance of conditions that allow human beings to bring harm to other human beings. It's the reason people can say, in all seriousness, "MY invisible monster can beat up YOUR invisible monster, nyah nyah nyah!" and then fly passenger planes into office buildings as a sort of rhetorical flourish.

And that source is, in a nutshell, human nature itself.

It's a conspiracy, because one ignorant, chimpanzee-brained human can't do a lot of damage on a global scale by himself. He requires the willing or inadvertent cooperation of other ignorant, chimpanzee-brained humans. And the conspiracy is so insidious, that the conspirators don't even realize they're part of a conspiracy that goes back to the beginning of life on earth.

Or not.

pomeroo

3rd May 2007, 03:53 PM

Tenet has not completely exonerated himself though. Although he lays out how the Bush admin wanted war in Iraq no matter what and that they deliberatly misused and altered CIA intel to mislead Congress into this war, he did nothing at all to stop them. That makes him an accessory to any crimes committed. Coming forward several years after the fact barely counts for anything.

Tenet has been very careful to avoid saying that CIA intel was "altered" or "deliberately misused" for the simple reason that it wasn't. You apparently swallow the myth that Bush, sitting on personal approval ratings in the seventies, decided to throw his own re-election into doubt by promising to find weapons he knew weren't there. This is the left's Big Lie. It is very silly, but that doesn't stop people from mindlessly repeating it. You make use of a shabby rhetorical trope, labeling policy disagreements as "crimes," although no crimes were committed. Tenet, in his interview with O'Reilly, took pains to point out that what the Bush administartion was doing was precisely not lying. I understand that the myth that has cost you so much emotional energy is hard to abandon, but it is preposterous: politicians do not try to lose elections.

Trigood

3rd May 2007, 04:20 PM

Furcifer

3rd May 2007, 04:24 PM

Inside humanity, of course.

It's all an inside job! Everything! :D

Is that mean it's safe to take off my tin foil hat?

pomeroo

3rd May 2007, 04:36 PM

(1) What elections has Bush personally lost lately?

When a sitting President sees his party swept from control of BOTH houses of Congress as a direct result of dissatisfaction with his foreign policy, it counts as an election he lost--personally.

(2) What makes you think Bush is capable of discerning between a lie and a distortion he would like to believe?

What was the distortion that the left keeps raving about? The intelligence services of many countries--China, Russia, Germany, France, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Great Britain--concluded that Saddam had not accounted for the WMD stockpiles catalogued by the U.N. in the nineties. Granted that American intel was badly flawed, who did better? What is the real story here? Why do Bush's rabid critics pass over this issue so cavalierly? Iraq demonstrably had WMD and then--suddenly, through some process--it didn't. Will someone please explain what happened? When Clinton bombed Iraq intensively for four days in 1998, the official line was that Republican Guard barracks (i.e., troops who had no idea they were in a war) and WMD facilities were being targeted. Tell us a bit more.

The part about "Bush Lied!" that I find so dishonest and offensive is that it plainly implies that Bush had a way of knowing that the weapons he promised to find weren't really there. What was that way? Don't liars generally lie to benefit themselves? If the liars knew, with absolute certainty, that they would be exposed (weapons will either be found or they won't), why did they go ahead with the doomed deception? Why were no WMD planted?

Civilized Worm

3rd May 2007, 04:46 PM

To be honest I was rather surprised that they didn't find WMDs in Iraq. After all, we've been selling them to him for years.

FactCheck

3rd May 2007, 05:17 PM

Tenet has been very careful to avoid saying that CIA intel was "altered" or "deliberately misused" for the simple reason that it wasn't. You apparently swallow the myth that Bush, sitting on personal approval ratings in the seventies, decided to throw his own re-election into doubt by promising to find weapons he knew weren't there. This is the left's Big Lie. It is very silly, but that doesn't stop people from mindlessly repeating it. You make use of a shabby rhetorical trope, labeling policy disagreements as "crimes," although no crimes were committed. Tenet, in his interview with O'Reilly, took pains to point out that what the Bush administartion was doing was precisely not lying. I understand that the myth that has cost you so much emotional energy is hard to abandon, but it is preposterous: politicians do not try to lose elections.I'm a man whos swayed by evidence as you may well know.

So all these people are lying?

Thomas Packard, acting FBI director: Summer before 9/11, Ashcroft told him he didn’t want to hear anything more about terrorist threats.

Larry Johnson, former counter terrorism agent with the CIA: Rumsfeld set up a special office to link Iraq and Al Qaeda cherry picking Intel; evidence is sent back saying, “That’s garbage, that’s misleading, that misrepresents,” then they would take the same brief to the vice president or one even worse.

Rand Baers, National Security Council: Resigns White House post and works against Bush. He said Cheney pushed CIA "Cheney said, “Everybody knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, tell us what you know, what’s your best stuff?..”

Downing Street Memo says Bush wanted to remove Saddam though military action. “Evidence fixed around the policy” The right says "Fix" in europe means pinpoint. How can you Pinpoint "around" the policy? Absurd!

Rice, Rove, Karen Hughes, Cheney have weekly closed door meetings on how to convince the American people. Why would this need to be closed doors if the evidence is so good?

John McLaughlin, CIA deputy director: “We did not clear that particular [Niger] speech”… Tenet’s “slam dunk” does not mean what the media thinks it means. This was said on CNN WELL before the tenet book.

Michael Scheuer: Intel did not matter. We were going to war / Tenet researched 10 years worth of documents and found no connection to Al Qaeda. Tenet tells Bush / Administration yet administration continues to suggest connection. LIE!

Who is ‘Joe T’ and why was he the point man for analyzing nuclear weapon intel? Why wont they produce him?

Gregory Thielmann, State Dept intelligence: More and more people said intel on tubes was that they were no good for a nuclear weapon. Official leak saying “Mushroom Cloud” misrepresents the intelligence community disagreement. Administration continues “No doubt” he has WMD. Tenet defends erroneous evidence while others in the CIA voice doubts. State department issues strong and lengthy dissent. Niger uranium purchase “Highly Dubious.” "Intelligence agencies, get your talking points”

CIA intel notes critical gaps in the evidence because of questionable reliability of many sources,

For the first time before a modern war, Bush did not ask for National Intelligence Estimate. Congress demands it. N.I.E. said Saddam not a threat.

White House Iraq group gives only evidence which supports policy while down playing dissent.

Last minute dispute over Niger speech.

Tenet and Powell argue about intel.

Carl Ford, Asst Sec of State, Intelligence: “This is all we got? And we’re making these firm judgments?

Powell not told about Curveball. Curveball was never debriefed by the CIA.

Col. Laurence Wilkerson: Evidence brought to the UN “It was anything but an intelligence document. It was a Chinese menu where you can pick and choose what you want”

A day before Powell’s UN speech, a CIA skeptic had warned Curve Ball is a lair. A superior sends an E-mail reply saying “This war’s going to happen regardless, the powers that be probably aren’t interested whether Curve ball knows what he’s talking about.”

Powell’s speech riddled with misleading allegations. Not outright lies but worded in such a way as to mislead.

Scott Ritter, ex UNSCUM weapon inspector: The evidence for war is not there. He goes on just about every TV station trying to stop the war.

Richard Clarke: Bush wanted to connect Iraq and 9/11. Invading Iraq for 9/11 is like China attacking us and we invade Mexico.

Gen. Clark: People in the Pentagon told him Bush was going to war no matter what.

Add Tenet's new book which said his "Slam dunk" comment was about the evidence convincing the UN. In a "60 Minutes" interview: "The discusions were about how you should do this, [Iraq war] not whether you should do this." "Richard Pearl said on sept 12th "Iraq has to pay for this" while tenet had documents in his hand proving Al Qaeda committed 9/11. He did everything but say "Cherry picked".

New Memo said Bush was going to war no matter what.

Just what does it take to convince you?

It's silly to poo poo this away because his approval rating is in the toilet. This issue isn't the only one that sank his rating. Everything he touches is a disaster.

Why he did it seems clear to me. He isn't worried about todays approval ratings. He's trying to change the middle east. It's his private petri dish. It's his experiment to turn the middle east into an arab america. As if we have the moral right to kill people in other countries because his idea MIGHT work. But like everything he touches he changed it for the worse.

His own father wouldn't go in. It's well known by all that the area could blow up in sectarian violence. I was hearing this during the first gulf war by REPUBLICANS! Some are the same ones in charge today!

There is a good share of "big lies" on both sides.

* FactCheck gets off his soapbox. :)

pomeroo

3rd May 2007, 06:53 PM

To be honest I was rather surprised that they didn't find WMDs in Iraq. After all, we've been selling them to him for years.

Really, you know better. Saddam's arsenal was purchased almost entirely from France, Germany, Russia, China, and Poland(!). The U.S. accounted for a tiny percentage of it.

The Doc

4th May 2007, 12:40 AM

Worm,

Please keep your critical thinking cap on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

Russia makes up for 68.9% of arms sales to Iraq
France makes up for 12.7% of arms sales to Iraq
China makes up for 11.8% of arms sales to Iraq
Egypt makes up for 1.3% of arms sales to Iraq
The United States makes up for 0.5% of arms sales to Iraq

Other nations made up 4.8% of arms sales to Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#U.S._support_for_Iraq
Much of what Iraq received from the US, however, were not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology— mainframe computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. It is now known that a vast network of companies, based in the U.S. and elsewhere, fed Iraq's warring capabilities right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait. [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#_note-6)

The statement that the United States had been selling Iraq WMD's is categorically false. The chemical weapons were either produced in Iraq, or provided by the countries described below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#U.S._support_for_Iraq
In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries—as well as individuals—that exported chemical and biological materials to Iraq in the past two decades. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore) (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) (4,261 tons), Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) (2,400 tons), India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) (2,343 tons), and Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) (1,027 tons). One Indian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm of Singapore supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29), sarin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin), and mustard gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas) precursors and production equipment to Iraq. [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#_note-10)

Please let us stick to facts :)

gumboot

4th May 2007, 08:42 AM

The only things in terms of primary WMD resources that were supplied by the USA were minor samples of biological agents. These were approved and supplied on purely medical/scientific grounds for places such as Baghdad University.

Having said that, many other western countries were fooled in the same way - Saddam established a rather sophisticated system of false projects and fronts in order to accquire material goods and technology.

There was also a lot that I am sure some countries must have known they were supplying for weapons.

As per this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2522392&postcount=37) post:

Here's a summary of some of the contributions various nations made:

Germany
Built chemical factories and facilities
1027 tons of precursors to mustard gas, sarin, tabun, tear gas
Equipment to produce botulin toxin and mycotoxin
Centrifuge data to advance nuclear programme
Laboratory equipment etc
Culture media and incubators
In total 52% of Iraq's chemical weapons equipment came from Germany

France
Nuclear reactor
turnkey factory that produced nuclear fuel
Various equipment such as tanks etc for producing chemical weapons
Strains of duel-use biological material for biological warfare
21% of Iraq's chemical weapons equipment came from France

Italy
Plutonium extraction facilities
75,000 shells and rockets designed to carry chemical weapons
Depleted, natural, and low-enriched uranium

Switzerland
Specialised equipment for the nuclear programme, including equipment for enriching uranium to weapon grade.

Brazil
Natural uranium dioxide (without notifying IAEA)
100 tons of mustard gas

United Kingdom
Chlorine factory to produce chemical weapons
Supplied parts for an Iraqi "supergun"

Austria
Materials for enriching uranium
16% of Iraq's chemical weapons infrastructure came from Austria.

Singapore
4515 tons of precursors to VX, sarin, tabun and mustard gasses

Netherlands
4261 tons precursors to sarin, tabun, mustard and tear gasses

Egypt
2400 tons precursors to tabun and sarin
28,500 tons of weapons designed to carry chemical munitions

India
2343 tons precursors to VX, tabun, sarin and mustard gasses

Luxembourg
650 tons mustard gas precursors

Spain
57,500 weapons designed for carrying chemical weapons
4.4% of Iraq's chemical weapons infrastructure came from Spain

China
45,000 tons munitions for carrying chemical weapons

Portugal
provided yellowcake

Niger
provided yellowcake

United States of America
Provided $500 million in duel use exports intended for civilian use, including computers etc.
Biological samples including anthrax, west nile virus, botulism, Brucella melitensis, and clostridium perfringens, all intended for medical research

-Gumboot

soundaddicted

4th May 2007, 09:03 AM

Good article

washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

"U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds", Headline reads.

soundaddicted

4th May 2007, 09:16 AM

There isn't just direct sales of arms to consider. The LA times wrote

And throughout much of the period from 1982 to the end of the Reagan Administration, efforts were
made to funnel arms as well as economic aid to Baghdad -- sometimes through the Pentagon and
sometimes through U.S. allies in the Middle East. Some of the specific arms plans failed to work
but government sources said that significant quantities of arms did reach Baghdad as a result of
U.S. efforts.

casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00776.html

gumboot

4th May 2007, 09:19 AM

soundaddicted,

Welcome to the forums.

Did you read any of the above posts?

-Gumboot

soundaddicted

4th May 2007, 09:24 AM

twinstead

4th May 2007, 09:27 AM

Thankyou Gumboot. I am not impressed with wikipedia. The U.S. supplied chemical and biological weapons despite Saddam Hussein declaring he would happily use them against Iran, and then subsequent intelligence that they were being used.

And what the others on this thread are saying is that no, the US was an insignificant supplier of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq. If you want to blame somebody, blame Europe.

soundaddicted

4th May 2007, 09:33 AM

twinstead, the links I provided go into the fact that the US used other countries, including European ones such as Italy, to secretly funnel weapons into Iraq.

The Doc

4th May 2007, 09:40 AM

I'm sorry "soundaddicted" but you should have read the Wikipedia sources.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is the source Wikipedia uses.

The Washington Post article you provided shows no evidence that the United States shipped chemical and/or biological weaponry to Iraq, and nor does the second link you provided.

No one here is disputing that the United States sent Iraq conventional weapons. What we are saying though, is that they are nothing in comparison of that which was provided by other nations.

gumboot

4th May 2007, 09:57 AM

Those articles don't say what you think they say, soundaddicted.

The journalists also do not cite sources, and they make some rather blatant errors.

For example they claim that by the time of Rumsfield's December 1983 meeting with Saddam, Iraq was using chemical weapons daily. However extensive use of chemical weapons by Iraq did not commence until February 1984.

The sale of biological agents to Iraq from the USA (actually, for a private US company, merely approved by the government) is well documented. The stated purpose is documented, the amounts are documented, and the materials are documented. They were medical samples, for the University of Baghdad.

-Gumboot

FactCheck

4th May 2007, 10:35 AM

There is no question in my mind Saddam was trying to get a nuke and other WMD until 1998. After operation desert fox in 1998 he had NOTHING. This point was made by David Kay in his report to congress.

Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced -- if not entirely destroyed -- during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections. We are carefully examining dual-use, commercial chemical facilities to determine whether these were used or planned as alternative production sites.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/

The quote of dems saying he may have had WMD are almost ALL either during operation desert fox or during the vote to autorize the war to keep inspecters in.

During desert fox (And when he said Saddam had WMD) republicans said he was wagging the dog. Now they act like they're the tough guys... Heh!

So all the talk about who gave him what before 1998 is moot.

gumboot

4th May 2007, 10:46 AM

There is no question in my mind Saddam was trying to get a nuke and other WMD until 1998. After operation desert fox in 1998 he had NOTHING. This point was made by David Kay in his report to congress.

The problem is Saddam tried to pretend he still had them. Frankly, what Saddam was doing was like pointing a replica pistol at an armed cop.

Prior to 9/11, the cops were pretty sure it was a fake pistol, so they were willing to hold back and try sort things out peacefully.

After 9/11 the cops had just had their partner shot by someone else, so even though they were still pretty sure it was a fake pistol, they shot the guy anyway.

Frankly I don't blame them. I often wonder how much difficulty the world would be having with North Korea and Iran if the USA hadn't laid the smack down on Iraq for playing games for a decade (I suspect they'd have more trouble, but you never know).

Personally I think the UN should have said to Iraq something along the lines of:

"we're sick of your stupid games, and we're not going to be mocked any more. The world has changed. People have to start complying with our demands. We know you don't have WMD anymore, despite your posturing towards Iran. But don't worry, Iran isn't going to invade you. We are. You're going to become a very sharp lesson to every dictator and genocidal piece of scum who thinks they can ignore us. Play time's over."

But that's a fantasy.

-Gumboot

FactCheck

4th May 2007, 12:25 PM

The problem is Saddam tried to pretend he still had them. Frankly, what Saddam was doing was like pointing a replica pistol at an armed cop.

Prior to 9/11, the cops were pretty sure it was a fake pistol, so they were willing to hold back and try sort things out peacefully.

After 9/11 the cops had just had their partner shot by someone else, so even though they were still pretty sure it was a fake pistol, they shot the guy anyway.

Frankly I don't blame them. I often wonder how much difficulty the world would be having with North Korea and Iran if the USA hadn't laid the smack down on Iraq for playing games for a decade (I suspect they'd have more trouble, but you never know).

Personally I think the UN should have said to Iraq something along the lines of:

"we're sick of your stupid games, and we're not going to be mocked any more. The world has changed. People have to start complying with our demands. We know you don't have WMD anymore, despite your posturing towards Iran. But don't worry, Iran isn't going to invade you. We are. You're going to become a very sharp lesson to every dictator and genocidal piece of scum who thinks they can ignore us. Play time's over."

But that's a fantasy.

-GumbootThe inspecters were there to see if the pistol was real or not. Bush removed them only after 3 months.

The cops were saying his pistol was real using his crazy brother in-law who was looking for a plea bargain as evidence. A person the cops had already discredited during the previous police chiefs term in office.

The cops started searching his house but half way through the search the police chief calls it off saying they want to bulldoze the house down.

Even after the cops KNEW his pistol was fake they gave news briefings that there was no doubt it was real. Behind closed doors these cops argued about the evidence being weak but that never made it to the press.

The detective who was assigned the job to find out if the pistol was given to him by someone in another state said that wasn't so. The cops called his wife a hack who works for the NRA.

Cops have come out saying the police chief just wanted to invade the house and take his stereo.

In the end the cop raided the house and hasn't given it back to this guys family because the family demands their house back and is fighting back.

The only thing he did was accounting errors before the war. He couldn't account for some of his stockpile. We lose crap all the time in america. It's impossible to keep track of so much stuff with so many people involved. Being Iraq make the tracking even worse. Of course Hans Blix wanted to push them to see if he was hading things but they knew there was a real possibility the stuff was just lost. I remember this was being discussed before the war.

gumboot

4th May 2007, 12:33 PM

The only thing he did was accounting errors before the war. He couldn't account for some of his stockpile.

And defied UN Security Council Resolutions for a decade, and violated No Fly Zones, and seized food and medical supplies intended for his starving citizens, and executed two million of his citizens over a decade, and kidnapped members of the UN Weapons Inspection team, and continually tried to continue making illegal weapons, and continually played games with the weapons inspectors - moving evidence, delaying their arrival at sites, and so forth, and twice massed his armies as the Kuwait border...

That's all.

-Gumboot

ETA. This is delving into politics (well and truly) which isn't really suitable for this subforum. I'll say no more.

FactCheck

4th May 2007, 12:58 PM

And defied UN Security Council Resolutions for a decade, and violated No Fly Zones, and seized food and medical supplies intended for his starving citizens, and executed two million of his citizens over a decade, and kidnapped members of the UN Weapons Inspection team, and continually tried to continue making illegal weapons, and continually played games with the weapons inspectors - moving evidence, delaying their arrival at sites, and so forth, and twice massed his armies as the Kuwait border...

That's all.

-Gumboot

ETA. This is delving into politics (well and truly) which isn't really suitable for this subforum. I'll say no more.The only thing he defied was what I said, the accounting which wasn't purposeful. Did not violate the no fly zones after the inspectors were sent in. WE gave him the supples and it was our job to prevent him from steeling it. What he did pre 1990 is a moot point. Bush 1 should have gone in if it that was the reason. The other stuff was old. He knew he couldn't play games anymore.

WE did not abide by the security council resolution because we were supposed to go back to the UN before taking action. That was the resolution we signed.

I think this is relevant only because we need to be truthful about some of the things that happened and prevent CT's from taking that as evidence of conspiracy. It's not like they aren't using these things in their conspiracy theories.

pomeroo

4th May 2007, 03:32 PM

The problem is Saddam tried to pretend he still had them. Frankly, what Saddam was doing was like pointing a replica pistol at an armed cop.

Prior to 9/11, the cops were pretty sure it was a fake pistol, so they were willing to hold back and try sort things out peacefully.

After 9/11 the cops had just had their partner shot by someone else, so even though they were still pretty sure it was a fake pistol, they shot the guy anyway.

Frankly I don't blame them. I often wonder how much difficulty the world would be having with North Korea and Iran if the USA hadn't laid the smack down on Iraq for playing games for a decade (I suspect they'd have more trouble, but you never know).

Personally I think the UN should have said to Iraq something along the lines of:

"we're sick of your stupid games, and we're not going to be mocked any more. The world has changed. People have to start complying with our demands. We know you don't have WMD anymore, despite your posturing towards Iran. But don't worry, Iran isn't going to invade you. We are. You're going to become a very sharp lesson to every dictator and genocidal piece of scum who thinks they can ignore us. Play time's over."

But that's a fantasy.

-Gumboot

Nominated. This superb post hits many nails squarely on their heads. I lost 500 bucks betting that the allies would find WMD by the end of June 2003, and to this day I can't account for what happened. My confidence had very little to do with "trusting" Bush. I simply reasoned that Saddam could not conceivably allow his regime to be destroyed to protect...nothing! To date, no one has really offered a satisfactory explanation for such pointlessly suicidal behavior. During the run-up to the war, I had the uncomfortable feeling that Bush had crawled far out on a limb, and Saddam was planning to saw it off on the eve of the invasion by simply inviting the inspectors to return. If Saddam was bluffing in the hope that France, Russia, and Germany would somehow manage to pull his fat out of the fire, wasn't it time to switch to Plan B when the bluff got called? Can anyone make sense of his behavior?

gumboot

4th May 2007, 04:00 PM

The only thing he defied was what I said, the accounting which wasn't purposeful.

Nonsense. He did not cooperate with the Weapons Inspectors. What you call "accounting" the UN called material evidence that he had complied with the UN resolutions. Do you think the UN should just have taken Saddam's word for it that he had destroyed the weapons? I don't.

Did not violate the no fly zones after the inspectors were sent in.

After the inspectors were sent in? Inspectors were sent in, then kicked out, then sent in again, then kidnapped and rescued, then sent in, then kicked out FOR A DECADE. Throughout this ENTIRE time there were REPEATED violations of the no fly zone.

WE gave him the supples and it was our job to prevent him from steeling it.

By "we" I take it you mean the global community? I agree. The UN should have invaded and occupied Iraq as soon as he started seizing humanitarian aid. That way "we" could have ensured it was distributed correctly.

What he did pre 1990 is a moot point.

Every single thing I mentioned occurred after the 1991 ceasefire.

Bush 1 should have gone in if it that was the reason.

I agree. He should have. Your coalition gave him the benefit of the doubt. A mistake.

The other stuff was old.

Like I sad, everything I listed occurred after the 91 ceasefire.

He knew he couldn't play games anymore.

Saddam was still playing games right up until March 2003.

WE did not abide by the security council resolution because we were supposed to go back to the UN before taking action. That was the resolution we signed.

The meaning of the resolutions is vague, and of course there's the little matter of the 91 ceasefire - it was a ceasefire, afterall, not an armistice. If the ceasefire ends, the war continues.

However I agree with you. The USA should not have gone into Iraq without a new UN resolution. Your unilateral action cost the west badly. However, the UN should have given you that resolution, and they should have done it years ago.

I think this is relevant only because we need to be truthful about some of the things that happened and prevent CT's from taking that as evidence of conspiracy. It's not like they aren't using these things in their conspiracy theories.

Agreed.

-Gumboot

twinstead

4th May 2007, 07:44 PM

Nominated. This superb post hits many nails squarely on their heads. I lost 500 bucks betting that the allies would find WMD by the end of June 2003, and to this day I can't account for what happened. My confidence had very little to do with "trusting" Bush. I simply reasoned that Saddam could not conceivably allow his regime to be destroyed to protect...nothing! To date, no one has really offered a satisfactory explanation for such pointlessly suicidal behavior. During the run-up to the war, I had the uncomfortable feeling that Bush had crawled far out on a limb, and Saddam was planning to saw it off on the eve of the invasion by simply inviting the inspectors to return. If Saddam was bluffing in the hope that France, Russia, and Germany would somehow manage to pull his fat out of the fire, wasn't it time to switch to Plan B when the bluff got called? Can anyone make sense of his behavior?

Megalomaniacs quite often do stupid things in the face of defeat. Obviously it made more sense to Saddam to call it quits, leave his government to the wolves, and hide in a hole in the ground until 'it blew over'. This was a decision that explains his behavior from 1991 on perfectly.

With that kind of decision making, I'm surprised his rule lasted as long as it did.

twinstead

4th May 2007, 07:47 PM

BTW, perhaps some of this discussion is more suited to be cast into the demonic depths that is the politics section?

FactCheck

4th May 2007, 09:32 PM

Nominated. This superb post hits many nails squarely on their heads. I lost 500 bucks betting that the allies would find WMD by the end of June 2003, and to this day I can't account for what happened. My confidence had very little to do with "trusting" Bush. I simply reasoned that Saddam could not conceivably allow his regime to be destroyed to protect...nothing! To date, no one has really offered a satisfactory explanation for such pointlessly suicidal behavior. During the run-up to the war, I had the uncomfortable feeling that Bush had crawled far out on a limb, and Saddam was planning to saw it off on the eve of the invasion by simply inviting the inspectors to return. If Saddam was bluffing in the hope that France, Russia, and Germany would somehow manage to pull his fat out of the fire, wasn't it time to switch to Plan B when the bluff got called? Can anyone make sense of his behavior?And you just hit on the reason why I thought he may not have anything. He was a coward when push came to shove. Think about it. He gave in and let the inspectors in only one or two weeks before the autorization for the use of force. Why would he be scared enough to let inspecters in yet break the camels back? For the life of me it doesn't make sense.

The only thing he did was accounting errors. He did everything we asked but they coned us into thinking he was hiding more. He didn't allow his regime to be destroyed. He wasn't suicidal. He always protected his power. Since 1990 to his capture, he was a coward. Bush made him into a martyr.

Newtons Bit

4th May 2007, 09:41 PM

From what I understand, Saddam had only a few stockpiles and factories in 1998. Sort of like having all of his eggs in one basket. The idea is that Clinton bombed and actually got the vast majority of the stockpiles and/or factories. I forget where I got that information (some news show I'm sure), and it seems improbable, but it explains what could have happened.

jaydeehess

4th May 2007, 10:41 PM

After the inspectors were sent in? Inspectors were sent in, then kicked out, then sent in again, then kidnapped and rescued, then sent in, then kicked out FOR A DECADE. Throughout this ENTIRE time there were REPEATED violations of the no fly zone

MHO, but I believe he meant after the inspectors were sent in just prior to the invasion during which the USA allowed them barely enough time to unpack before stating that the bombing would begin resulting in the inspectors leaving but not on account of anything Saddam did this time.

The problem is Saddam tried to pretend he still had them. Frankly, what Saddam was doing was like pointing a replica pistol at an armed cop.

True, but why wouldn't he believe it would work? The coalition led by Bush1, had once been on his doorstep and that's as far as they went.

"You're going to become a very sharp lesson to every dictator and genocidal piece of scum who thinks they can ignore us. Play time's over."

That would have worked for me. Indeed that retroactivley became GWB's reasoning for the war. (which now that SH is dead has morphed into fighting Al-qada there rather than on US soil- a whole other topic) I fully expected the USA to go in to Iraq full on, to (1)take the country in 1-3 weeks, (2)lock down the borders and (3)enforce law and order while (4)infrastructure and political rebuilding began.

(1) Done!
(2) Not done, not enough forces present to do so. Rumsfeld's fault 100%
(3) Not done, basically ignored by Washington. Seems they just ,,forgot this.
(4) Corrupted, not done , Cheney's doing perhaps.

Rumsfeld knew he could do (1). everyone knew that, no contest.

They all assumed that enough other countries would join in the coalition either before the invasion or immediatly after SH was overthrown, to accomplish (2) and when that did not happen they convinced themselves it would not matter.

(3) was an Ooops. No one told the Generals that they would have to develop a plan to keep the country from the anarchy of having NO political system, no police, no judiciary,,,,,

Cheney believed that just handing out wads of money to private individuals was better than having the gov't manage the work to be done. In order to get things going quickly all 'red tape' was removed and along with it all accountability for the billions of dollars being shovelled at (4)

jaydeehess

4th May 2007, 10:58 PM

Fact is that the GWB administration's handling of all things concerning the Iraq war have been lessons in what not to do.
The troubling thing for me is that during the recent MSBNC debate your Republican candidates basically endorsed pretty much the same approach for dealing with Iran!

BTW Romney(IIRC) the Iranians may have handed the hostages back to Regan BUT under Regan's watch the USA sold the Iranians weapons!!!!!!!!!!

ETA 1)I did not know that [rant] was a valid bracket,,, kewl
2) yeah this is gonna move to the political forum ain't it.

gumboot

5th May 2007, 12:29 AM

That would have worked for me. Indeed that retroactivley became GWB's reasoning for the war. (which now that SH is dead has morphed into fighting Al-qada there rather than on US soil- a whole other topic) I fully expected the USA to go in to Iraq full on, to (1)take the country in 1-3 weeks, (2)lock down the borders and (3)enforce law and order while (4)infrastructure and political rebuilding began.

(1) Done!
(2) Not done, not enough forces present to do so. Rumsfeld's fault 100%
(3) Not done, basically ignored by Washington. Seems they just ,,forgot this.
(4) Corrupted, not done , Cheney's doing perhaps.

Good assessment.

I've read quite a few books now from reporters/soldiers involved in Iraq. When they reached Baghdad the entire operation fell to pieces.

A particular pair of books (one written by an embedded journalist with 1st Recon Marines, the other written by the same unit's Lieutenant) really illustrates it well.

They would be given a sector to police, stabilise, establish links with the locals etc... and two days later they'd be moved some place else. They'd be made to remain indoors when things got dangerous. They'd be sent to visit numerous villages, but without the mission flexibility to actually assist the villagers with things that might be useful. This particular LT, on one occasion, decided [rule8] it, and stopped for several hours at a village to dispose of some unexploded ordinance. After that the villagers thought the Americans were the bee's knees. More of that sort of thing was needed.

They right-royally screwed up the occupation. All of the good law-abiding Iraqi citizens and soldiers handed over their weapons to the liberators they welcomed with open arms. The USA had a duty, thus, to protect them. Instead they left the civilians open to kidnappers, thieves, organised crime, paramilitaries, and terrorists - all of whom didn't hand over their weapons.

The first weeks of the occupation were crucial, and the plan failed to account for it. The Coalition went from loved liberators to hated occupiers in the space of a couple of weeks.

-Gumboot

jaydeehess

5th May 2007, 08:55 AM

I lay the blame for the [rule 8]-up right at the feet of Rumsfeld(#1) and Bush/Cheney(#2,#3).

Rumsfeld chose, over the objections on many a seasoned military officer, including Powell, to pursue this war, that Bush and Cheney so dearly wanted even before the election, on the cheap. No upgrades to the vehicles prior to deployment, only enough forces to over run the Iraqi forces and a heavy reliance on technological advantages.

Cheney fully expected the Americans to be so loved for ousting Saddam that he believed that there would be no problem with an insurgency and that policing this country would be easy.

Bush just went along with Cheney. Bush usually just goes along with what ever Cheney says. Sure, he is the decider and he usually decides to take Cheney's advice.

What are the titles of those books gumboot?

FactCheck

5th May 2007, 10:56 AM

Nonsense. He did not cooperate with the Weapons Inspectors. What you call "accounting" the UN called material evidence that he had complied with the UN resolutions. Do you think the UN should just have taken Saddam's word for it that he had destroyed the weapons? I don't.

How can you say he didn't cooperate? Was there a chemical factory or other WMD production underway, or large hidden caches of usable WMD? NO! All the evidence points to his losing track of his stuff over 10 years.

"Scott Ritter, the former U.N. weapons inspector, Kyra, has accused the U.S. of not taking into account that there are going to be -- quote -- "accounting errors," that there's no way to keep track of everything, and that a lot of it would have expired or gone out of force due the nature of 10 years sitting on a shelf. You can find a lot of opinions on chemical or biological. Those are two of the big areas. The weapons inspectors have had major questions. That's where a lot of the gaps are in the weapons inspectors conclusions of the Iraqi 12,000-page declaration"

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/16/bn.06.html

Please show me something he did after the inspectors went in...

I remind you he was right about EVERYTHING and they called his a child molester in answer to his statement. Character assassination always raises a red flag for me.

After the inspectors were sent in? Inspectors were sent in, then kicked out, then sent in again, then kidnapped and rescued, then sent in, then kicked out FOR A DECADE. Throughout this ENTIRE time there were REPEATED violations of the no fly zone.

Which Bush himself said the autorization for the use of force was to stop that from happening and by all accounts it did. Can you point to an example of him stoping inspectors from going somewhere AFTER the use of force was authorized? If you can't then it doesn't matter what he did before then.

By "we" I take it you mean the global community? I agree. The UN should have invaded and occupied Iraq as soon as he started seizing humanitarian aid. That way "we" could have ensured it was distributed correctly.

That's a moot point because we didn't invade because of the aid. We were told it was hiding WMD. If you told the American people we could invade Iraq instead or fix how we gave humanitarian aid I'm sure the American people would chose the latter.

Every single thing I mentioned occurred after the 1991 ceasefire.I should have been clearer on this. The things you mentioned that he did after 1990 are moot because he had nothing after 1998. We invaded in 2003. So adding things he did before the authorization for the use of force and the inspectors were sent in means nothing. He needed to do SOMETHING for us to invade AFTER the authorization for the use of force.

I agree. He should have. Your coalition gave him the benefit of the doubt. A mistake.My coalition? Sorry but it was our Bush 1's staff who told him not to go in. They said the same thing that is happening now would have happened then and this little controlled experiment we're in right now proves they was right.

Like I sad, everything I listed occurred after the 91 ceasefire.Like I said, moot point for the reasons I gave.

Saddam was still playing games right up until March 2003."Accounting errors" is not Saddam playing games. That was the evidence which was fixed around the policy. The Bush administration is no better than a CT playing with words, quotes and facts to achieve a goal. They did everything but write a book called "Unanswered questions: Does Saddam have WMD?"

The meaning of the resolutions is vague, and of course there's the little matter of the 91 ceasefire - it was a ceasefire, after all, not an armistice. If the ceasefire ends, the war continues.Yes, it was a CEASEFIRE and they CEASED FIREING. WE were the ones who continued firing.

However I agree with you. The USA should not have gone into Iraq without a new UN resolution. Your unilateral action cost the west badly. However, the UN should have given you that resolution, and they should have done it years ago.Agreed. It would have been very different if Bush waited until Saddam screwed up again. I would have been 100% behind him as I'm sure most of the world would have been. But it's obvious to me he wanted to go in before the world found out he had nothing to go in for.

gumboot

5th May 2007, 12:55 PM

I lay the blame for the [rule 8]-up right at the feet of Rumsfeld(#1) and Bush/Cheney(#2,#3).

Agree completely...

They clearly demonstrated to the entire world how easily it is to turn victory into defeat... :mad:

What are the titles of those books gumboot?

The first is Generation Kill (http://www.amazon.com/Generation-Kill-Evan-Wright/dp/042520040X/ref=sr_1_1/104-8915657-4203162?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178390287&sr=8-1) by reporter Evan Wright (Rolling Stone Magazine). This specifically covers the actual invasion of Iraq, up until a short while after reaching Baghdad.

He was with the 1st Recon Marines, who travelled their own unique path up the most inhabited parts of Iraq - the intention to stir up a hornet's nest and draw the enemy away from the main thrust.

The other is One Bullet Away: The Making Of A Marine Officer (http://www.amazon.com/One-Bullet-Away-Making-Officer/dp/0618773436/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8915657-4203162?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178390410&sr=1-1) by Nathaniel Fick. Fick was the Lieutenant of the platoon Wright was embedded with.

Fick's book covers his entire brief military career, which included being first on the ground in Afghanistan. That part of the story offers some interesting insight - it especially illustrates how it was that Osama Bin Laden and others got away.

Reading the two is very interesting in terms of the Iraq stuff. Wright assisted Fick with his book, and they're recalling the exact same events, yet their stories are very different (not as in, one of them is lying, just a totally different perspective).

Another worthy mention is My War: Killing Time In Iraq (http://www.amazon.com/My-War-Killing-Time-Iraq/dp/0425211363/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8915657-4203162?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178390612&sr=1-1) by Colby Buzzell of "My War" blog (http://cbftw.blogspot.com/) fame.

His book also tells his whole career story, a mix of new narrative and entries from his actual blog. He was a gunner with the first Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Mosul. His is a nice angle because his experience was entirely occupation and post invasion, unlike Wright and Fick.

-Gumboot

gumboot

5th May 2007, 01:18 PM

Which Bush himself said the autorization for the use of force was to stop that from happening and by all accounts it did. Can you point to an example of him stoping inspectors from going somewhere AFTER the use of force was authorized? If you can't then it doesn't matter what he did before then.

I have to confess I have no idea what you're referring to by this "authorisation to use force".

That's a moot point because we didn't invade because of the aid. We were told it was hiding WMD.

Yes I know. I felt the admin's justification for war was weak (and false, obviously). I personally felt there were legitimate justifications for war (I'm aware most in this forum would not agree with me on that), however the primary arguments pushed by the administration were not them.

If you told the American people we could invade Iraq instead or fix how we gave humanitarian aid I'm sure the American people would chose the latter.

Oh, I don't know, it was convincing enough in Somalia. Had CNN decided to broadcast footage of starving Iraqi children instead of starving Somali children I am sure the USA would have done something way back when.

The reality is the only solution to the humanitarian aid problem was to have UN troops in Iraq, in force.

I should have been clearer on this. The things you mentioned that he did after 1990 are moot because he had nothing after 1998. We invaded in 2003. So adding things he did before the authorization for the use of force and the inspectors were sent in means nothing. He needed to do SOMETHING for us to invade AFTER the authorization for the use of force.

I don't know what this authorisation of force thing is, you're referring to. Are you meaning an authorisation by Congress or something?

Bear in mind I'm looking at Iraq from the POV of the international community (specifically the UN), not the POV of the United States.

My coalition? Sorry but it was our Bush 1's staff who told him not to go in. They said the same thing that is happening now would have happened then and this little controlled experiment we're in right now proves they was right.

Well, not really. When the USA decided not to go in last time they had over 800,000 troops inside or near the border of Iraq, including over half a million Americans. They had the full support of the United Nations and the Arab League. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain all provided troops to the Persian Gulf War.

The only reason Iraq failed this time was because of lack of manpower and lack of support from surrounding nations.

Yes, it was a CEASEFIRE and they CEASED FIREING. WE were the ones who continued firing.

That's not how a ceasefire works.

Agreed. It would have been very different if Bush waited until Saddam screwed up again. I would have been 100% behind him as I'm sure most of the world would have been. But it's obvious to me he wanted to go in before the world found out he had nothing to go in for.

Personally I think by 2003 it was too late. The opportunities to take Iraq out were well before 9/11.

The first, obviously, was 1991.

Between 1991 and 1996 the US 3rd Army responded FIVE TIMES to deter Iraqi ground force build ups (including Operation Vigilant Guardian I and II (1994 and 1995 respectively).

Again in 1998 the US had to give a show of force to get Iraq to tow the line, hence Operation Desert Fox.

Ruthless dictators who have invaded sovereign nations and are refusing to comply with UNSC resolutions regarding illegal weapons should not get 6 chances. They should get 1, at most.

Invading Iraq after 9/11 was stupid. Not only did the war become highly unpopular and detract from the operations in Afghanistan, but because people link the two together, the "War on Terror" has become highly unpopular as well.

-Gumboot

twinstead

5th May 2007, 03:28 PM

Miragememories

5th May 2007, 04:04 PM

To me, the primary reason, no matter what the administration says, was to insert a large force of US military smack dab in the middle of a region hostile to us in order to try to create a front on the war on terror there instead of domestically.

The idea was to invade Afghanistan first, then invade and install a puppet government in Iraq, maintain forward bases in both places, and pursue our war right in the middle of the enemy's home turf on two fronts.

In other words, I think it was a military excursion, plain and simple--with 911 used to help justify. When you think about it, in some ways it was a bold move. In other ways it was ill-advised.

I don't think it will succeed entirely, if at all, but Normandy could have failed as well.

I think you are partially right.

The primary reason was certainly to install a large force of US military but I have no idea what this 'war on terror' you refer to is all about.

I saw a war on future oil shortages.

Afghanistan was a pipeline country, but Iraq was the real prize.

Your words "plain and simple"..especially "simple" accurately describe your analysis of what was going on.

Even if a million Iraqi's die the U.S. will bring them pseudo democracy..and if the U.S. permanent military bases secure access to the last major oil reserves in the world..well that's merely a convenient coincidence...duh

Normandy could have failed, and the nukes they dropped on Japan might not have detonated as well.

The planes might have missed the towers.

The supreme court might have made Gore president.

The world could have been a better place.

Pipe dreams!

MM

twinstead

5th May 2007, 05:08 PM

I think you are partially right.

The primary reason was certainly to install a large force of US military but I have no idea what this 'war on terror' you refer to is all about.

I saw a war on future oil shortages.

Afghanistan was a pipeline country, but Iraq was the real prize.

Your words "plain and simple"..especially "simple" accurately describe your analysis of what was going on.

Even if a million Iraqi's die the U.S. will bring them pseudo democracy..and if the U.S. permanent military bases secure access to the last major oil reserves in the world..well that's merely a convenient coincidence...duh

Normandy could have failed, and the nukes they dropped on Japan might not have detonated as well.

The planes might have missed the towers.

The supreme court might have made Gore president.

The world could have been a better place.

The motives for the invasion are colored by ones ideology. Of course, you are ideologically predisposed to discount the idea of a war on terror, to discount the threat of terrorism, because to acknowledge that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were an action by a party who is involved in a legitimate war (ill advised or not) is anathema to what you believe in. To do so would not allow you your mantra of "the US is evil".

That's okay as long as you understand that.

FactCheck

5th May 2007, 05:09 PM

I have to confess I have no idea what you're referring to by this "authorisation to use force".

The congress didn't vote for war. They voted for the authorization to use force. 1441 and the authorisation are tied together in that if he didn't abide by 1441 we were supposed to go back to the UN and vote on taking action. It's clear from the downing street memos that he was going in regardless of what anyone did or said.

Yes I know. I felt the admin's justification for war was weak (and false, obviously). I personally felt there were legitimate justifications for war (I'm aware most in this forum would not agree with me on that), however the primary arguments pushed by the administration were not them.

Cool, intelligent people can agree which makes us better than CT's. :P

Oh, I don't know, it was convincing enough in Somalia. Had CNN decided to broadcast footage of starving Iraqi children instead of starving Somali children I am sure the USA would have done something way back when.

That's a perfect example. We were there on STRICTLY humanitarian reasons and NOT to remove the Somali leaders. When the fighting broke out so did we. The major point is the American people did not want us to stay and fight in their civil war. The congress run by Republicans at that time would have never voted for war OR the authorization for force.

The reality is the only solution to the humanitarian aid problem was to have UN troops in Iraq, in force.We will have to respectfully agree to disagree here. We could have forced Saddam to let us take over the program without a shot fired. But that's something we'll never know because we didn't try.

I don't know what this authorisation of force thing is, you're referring to. Are you meaning an authorisation by Congress or something?

Yes. I don't say it was a vote for war because there is another vote they could have had which would have been an actual vote for war. I try to call it what it is.

Well, not really. When the USA decided not to go in last time they had over 800,000 troops inside or near the border of Iraq, including over half a million Americans. They had the full support of the United Nations and the Arab League. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain all provided troops to the Persian Gulf War.

The only reason Iraq failed this time was because of lack of manpower and lack of support from surrounding nations.This is not a "this time". We never took over the country before.

We are both right. You are right in that one of the reasons not to go in was because of our coalition breaking apart. I am right because even though we couldn't do it together, the reason we didn't do it alone was because the same thing which is happening now is what would have happened then and they knew it...

Dick Cheney, made the same point:

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

not how a ceasefire works.That may or may not be true but it's a moot point because we didn't go in when we had a reason too. 1441said if he was a good boy from here on out we would have let him play king. He was a good boy but we still invaded.

Personally I think by 2003 it was too late. The opportunities to take Iraq out were well before 9/11.

The first, obviously, was 1991.

Between 1991 and 1996 the US 3rd Army responded FIVE TIMES to deter Iraqi ground force build ups (including Operation Vigilant Guardian I and II (1994 and 1995 respectively).

Again in 1998 the US had to give a show of force to get Iraq to tow the line, hence Operation Desert Fox.

Ruthless dictators who have invaded sovereign nations and are refusing to comply with UNSC resolutions regarding illegal weapons should not get 6 chances. They should get 1, at most.

Invading Iraq after 9/11 was stupid. Not only did the war become highly unpopular and detract from the operations in Afghanistan, but because people link the two together, the "War on Terror" has become highly unpopular as well.

-Gumboot

There was more than one way to take Saddam out. We could have trained people from his own country to take him out. There are options between war and no war which people never consider.

The important thing here is that truthers use the administrations cherry picking/lies about WMD/terrorism as a tool the same way Osama uses Iraq. If we are truthful about this as you are we take away their argument. Think about it, are they more likely to believe someone who says the administration didn't lie and conflate 9/11 with Iraq? Someone who doesn't recognize the evidence which IS real. Or are they going to believe someone who sees the evidence, agrees with them on that but explains it without including bombs?

Civilized Worm

5th May 2007, 05:14 PM

Really, you know better. Saddam's arsenal was purchased almost entirely from France, Germany, Russia, China, and Poland(!). The U.S. accounted for a tiny percentage of it.

I'm not from the US, when I said "we" I meant the western world in general.

ETA: Anyway "everyone else was doing it too!" isn't a very good excuse.

FactCheck

5th May 2007, 05:38 PM

To me, the primary reason, no matter what the administration says, was to insert a large force of US military smack dab in the middle of a region hostile to us in order to try to create a front on the war on terror there instead of domestically.

The idea was to invade Afghanistan first, then invade and install a puppet government in Iraq, maintain forward bases in both places, and pursue our war right in the middle of the enemy's home turf on two fronts.

In other words, I think it was a military excursion, plain and simple--with 911 used to help justify. When you think about it, in some ways it was a bold move. In other ways it was ill-advised.

I don't think it will succeed entirely, if at all, but Normandy could have failed as well.The problem I have with that is that they already invaded Afghanistan. (A war I was 100% behind. I thought we should have invaded long before 9/11) Why not use the place the terrorists were already using if that was the plan? Why create more terrorists in Iraq? Why give Osama "SEE! I told you! They're out to take away our land for oil!". Why thin out our forces to give terrorists hope?

The day we invaded Iraq, Osama said "Mission Accomplisted!" What he's doing to us is what he did to the USSR. "Death by a thousand cuts." We are playing right into his hands.

There is a big difference between a country like germany actively swallowing up other countries and the coward Saddam. Just as there is a big difference between Afghanistan hidding Osama's training camps and Saddam boxed up in a corner.

It was the most immoral thing a president can do. Invade a country to carry out a "bold experiment". Even if it worked, who are we to kill people in order to see if the middle east can change? What if China tried this bold move on us or our family? When your family is killed will you say "Well, it might work out for the best"... I doubt it.

As much as I hate Bush, if China was to invade America to remove him I'd be one bad ass American terrorist. And any American who sided with China would be just as dead. Whatever the country you're from, I'm sure you feel the same way if another country removed your leader.

twinstead

5th May 2007, 06:09 PM

The problem I have with that is that they already invaded Afghanistan. (A war I was 100% behind. I thought we should have invaded long before 9/11) Why not use the place the terrorists were already using if that was the plan? Why create more terrorists in Iraq? Why give Osama "SEE! I told you! They're out to take away our land for oil!". Why thin out our forces to give terrorists hope?

The day we invaded Iraq, Osama said "Mission Accomplisted!" What he's doing to us is what he did to the USSR. "Death by a thousand cuts." We are playing right into his hands.

There is a big difference between a country like germany actively swallowing up other countries and the coward Saddam. Just as there is a big difference between Afghanistan hidding Osama's training camps and Saddam boxed up in a corner.

It was the most immoral thing a president can do. Invade a country to carry out a "bold experiment". Even if it worked, who are we to kill people in order to see if the middle east can change? What if China tried this bold move on us or our family? When your family is killed will you say "Well, it might work out for the best"... I doubt it.

As much as I hate Bush, if China was to invade America to remove him I'd be one bad ass American terrorist. And any American who sided with China would be just as dead. Whatever the country you're from, I'm sure you feel the same way if another country removed your leader.

You have a valid point, of course.

Like I said, it may very well have been ill-advised, but I think the administration's rational is pretty close to what I said. That said, at the risk of Godwining the thread, one could counter with the question what if the powers of 1935 would have got together and recognized that Hitler was a serious threat to European and world stability, and invaded Nazi Germany and 'taken him out'?

It's all a matter of the boy who cried wolf. How should the world deal with rogue nations and leaders? How can we know if a rogue leader will become another Hitler or fade into obscurity without fanfare? How many chances should we give them? What should the UN do to be assured that their resolutions aren't laughed at?

Miragememories

5th May 2007, 06:38 PM

The motives for the invasion are colored by ones ideology. Of course, you are ideologically predisposed to discount the idea of a war on terror, to discount the threat of terrorism, because to acknowledge that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were an action by a party who is involved in a legitimate war (ill advised or not) is anathema to what you believe in. To do so would not allow you your mantra of "the US is evil".

That's okay as long as you understand that.

Colored by my ideology..lol.

How many terrorists, terrorist activities, terrorist plans, etc. were sourced to Iraq?????

Nada one!

9/11 happens. Osama gets stickered as the architect. Osama lives in a cave in Afghanistan, ipso facto Afghanistan becomes the target country because it harbors the terrorist organization judged guilty of 9/11 and thus the target for the U.S. retaliatory response.

But Bush and Company want Iraq because oil is more lucrative than poppies. Iraq is a tougher sell because Osama and his boys don't party with the Iraqi's. Time for some 'lies of mass distortion' backed by the emergency powers gained from 9/11.

Your welcome to say you believe the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terror. I find it difficult to believe any 'thinking' person really believes that. I'm sure Bush himself has to be constantly reminded what is public explanation for doing so is.

I certainly do not think the U.S. is evil! I have always had the deepest fondness for the U.S. and Americans. For the longest time I wished somehow my country (Canada) could join with the U.S.

No, my problem is with the American power elite who currently control the country, the lives of it's citizens, and who seriously threaten the current and future stability of the world.

MM

twinstead

5th May 2007, 07:17 PM

Colored by my ideology..lol.

How many terrorists, terrorist activities, terrorist plans, etc. were sourced to Iraq?????

Nada one!

9/11 happens. Osama gets stickered as the architect. Osama lives in a cave in Afghanistan, ipso facto Afghanistan becomes the target country because it harbors the terrorist organization judged guilty of 9/11 and thus the target for the U.S. retaliatory response.

But Bush and Company want Iraq because oil is more lucrative than poppies. Iraq is a tougher sell because Osama and his boys don't party with the Iraqi's. Time for some 'lies of mass distortion' backed by the emergency powers gained from 9/11.

Your welcome to say you believe the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terror. I find it difficult to believe any 'thinking' person really believes that. I'm sure Bush himself has to be constantly reminded what is public explanation for doing so is.

I certainly do not think the U.S. is evil! I have always had the deepest fondness for the U.S. and Americans. For the longest time I wished somehow my country (Canada) could join with the U.S.

No, my problem is with the American power elite who currently control the country, the lives of it's citizens, and who seriously threaten the current and future stability of the world.

MM

So, you don't think there was any military expediency, regardless if Iraq was the source of terrorism or not, to having a military presence there? You really think that oil is the only possible reason to have a military presence in Iraq? LOL right back

And dude. I've read your posts for months on this board; colored by ideology is an apt term for some of the things you type. Not saying anybody of the opposite persuasion is any different; anybody who has an ideological bent in my opinion is biased, that includes both left and right winger. You're just the mirror image of a rabid right-wing jingoist.