US military action likely caused birth defects in Fallujah, Iraq

[BVS]

Resolution 155130945872340597

Clinton video

Resolution 1230498723409732

Clinton video

>>> set on repeat






























There I'm done.

 

[deep]

YouTube - ‪President Clinton orders attack on Iraq‬‎

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and far all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of in-action. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. SADDAM WILL STRIKE AGAIN at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people, and mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them.

President Bill Clinton
December 16, 1998

yes, Bill Clinton was an outstanding President, I remember 1998 fairly well.

Amazing that he had the skills to accomplish so much while facing a relentless unjustified personal attacks

can you give me some context for Dec 1998?

Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999

what was the jest of this one speech, that weapons inspectors should continue inspecting and prevent Saddam from rearming?

that Iraqis should try to replace Saddam,


Presidents have called for people of different countries to change their governments, Iran, North Korea, several African countries, come to mind.

and for decades Presidents have been calling for Castro's ouster in Cuba.

 

[maycocksean]

i still don't buy it Sean, do you?

(and, please, see if you can respond for once without the vicious personal attacks that you're so famous for, lest i have to take out my ruler and rap your delinquent knuckles)

I'll try to refrain from further ugliness.

No, I don't buy it. The arguments that have been put forth are unchanging--despite their obvious ineffectivness--and rigid. It's like Inception. He creates this false alternate reality, this architecture if you will,and then fills them with a collection of actual facts.

I am convinced that Saddam was a bad guy. I am convinced that he did horrible things to his own people and invaded neighboring countries. I am also convinced that Saddam's number one goal was to perpetuating his own rule. I am convinced that he was not a religious fanatic willing to give his life in the service of some higher cause. I am convinced that Saddam was a ruthless pragmatist. Thus I am convinced that Saddam would not have used WMD on other countries, much less our own, because it would have suicide for him to do so. He might have tried to become an Iran or North Korea, using the "threat" of mass destruction as a way to shoulder his way amongst the international power players. I am convinced he would have blustered a lot, made enough noise to get attention, but not enough to merit an actual attack on his power. I am convinced that continuing to use other means to keep him in check would have been sufficient. I am convinced that we were misled about the reasons that we should go to war in Iraq.

I am not sure whether Iraq is better or worse off without Saddam--my guess is that depends on who you talk to in Iraq. I'm sure the Kurds and Shi'ites are happier with this arrangment. I am not convinced that the region is more stable with him gone. I am not convinced that our nation is better off for having gone to war in Iraq. I am not convinced that we should have gone to war in Iraq. And I'm quite familiar with the same evidence that's been trotted out to the contrary over and over again, so unless there is some new arguments to be made, I'm afraid I won't be convinced. I am however, open to such new arguments if any posters have them.

 

[Irvine511]

I'll try to refrain from further ugliness.

you know i was kidding, right?

 

[Irvine511]

and in other news, i still don't see the case for invading Iraq. it's all predicated on fantasies and imagined worst-case scenarios, rather than concrete facts and evidence.

we simply don't have the blood and treasure to pour into sand traps, and by doing so we've exposed the limits of US power and greatly reduced our soft power.

sorry. still not buying it.

you'd think after all these years and these repetitious posts that someone would be on board. but as the years have gone by, not so much.

guess the argument was weak from the beginning. oh well. now we know.

 

[Dreadsox]

Saddam did use WMD...how can you conclude he would not?

 

[maycocksean]

you know i was kidding, right?

I did.

 

[maycocksean]

Saddam did use WMD...how can you conclude he would not?

So have we.

The issue for me is less whether Saddam ever had or used WMD and more about whether he was likely to use them against us or anyone that would cause us to feel duty-bound to come after him.

 

[Strongbow]

yes, Bill Clinton was an outstanding President, I remember 1998 fairly well.

Amazing that he had the skills to accomplish so much while facing a relentless unjustified personal attacks

can you give me some context for Dec 1998?



what was the jest of this one speech, that weapons inspectors should continue inspecting and prevent Saddam from rearming?

that Iraqis should try to replace Saddam,


Presidents have called for people of different countries to change their governments, Iran, North Korea, several African countries, come to mind.

and for decades Presidents have been calling for Castro's ouster in Cuba.

Every time Saddam failed to cooperate with UN inspectors or failed to meet his obligations under the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement, it was an example of Saddam defying the world.

What Bill Clinton said below is true:

The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and far all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

North Korea is not in violation of any UN Security Council resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the UN. North Korea has not invaded another country in 60 years, and its not used WMD against another country. Saddam's Iraq over the past couple of decades went to war multiple times against countries in the region and threatened resources that are vital to the economic survival of the planet. Saddam has used WMD against another country. The threat posed by Saddam was far greater than any of the other countries you listed given the facts of Saddams open agreession and use of WMD against other countries.

In addition, the Iraqi people NEVER had the capability to overthrow Saddam on their own do to the strength of Saddam's police state and military forces. The only way that Saddam could be removed was through a US led military invasion of the country.

 

[hiphop]

duh, there´ll be civil war in Iraq for the next 10 years minimum. i don´t even want to count all the victims , every second day we hear a bomb has been planted here and there and everywhere, 40 dead, 80 dead, 100 school children dead.

the whole plan of the U.S. must have been to destabilize the region. hooray!

 

[Strongbow]

I'll try to refrain from further ugliness.

No, I don't buy it. The arguments that have been put forth are unchanging--despite their obvious ineffectivness--and rigid. It's like Inception. He creates this false alternate reality, this architecture if you will,and then fills them with a collection of actual facts.

Please, can you explain what this "false alternate reality" is? What did I say that was "false". Name one thing!

I am convinced that Saddam was a bad guy. I am convinced that he did horrible things to his own people and invaded neighboring countries.

What were your feelings on the 1991 Gulf War? Did you support it, unlike most democrats that opposed it? If you did support it, what were some of your reasons for supporting it?

I am also convinced that Saddam's number one goal was to perpetuating his own rule. I am convinced that he was not a religious fanatic willing to give his life in the service of some higher cause. I am convinced that Saddam was a ruthless pragmatist.

Well, can you explain why a "ruthless pragmatist" would invade Iran in 1980? Why would someone so interested in the self preservation of their rule take a risk like that? Why would a "ruthless pragmatist" after a devestating 8 year war then invade Kuwait and annex the country starting a conflict with the United States and the international community as well as bringing his country under international sanctions. Whats the pratical benefit in doing this? How does it ensure the survival of himself and his regime?

After losing the 1991 Gulf War, why would this "ruthless pragmatist" defy the international community and refuse to comply with the UN resolutions? All this did was increase the likely hood of more US military action. And it came in the form of airstrikes and finally a ground invasion which removed the regime in 2003.

A ruthless pragmatist would not have spent two decades invading and attacking other countries in the region and going to war with the United States which finally removed him. The safe conservative approach would have been for a leader in Iraq to develop the Iraqi oil industry and other natural resources. Invading and attack other countries is risky under any circumstances, let alone doing it to simply increase ones power.

If Saddam was ever interested in self preservation, he never showed anyone through his actions. The only true threat to Saddam's regime was a US military invasion of the country. Despite that fact, Saddam continued to engage in activites to make that day come true up to the time of his removal from power.

Thus I am convinced that Saddam would not have used WMD on other countries, much less our own, because it would have suicide for him to do so

WOW, LOL, WOW. For someone who frets over unchanging arguements and facts, its interesting to note that after all this time that your ignorant of the fact that SADDAM ALREADY HAD USED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AGAINST ANOTHER COUNTRY![/U]

He might have tried to become an Iran or North Korea, using the "threat" of mass destruction as a way to shoulder his way amongst the international power players.

Saddam's regime was far ahead of both Iran and North Korea because Saddam's regime used WMD on the battlefield against foreign troops!!!!!!

Iran and North Korea have NEVER amassed the same amount of conventional and unconventional military strength and used in an area of the world vital to its economic survival, in the way that Saddam's regime did.

 

[Diemen]

After 7 years of rehashing the same argument over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, I think it's safe to say that no one is changing their minds.

I'm not convinced, Irvine's not convinced, sean's not convinced, and I daresay I don't think any of us are looking to argue with you about it either. We know your position. We just happen to disagree with it.

Let it go, Sting.

 

[Strongbow]

duh, there´ll be civil war in Iraq for the next 10 years minimum. i don´t even want to count all the victims , every second day we hear a bomb has been planted here and there and everywhere, 40 dead, 80 dead, 100 school children dead.

the whole plan of the U.S. must have been to destabilize the region. hooray!

there is not a civil war in Iraq now, and most say that the events of 2006-2007 could not be viewed as a civil war. Far more Iraqi's were killed during the reign of Saddam Hussien than any who have died. There have been months during 2010 when the death rate in Iraq was lower than the death rate in the United States.

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the oil wealth they sit on top of is far more secure now that Saddam has been removed.

 

[Strongbow]

I am convinced he would have blustered a lot, made enough noise to get attention, but not enough to merit an actual attack on his power.

It was already determined with the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire Agreement that if Saddam crossed certain lines in the sand with regard to his cooperation, that military action would resume. These lines came well before invading or attacking another country. The international community had already been through that before with Saddam and the object was to PREVENT that from happening again. The goal was to respond before an invasion or attacked occured, not to wait until after a tragedy like that occured before responding.

I am convinced that continuing to use other means to keep him in check would have been sufficient.

As has already been explained here in detail, the sanctions and weapons embargo meant to try to contain him had collapsed! So what other means are you talking about?

I am not sure whether Iraq is better or worse off without Saddam--my guess is that depends on who you talk to in Iraq. I'm sure the Kurds and Shi'ites are happier with this arrangment.

Take a look at Saddam's history. You'll learn what Iraq was like for 24 years and how he put millions of people through war, torture, starvation, chemical attack. The highest accurate estimate for all deaths in Iraq over the past 7 years is 200,000. The number of Iraqi's who died in the first four months of 1991 from the Gulf War and uprisings in the country afterword, 400,000.

According to the United Nations, Iraq today has a standard of living equal to that of Morocco based on its life expectancy, GDP per capita, and education level. The country has bright opportunities now for development that did not exist while Saddam was in power.

Kurds and Shia make up 80% of Iraq. I think there is only a small fraction of Sunni's today that actually wish Saddam was still in power.

I am not convinced that the region is more stable with him gone.

Well look at from the perspective of Kuwait. Do you think Kuwait would be safer and more secure if Saddam were still in power today?

I am not convinced that our nation is better off for having gone to war in Iraq. I am not convinced that we should have gone to war in Iraq.

Are you convinced that leaving Saddam in power in 2003 would have been better for US national security, the region, and the safety and security of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? How does leaving Saddam in power improve security?

And I'm quite familiar with the same evidence that's been trotted out to the contrary over and over again, so unless there is some new arguments to be made, I'm afraid I won't be convinced.

It does not seem like your very familiar with the evidence at all when you state above that Saddam had never used WMD against another country.

Your ability to make an accurate assement about Iraq or the region will continued to be compromised as long as you remain ignorant of the basic history.

 

[maycocksean]

Your ability to make an accurate assement about Iraq or the region will continued to be compromised as long as you remain ignorant of the basic history.

Perhaps you're right. Could you provide me a link to an article that describes Iraq's use of WMD against another country?

 

[Strongbow]

and in other news, i still don't see the case for invading Iraq. it's all predicated on fantasies and imagined worst-case scenarios, rather than concrete facts and evidence.

All the facts and evidence you need is right there in the history of Saddam's 24 years of power. But as long as you remain ignorant of that history, your not going to understand why he had to be removed.

The impact the persian gulf region has on the global economy is NOT a fantasy, nor is the projected impact to the world of being cut off from the energy supply of that region.

Its been US national security policy for over 60 years to prevent the regions resourses from being siezed or sabotoged by hostile or unfriendly forces.

we simply don't have the blood and treasure to pour into sand traps, and by doing so we've exposed the limits of US power and greatly reduced our soft power.

This from someone who claimed that Iraq was NOT a real country and should be divided into three seperate countries. LOL Still think that should be done now?

Still think the Surge was a mistake? All the comments about how the US military was incapable of reducing the violence and improving the situation on the ground, and now, we have had 3 years that has resoundedly proved that those who opposed the surge had it wrong all across the board. All the anti-surge crowd has now is the fact that the Iraq currently locked in a political stalemate over the last election. But that will be eventually resolved leaving the anti-surge crowd with nothing.

you'd think after all these years and these repetitious posts that someone would be on board. but as the years have gone by, not so much.

guess the argument was weak from the beginning. oh well. now we know.

The fact is, those that supported removing Saddam have seen that happen and those that supported the Surge and other nationbuilding activities as opposed to withdrawal have seen that happen as well. Those that had the opposite view have not seen any of their policy ideas enacted on Iraq.

The only thing that is dumb and repetitious are people that today are still narrowly focused on "not finding WMD after the war" as the reason, and essentially only reason the United States should not have removed Saddam in March 2003.

It does not get much weaker than that which is why the majority of the US military does not agree with that position(according to Military Times Polls) and why a growing number of the general public do not agree with it either.




Finally, could you please convince us all why you think Saddam would make a better leader than either Malaki or Allawi?

 

[Strongbow]

Perhaps you're right. Could you provide me a link to an article that describes Iraq's use of WMD against another country?

Defense.gov News Article: Iraq and the Use of Chemical Weapons

The first of 10 documented chemical attacks in the war was in August 1983 and caused hundreds of casualties, according to CIA sources. The largest documented attack was a February 1986 strike against al-Faw, where mustard gas and tabun may have affected up to 10,000 Iranians.

To this day, no one really knows how many other Iraqi chemical attacks went undocumented or how many Iranians died in them. Iranians call the survivors of the attacks "living martyrs," and the government in Tehran estimates that more than 60,000 soldiers were exposed to mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin and tabun.

One survivor described a rolling cloud of gas enveloping his position in 1985. When the cloud of death rolled away, he was one of 3,000 casualties of the Iraqi attack.

 

[maycocksean]

^Hmmm.

I actually didn't know that Iraq used gas during the Iran-Iraq War. I did know that Saddam used gas on the Kurds.

Perhaps I'd better clarify. I don't think that there was any danger of Saddam using WMD directly against us. And since the Gulf War, I'm pretty sure Saddam hadn't used WMD.

 

[Strongbow]

^Hmmm.

I actually didn't know that Iraq used gas during the Iran-Iraq War. I did know that Saddam used gas on the Kurds.

Perhaps I'd better clarify. I don't think that there was any danger of Saddam using WMD directly against us. And since the Gulf War, I'm pretty sure Saddam hadn't used WMD.

Well, if that were the case, the US military would not have put on their chemical protection gear at the start of the invasion 2003 or during the 1991 Gulf War. The gear is difficult to operate in and does to a small degree reduce the effectivness of forces that have to remain fully suited or nearly fully suited up.

Also, prior to the start of the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam's Republican guard divisions stationed in Kuwait or on the Iraq/Kuwait border did recieve sarin gas to be used in artillery shells. Do to the limited range of artillery, there was no chance of using it until the start of the ground war, which only lasted 4 days. It was not used, but then again Iraqi artillery fire was limited during the ground war because unknown to the Republican guard divisions, the main thrust of the Desert Storm offensive came from the desert area of western Saudi Arabia and not up through Kuwait as they had planned. So the fact it was not used may have simply been do to inability to quickly detect and target allied ground units and the rapid pace of the ground war. The fact that the such munitions were stored on the battlefield does suggest they may have been willing to use them.

A bit strange that you just learned for the first time that Saddam actually used WMD against another country, yet, you remain totally convinced that there was no danger from Saddam using WMD's against the United States or other countries. It does not seem to have impacted your assessment of the danger.

 

[Diemen]

Anyone convinced yet?

I'm not.

 

[coolian2]

Anyone convinced yet?

I'm not.

nah, it's still not really doing it for me.

 

[financeguy]

duh, there´ll be civil war in Iraq for the next 10 years minimum. i don´t even want to count all the victims , every second day we hear a bomb has been planted here and there and everywhere, 40 dead, 80 dead, 100 school children dead.

the whole plan of the U.S. must have been to destabilize the region. hooray!

"the whole plan of the U.S. must have been to destabilize the region"

I used to think that but now I think they just had a crap strategy.

 

[Irvine511]

nah, it's still not really doing it for me.

it's just a series of rationalizations for a big mistake. i mean, wouldn't you do the same if reality had proved you so resoundingly wrong?

violence in Iraq is increasing, and it's only going to get worse when the US -- bankrupt as we are -- pulls out in 2011. the point of "the surge" was never to reduce violence, which it did for a while, but to create the stability for non-sectarian political reconciliation so that the US could leave without a bloodbath.

i wish "the surge" had worked. i really do. but the fact remains that Iraq remains Iraq, which is to say a "country" that, so far, can only be held together by an iron fist.

after all this blood and treasure, only Iran's interests have been advanced. and the Iraqis want us to stay until 2020.

this is how Empires die.

 

[maycocksean]

A bit strange that you just learned for the first time that Saddam actually used WMD against another country, yet, you remain totally convinced that there was no danger from Saddam using WMD's against the United States or other countries. It does not seem to have impacted your assessment of the danger.

I guess I'm strange then. . .

No, it does not impact my assessment of the danger. Would there be any point in me explaining why?

 

[Strongbow]

I guess I'm strange then. . .

No, it does not impact my assessment of the danger. Would there be any point in me explaining why?

Well, to use weapons of mass destruction against another country is considered in international relations to be a very serious and threatening action and has impacted most people's assessments on Saddam's regime.

 

[Strongbow]

it's just a series of rationalizations for a big mistake. i mean, wouldn't you do the same if reality had proved you so resoundingly wrong?

Resoundingly wrong how? The history about Saddam's regime which you seem to remain ignorant of is a fact. The condition of the sanctions and weapons embargo, the primary means of containing him had collapsed as has been factually shown.

The one thing you continued to be wedded to is finding or not finding WMD weapons after Saddam's removal. But the necessity of removing Saddam never depended on those results.

Everything else continues to be on track in terms of rebuilding and developing Iraq.

violence in Iraq is increasing, and it's only going to get worse when the US -- bankrupt as we are -- pulls out in 2011.

The general trend in Iraq since the surge is that violence is decreasing. So far this year, Iraq has had several months where the murder rate was lower than the murder rate in the United States, November 09 and January 10 specifically. More importantly, the Iraqi security forces have finally been developed enough that they are now providing security for the entire country. The US military is only helping with logistics, planning, intelligence, and special operations and some limited air support.

the point of "the surge" was never to reduce violence, which it did for a while, but to create the stability for non-sectarian political reconciliation so that the US could leave without a bloodbath.

Reducing violence is part of creating stability. Its absurd for anyone to state that the surge did not involve reducing violence. There has been enormous political reconciliation among the various factions since 2006. Allawi, Maliki, Sadr, and the Kurds have all been meeting and discussing ways to get a new government going since the elections. Allawi, a Shia, is the leader of the winning party in the election which has majority sunni support. Maliki's own coalition is also very mixed.

i wish "the surge" had worked. i really do.

LOL You were solidly opposed to it, and continually claimed that it was not succeeding in doing anything except increasing US casualties. You described it as a failure despite facts that showed it was not.

Of course, every time there is a sudden spike in violence, or a political impasse, there is an attempt to resurect these ideas.

But most people can see the general trend that Iraq is going in political, economic, and security development.

but the fact remains that Iraq remains Iraq, which is to say a "country" that, so far, can only be held together by an iron fist.

You would describe Malaki as holding Iraq together with an Iron fists?!

Do you still think Iraq should be split into three different countries?

after all this blood and treasure, only Iran's interests have been advanced.

Really? What about Kuwaits interest? Do you think Kuwaits interest would best be served by keeping Saddam in power? What about Saudi Arabia, Israel?

Do you think Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Kuwait would prefer Saddam to be the leader of Iraq instead of Malaki or Allawi?

Do you think the United States interest would best be served by keeping a dictator in power that they had already fought on major war against and continued to threaten United States security interest in the region?

Both Malaki and Allawi are not puppets of Iran. Malaki launched the Iraqi 2008 offensive in southern Iraq which dislodged Sadr's militia from several of its strongholds despite Iranian support.

Iran's support has been based around Sadr's party which came in a distant third in the election. Iran has no troops in Iraq and no relationship with the Iraqi military. Iran certainly benefits from the removal of Saddam as do all countries in the region. But it basically stops there.

Iran has also benefited from the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan as well. Strange that this is never brought up.

and the Iraqis want us to stay until 2020

Has the United States suffered from having a military presence in Bosnia and Kosovo, that reduces every year as conditions improve?

The Iraqi's may elect to keep to the January 2012 schedule, but it would be wise to have a withdrawal pace that was slower than that. Having 10,000 US troops in country to continue to logistically assist the Iraqi military is not going to crush or end anyones "fantasy empire".

 

[Strongbow]

Anyone convinced yet?

I'm not.

So are you convinced that Saddam would be a better leader of Iraq and more stable and cooperative partner in the region than Malaki? Who do you think would be better for the future of the region and US security interest, Saddam or Malaki?

 

[Diemen]

So are you convinced that Saddam would be a better leader of Iraq and more stable and cooperative partner in the region than Malaki? Who do you think would be better for the future of the region and US security interest, Saddam or Malaki?

Good Lord, do you actually think I'm interested in debating this with you?? History has proven that utterly pointless.

It's been seven years of you rationalizing this war. This may come as a shock, but your constant repetition of the same rationale over and over and over and over and over again has failed to sway my opinion.

I just think you're wrong.

 

[Irvine511]

<--------- remains unconvinced.

 

[hiphop]

60 army recruits killed, 125 wounded

Iraq suicide bomb hits army recruits, kills 60 - World - GMANews.TV - Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs - Latest Philippine News

There´s a suicide bomber nearly every fucking day. No good life for Iraqi civilians with all those extremists around.

Saddam was a cruel dictator, but apparently had control by all means because those religious extremists feared him. US troops and new Iraqi troops are both unable to stabilize the country. Civil war for another, say, 10 years?