Obama General Discussion - Page 65 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-23-2010, 08:18 PM   #961
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
None of that shows that he was against the removal of Saddam in 2003 with US forces. Powell says SPECIFICALLY in the Barbara Walters show in 2005 that he supported the Presidents decision to remove SADDAM. To qoute Powell, "when the President said it was not tolerable for Saddam to remain in violation of these UN resolutions, I am right there with him on the use of force!"

Powell was the one who got the Bush administration to go back to the United Nations for resolution 1441 that was not technically needed to authorize the invasion. He disputed the contention of others that resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of military force.

Another famous qoute by Powell in 2002:

"It is not incumbent on the United States to prove that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction, it is incumbant on Iraq to prove that they don't."

Powell has also been against any form of pre-mature withdrawal. He stated in the Barbara Walters interview in 2005 that the United States needed to stay the course in Iraq and develop the countries government, military forces and economy.



He never advocated a pre-mature withdrawal, but in any event, history has shown any opponents of the Surge to have been flat out wrong about the impact it would have on the situation in the country.





The invasion of Iraq was spearheaded by heavy armor units that have not been used in Afghanistan to date. You can't be claiming the President was not focused on Afghanistan because a tank division that would be unlikely to be sent to Afghanistan was used to invade Iraq.

The US used a total of 11 brigades to invade Iraq and a two brigades on the ground in Afghanistan at the time.

But the USA still had a total of 30 Active Army and Marine brigades back in the USA, Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

In addition, there were 38 National Guard Combat Brigades that were not being used at all back in the United States.


So the idea that the President underresourced Afghanistan to invade Iraq in 2003 is flat out FALSE!




Saddam failed to verifiably account for a long list of WMD items while the inspectors were in country. It was also found out after the war that he hid production related WMD facilities that were in violation of multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

At no time in 2003 was Saddam EVER in compliance with ANY of the 17 UN Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.



The COLOSSAL MISTAKE would have been to leave Saddam in power. But please, if you have logical explanation that leaving someone, with Saddam's behavior and history, in power in Iraq would be best for the security of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the persian gulf region, and the world, lets here it. I don't see too many arguments these days defending Saddam as a source of peace and stability for the Persian Gulf.



INSPECTORS NEVER GAVE IRAQ A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH! THERE WERE NO INSPECTORS EVEN ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ IN 1999!

This is basic factual history.

Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 precisely because Iraq was NOT complying with requirements of the 1991 Gulf War ceacefire.

1. The fact that no WMD weapons were found in Iraq after Saddam was removed does not prove that were NONE in the country before the US invaded.

2. It does not change the fact that WMD production related facilities that were in violation of the UN resolutions were found in the country after Saddam was removed!

3. Saddam remained in violation of 17 UN security council resolutions from 1999 until the US invaded and removed Saddam.

4.Most importantly, the key means of containment, Sanctions and the Weapons embargo, had fallen apart by 2002. Its impossible to contain Saddam without them. Every day that would go by without effective sanctions and weapons embargo regime would allow Saddam to rebuild both his conventional and unconventional military forces. The inability to effectively contain Saddam meant that the only option left was regime change.

5. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam in 2003!

I also do not recall Biden in March 2003 saying that Bush had violated his own resolution on Iraq. There was nothing dissenting from Biden at all in March 2003.





No one ever said that Saddam had a nuclear weapon! The whole point of containing Saddam was to prevent from rebuilding his military or obtaining new WMD or even worse a nuclear weapon! Its about PREVENTION and not waiting for a leader to get such weapons that could be used against any invasion force.

But again, without containment which involves an effective Sanctions and Weapons embargo regime, containment cannot work. The only other option besides containment was regime change.





If that were clearly the case, the UN inspectors would not have been so extensively involved in Iraq, year after year AFTER 1991. In 2003, Saddam had still failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD. IT IS A THEORY, NOT A PROVEN FACT, THAT SOME OF THOSE STOCKS WERE DESTROYED WITHOUT VERIFICATION IN 1991.





If this had any truth to it at all, the United States would have NEVER gone to WAR with Iraq in 1991, bombed Iraq year after year, or attempt to put Iraq under the most extensive sanctions and weapons embargo regime in history!

Can you name another country on the planet in 2003 that was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations?
Lets stop going over stuff we have already been going over for 2 years and ask ourselves a simple question.

Did Bush let Iraq prove they had no WMD?

No, he discounted the entire inspections process, made a show out of it, and was set on going to war regardless of the facts.

Bush obviously did not look at the evidence that showed that all the WMD were gone.

How could Iraq be deemed in violation of WMD resolutions when they were falsely being accused of having them?

And the incontrovertible and proven fact is that there were no WMD.

You are wrong, I and many others are right, and there really is nothing more to discuss here.

The troop level stuff, the inactive guard brigades crap, etc all just shows how woefully uninformed you are. That never changes, I am going to stop trying to change that.

Life is too short to keep discussing things with you in circles, the same things multiple times.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 08:36 PM   #962
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:00 AM
U2387 I'm still waiting for you to justify the claim that Iraq got a "clean bill of health" in 1999.

Is it plausible that all the obfuscation over inspections during the 1990's had more to do with bluffing regional powers to protect Saddam's leadership?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 11:42 PM   #963
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I am still reading up on all this.

I think it may be a bit more than a couple of words, as you describe it.

Why did he even accept the interview with RS?

And after agreeing to do it, he should have realized the readership would be comprised of mostly young people, A lot of his enlisted men and potential recruits. With that in mind he showed very poor judgement, or just a complete lack of respect for the Commander in Chief, and let's keep in mind, the V P is a member of the executive, aka Commander in Chief.
Just so were clear, here is the chain of command from Mycrystal to Obama:

1. President - Barack Obama
2. Secretary Of Defense - Robert Gates
3. CENTCOM Commander - General Petraes
4. Commander in Afghanistan - General Mycrystal

Again, the only comment from Mycrystal, involving someone in the Executive Branch, was the comment about Biden. The other comments were either made by other officers or were not directed toward someone in the executive branch.

I'm not defending the comment at all. It was wrong, but I think it is unhelpful to the country to remove the man who has been serving on the ground in an Iraq for 5 years and now Afghanistan for a year and half and who succeeded in catching Saddam Hussian as well as Al Zarqawi.

In terms of catching specific terrorist or rolling up a specific terrorist cell, no one has the track record like Mycrystal, and that is something important that he brings to the job in Afghanistan.

In the past, generals have been fired for poor track records, or openly opposing the commander in chief on policy. All we have here are a couple of words in the "good old Rolling Stone", and not in opposition to anyones policy.

The work that General Mycrystal has done on the ground Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 7 years must be weighed against this offense. His level of experience and successful track record, especially in the two wars the country is fighting is unique and difficult to replace. In his 18 months in Afghanistan, he has made relationships with the leaders of various Afghan tribes and groups that had not been made before. He has won many Afghans respect and trust which is vital in a society like that and is a key to winning in Afghanistan. Given this and the fact that the US military is in the middle of an important operation there, I think it is a mistake to be removing Mycrystal for a couple of words directed at Biden in a magazine.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 11:51 PM   #964
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Whether I agree with the General and his staff, or not....

he left the president with little choice here. Too bad all around

The President always has a choice and that choice should be to keep the best people in the field and not remove them because of a couple of words printed in a magazine. I think it is indeed the first time any commander of a specific war has been fired simply because of a couple of words in a magazine. In past wars generals were sacked for lack of performance or openly opposing the President.

How exactly is US Security being improved by removing a leader with one of the best track records in the military in these specific conflicts?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 11:55 PM   #965
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
On that point, I will say this bit I saw in one of the many articles on this issue is one thing that bothers me a little (or a lot):



...can someone please tell me exactly how long we are going to wait for that to happen? And would we actually truly completely leave if and when it does?

We're never getting out of there fully, are we? We're just gonna keep paying to funnel this war that isn't working anymore (if it ever really did). Hooray.

Angela
Do remember why the United States invaded Afghanistan in the first place? What makes you think that going back to the same policy that was in place before September 11, 2001 in regards to Afghanistan would be better for US Security?

Think about the cost and consequences to the United States and other countries if the United States pre-maturely left Afghanistan.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 12:04 AM   #966
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
U2387 I'm still waiting for you to justify the claim that Iraq got a "clean bill of health" in 1999.

Is it plausible that all the obfuscation over inspections during the 1990's had more to do with bluffing regional powers to protect Saddam's leadership?
1.)I don't have to justify anything, the facts have proven me right. The burden of proof is on the delusional who think there were weapons. Where are they?

Did you and Strongbow find them yet? Are they in your basements?

2.)But here it is, from the head weapons inspector in Iraq and other sources.

As Ritter makes clear, we can never conclusively give a clean bill of health(that was a bit of a rhetorical flourish by me), but read what he says. There was no threat from the stuff in the remote chance Iraq actually retained it, and certainly nothing even remotely approaching a justification for war. Numerous other countries have more weapons and more ties to Al Qaeda right now than Iraq did in 2003, and no one is suggesting invading them.

When the inspectors were let back in(which is what the resolution that Strongbow keeps harping on made clear was to be done in good faith), they found nothing and then Bush pulled them out and said "lets go" regardless.

Because he always wanted to invade Iraq, it had always been on the neo con wishlist.



Extract from Scott Ritters new book | World news | The Guardian

Wrong on Iraq? Not Everyone

YouTube - Rice and Powell in 2001 saying Iraq had no WMDs

You want to quit while you still look rational, or join the delusional?

Your choice here.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 12:48 AM   #967
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

Did Bush let Iraq prove they had no WMD?

No, he discounted the entire inspections process, made a show out of it, and was set on going to war regardless of the facts.
Saddam was given 12 years to comply with resolutions and verifiably disarm of WMD yet failed to do so. Belarus, Kazakstan and Ukraine verifiably disarmed of thousands of nuclear missiles and warheads in a matter of months.

Bush is the reason the inspectors were actually able to get back into the country. If it was Saddam's intent to comply with any of the resolutions why did he continue to hide multiple WMD related production facilities from the inspectors that were in violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement?

Why did Saddam fail to ACCOUNT for ANY of the several thousand stocks of WMD that UN inspectors said were still unaccounted for in December of 1998?

Lets not forget that at this time and after inspectors were in country for over 3 months that Saddam was still in violation of 17 UN security council resolutions, was smuggling Billlions of dollars worth of oil out of the country, was selling huminatiarian supplies meant for the Iraqi people in places like Jordan, was recieving new military technology for Iraq's air defense systems from China etc.

Quote:
Bush obviously did not look at the evidence that showed that all the WMD were gone.
There was no intelligence that showed all the WMD were gone. The NIE estimate of 2002, concluded that Saddam still had WMD and his capability to acquire more was growing with the collapse of sanctions and the weapons embargo.

Again, the removal of Saddam was NOT just about what he technically had in terms of WMD in 2002-2003, it also involved the erosion of the containment regime which short of regime change was the only option available for dealing with Saddam.

Quote:
How could Iraq be deemed in violation of WMD resolutions when they were falsely being accused of having them?
By the way, lets not forget were talking about SADDAM here, and not the country he had imprisoned.

Because based on the inspectors work in Iraq and Iraqi records, SADDAM's regime had failed to account for several thousand stocks of WMD. In order to be in compliance with the resolutions, SADDAM's regime needed to hand over the WMD or prove that it was dismantled by showing the remains. None of this was ever done.

In addition, after the war, the US military found multiple WMD related production facilities in Iraq that violated the UN resolutions.

Lets not forget that Saddams violations of the sanction and weapons embargo regime's place against it must also be considered as well as their harrasment and treatment of the UN inspectors which caused them to be removed for years, its abuse of the UN oil for food program, its failure to repay Kuwait for the damaged it did to the country when it brutally annexed it in August of 1990.

Quote:
And the incontrovertible and proven fact is that there were no WMD.
CORRECTION There was no WMD found in Iraq after the United States removed Saddam from power. But WMD production related facilities that did violate the resolutions were found. In addition, Saddam's regime never did account for thousands of stocks of WMD. There are some theories as to what might of happened, but no proof. The inability to find certain things does not prove they do not exist or did not exist at the time.

Quote:
You are wrong, I and many others are right, and there really is nothing more to discuss here.
If the necessity of removing Saddam actually rested on what the USA would find in terms of WMD after they removed him, you would certainly have a stronger case. But not finding WMD does not actually prove that he had none, and it is a fact that WMD related production facilities were found that were in violation of the resolutions.

The much larger and long term issue for US policy in the region was the erosion of the international sanctions and the weapons embargo that were the key means of containing Saddam. Without an effective sanctions and weapons embargo regime, Saddam would be able to rapidly rebuild his conventional and unconventional forces. Given how difficult it is to have accurate intelligence on WMD activities that are being concealed, it would be always be difficult for the US to accurately estimate what Saddam had or did not have at any particular time. Even if Saddam did not have any WMD in the 2002-2003 time period, how could the international community be sure that would be the case in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2015, especially now that the sanctions and weapons embargo regime had collapsed?


Quote:
The troop level stuff, the inactive guard brigades crap, etc all just shows how woefully uninformed you are. That never changes, I am going to stop trying to change that.

Life is too short to keep discussing things with you in circles, the same things multiple times.

I see you still have yet to learn how discuss an issue without making personal comments about other people.

I simply explained the basic size and number of combat brigades available to US commanders in 2001-2003 time frame. It accurately shows that Afghanistan was not under-resourced at the time to support an invasion of Iraq. The national guard brigades can be called up at any time, and there were a total of 38 of them during the time period. More important than that there were active duty combat brigades that were still at their home stations at the time, although many of these would have to deploy several months later to replace the brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan that were reaching a year of being deployed.

So, if your going to be making some sort of case about troop levels and needs during this time frame, its important to actually know precisely what was available. Its also important to realize that the heavy armor units that were used to spearhead the invasion of Iraq were not in Afghanistan and have actually to date not been used in Afghanistan.

At the time in 2003, the United States ground combat force consisted of:

33 Active Army combat brigades
38 National Guard combat brigades
3 Marine MEF's which is the equilavent of 12 combat brigades
1 Marine reserve MEF or 4 combat brigades.

By 2009, the United States had the following totals for its ground combat forces:

48 Active Army combat brigades
34 National Guard combat brigades
3 Marine MEF's or 12 combat brigades
1 Marine reserve MEF or 4 combat brigades
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 01:24 AM   #968
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
1.)I don't have to justify anything, the facts have proven me right. The burden of proof is on the delusional who think there were weapons. Where are they?

Did you and Strongbow find them yet? Are they in your basements?
The burden of proof is on the leader who was in violation of 17 UN security council resolutions. Can you name a single resolution that Saddam was proven to have complied with before the invasion in March 2003. Did Saddam ever account for the thousands of stocks of WMD weapons that were missing according to UN inspectors.


Quote:
2.)But here it is, from the head weapons inspector in Iraq and other sources.

As Ritter makes clear, we can never conclusively give a clean bill of health(that was a bit of a rhetorical flourish by me), but read what he says. There was no threat from the stuff in the remote chance Iraq actually retained it, and certainly nothing even remotely approaching a justification for war. Numerous other countries have more weapons and more ties to Al Qaeda right now than Iraq did in 2003, and no one is suggesting invading them.
The issue was NOT necessarily any retained weapons but Saddam's willingness to verifiably show where they were or what happened to them. The issue here is Saddam's willingness to and intentions to work with the international community on these issues. The inspections process can't ever work if Saddam is unwilling to fully comply. Its also not just an issue of what Saddam may of had in March 2003, but would he could get in the years to come because of the collapse of sanctions and the weapons embargo.

There might be some other countries that do have WMD that Saddam did not have, but again, they were not countries that had invaded and attacked unprovoked four different countries, ACTUALLY USED WMD against their neighbors, threatened the majority of the planets energy supply with siezure or sabotage, annexed a neighboring country, launched ballistic missiles at other countries etc and were in violation of 17 UN security council resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations.



Quote:
When the inspectors were let back in(which is what the resolution that Strongbow keeps harping on made clear was to be done in good faith), they found nothing and then Bush pulled them out and said "lets go" regardless.

Because he always wanted to invade Iraq, it had always been on the neo con wishlist.
Saddam was given plenty of time, too much time in fact, to come clean and resolve all the issue relating to WMD and he failed too. None of the issues regarding the unaccounted for stocks of WMD had been resolved at the time of the invasion. Saddam had not even scratched the surface. In addition, WMD production related facilities were found after the invasion that were in violation of the resolutions.

The majority of the US Senate including a majority of US democratic senators supported the war. The majority of congress supported the war as did former President Bill Clinton.

NONE OF THEM CAME OUT THE WEEK BEFORE THE INVASION TO SAY THAT IT WAS PRE-MATURE AND THAT BUSH WAS DOING THE WRONG THING!

Scott Ritter used to be a supporter of US policy in Iraq and then strangely when the inspectors were thrown out in 1998, made a movie with Saddam's help and then was caught trying to meet a 15 year old girl at Burger King in 2001. To bad Chris Hanson of Date line NBC did not have his show "How to catch a predator" back then.


I've seen the comments made by Powell in February 2001 just as he came into the post of Secretary of State a thousand times. Powell never says that Saddam is no longer a threat and that the United States and its allies can end the containment regime that had been put in place and was costing Billions of dollars every year. He does not actually state that Iraq has absolutely NO WMD. It had only been a little over 2 years since the inspectors had been kicked out and there had been no fresh estimates on Saddam's WMD capabilities. In addition, the full extent and nature of the collapsing sanctions and weapons embargo was not fully known yet at that time. New estimates by the intelligence community would come out though showing increased concern. This combined with the collapsing sanctions and weapons embargo, plus the events of 9/11 meant the United States could not continue to procrastinate in dealing with Saddam.

Powell himself has said that his statements in February of 2001 are not in conflict with his actions as secretary of State in 2003. New information about Saddam was aquired during that time, and the failing sanctions and weapons embargo also became an issue. 9/11 heightened the need to resolve the serious issues that the international community had with Saddam.



Finally, lets take an accurate look at how Bill Clinton viewed the situation in December 1998:

Quote:
You want to quit while you still look rational, or join the delusional?

Your choice here.
I choose to discuss the issues. Unfortunately, you continue to discuss other forum members rather than the issues.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 01:41 AM   #969
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 05:00 PM
We have been over everything you wrote before, and it is all bullshit.

Don't ever address anything I say here again, and I am truly done with you and your idiocy.

I factually rebutted all of this as early as 2008.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 01:50 AM   #970
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
You want to quit while you still look rational, or join the delusional?

Your choice here.
Iraq didn't have weapons stockpiles.

Iraq retained some of the elements of its weapons programs which may have been able to be reactivated after sanctions were lifted.

The intelligence was manipulated to sell the lie that Iraq was an imminent threat.

The sanctions ruined Iraq, and the war took the slaughter even further.

I don't think it's irrational to think that the regime in Iraq had to bluff against external and internal enemies with ambiguity, and that allowed the Bush administration to invade so quickly.

If it was considered effectively clear in 1999 why did two administrations prolong those sanctions and no-fly zones? Why didn't they try to cut a deal with Saddam for cheap oil without any bloody invasion?

Sting may be stuck in 2003, but at least he is a record of the arguments which were thrown around at the time before the truth of Iraq's weapons came out when it was more ambiguous.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 01:53 AM   #971
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
We have been over everything you wrote before, and it is all bullshit.

Don't ever address anything I say here again, and I am truly done with you and your idiocy.

I factually rebutted all of this as early as 2008.
Again, why all the personal crap? Are you incapable of discussing issues without saying something personal about another forum member.

The views I hold on these particular issues are also held by the majority of the members of the US military, Colin Powell, former Secretary Of State James Baker, former national security advisor and Secretary Of State Condeeliza Rice, Clinton's former national security expert on Iraq Kenneth Pollack, Michael O'Halon of the Brookings Institution, current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Admiral Mike Mullen, General Petreus, and millions of other Americans including 40% of Americans when it comes the removal of Saddam. A poll result I might add that will gradually shift back up above 50% where it was as late as 2005 in the years to come.

The number of people willing to defend keeping Saddam in power will only shrink in the coming years. I have yet to see anyone write a book explaining why leaving Saddam in power would be better for the security of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Persian Gulf Oil supply, stopping the spread of WMD, the security of the persian gulf region, the world and of course the United States which has security interest in all these area's.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 02:02 AM   #972
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
U2387 I'm still waiting for you to justify the claim that Iraq got a "clean bill of health" in 1999.

Is it plausible that all the obfuscation over inspections during the 1990's had more to do with bluffing regional powers to protect Saddam's leadership?
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Iraq didn't have weapons stockpiles.

Iraq retained some of the elements of its weapons programs which may have been able to be reactivated after sanctions were lifted.

The intelligence was manipulated to sell the lie that Iraq was an imminent threat.

The sanctions ruined Iraq, and the war took the slaughter even further.

I don't think it's irrational to think that the regime in Iraq had to bluff against external and internal enemies with ambiguity, and that allowed the Bush administration to invade so quickly.
Well that was perfectly reasonable, and of course, that provides the explanation for why Saddam only verifiably destroyed 90-95% of the WMD.

He wanted to bluff against the region, you are exactly right, but even that was a miscalculation on his part as I saw no one in the region too worried about him after 1991. Ask de facto thriving democracies of the 1990s like Jordan and Lebanon if they were afraid of Saddam. More like they laughed at him, running the entire place into the ground and unable to even feed his people.

But calculate he did nonetheless, and he thought that was how to keep the region in some kind of ambiguous fear. Whatever, he had an inflated ego(obviously) and was convinced of his superior mind and judgement, so its easy to see how he actually believed that people in the region were afraid of him.

There was no chance sanctions were ever going to be lifted, HW Bush, Clinton and W Bush said as much, the sanctions were going nowhere until Saddam was gone. This whole thing was not about disarmament but about regime change.( I saw your edit, and therein lays the answer to your question as to why sanctions and no fly zones were kept in place)

Thats why all the resolutions talk is so disingenuous- not only was 95% verifiably destroyed and the other 5% verified by UN Inspectors as worthless goo by the time period in question-but disarmament was just an excuse for the real objective of the sanctions in the first place, regime change.

Fine in and of itself, but HW, Clinton and the Iraqi liberation act of 1998 made very, very clear that regime change in and of itself was not to be implemented by spilling the blood of American soldiers in a useless war.

Lets pretend for a second sanctions were lifted, that does not mean that Saddam would have been able to reconstitute the programs. All of his factories were destroyed, and any and all attempts to reconstitute the capacity would have been eminently detectable by intelligence agencies. Then, the facilities get taken out and the sanctions restored.

Of course the likely course of action would have been quite different- sanctions lifted, Saddam just yawns and tries to hold together a country he was losing his grasp on and Iraq eventually fades into God knows what.

You are quite right on all of this

And most importantly, I am very sorry for interpreting your post as a defense of the Iraq war, A Wanderer.

I am even more sorry for snapping at you.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 02:04 AM   #973
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:00 AM
Why are you appealing to Powell and Baker as supporting the views you hold, that's a straight out lie about two foreign policy realists.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 02:07 AM   #974
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 05:00 PM
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Again, why all the personal crap? Are you incapable of discussing issues without saying something personal about another forum member.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issues don't work with you, I have tried and failed and then pointed out as much. That is, for the 6 millionth and last time, not a personal attack.

I said nothing about your religious views, political views, your family, your life, your job, anything personal.

I don't care about your life and you don't care about mine and that is how its staying.

I am done with you.

Get it yet?
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 02:10 AM   #975
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Why are you appealing to Powell and Baker as supporting the views you hold, that's a straight out lie about two foreign policy realists.
Baker was writing op eds in the Wall Street Journal with Scowcroft cautioning Bush in 2002 not to do something stupid and invade Iraq before the facts are in.

Powell was telling anyone who would listen how nuts this push for Iraq was in private conversations in the run up to the war.

He went along out of a sense of duty, but he had the power to stop it and his endorsement of Obama shows anyone blessed with the gift of logic(which excludes some people...note to self- don't mention who) that he regretted that decision.

A Wanderer keeps making sense.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Democratic National Convention Thread MrsSpringsteen Free Your Mind 504 09-02-2008 03:37 PM
US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1001 01-30-2008 02:07 PM
MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount? 2861U2 Free Your Mind Archive 586 01-12-2008 01:50 PM
Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread Varitek Free Your Mind Archive 1003 09-23-2007 03:31 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com