So is the Truth Finally Out on WMDs? - Page 3 - 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 08-06-2003, 02:29 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by kobayashi
your confidence in their motives isnt the least bit shaken?
WE have checks and balances built in. The President could not have acted without their votes. They, the House and Senate, voted overwealmingly to give the President the authority to act with or without the UN. This decision was not just made by the President and his cronies. It was made by Congress, and was supported by both sides of the aisle.

That said, if we are indeed holding a bag of and no WMD are found and it is proven that we were not in immediate danger, they should ALL be held accountable for putting American lives at risk for something that could have been handled diplomatically.


Peace
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-07-2003, 09:02 AM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsox
Last I knew Wolf is not the spokesperson for the US Governement. Wolf did specifically mention that Uday and his brother would not longer be terrorising women. The President has spoken about the evils of Saddam and his son. He did not make it the MAIN reason for invading. It was however on the table as a reason.
Right. But I was responding to what Wolf said, and explaining how it didnít line up with other actions by the Bush admin.

Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsox
I am sorry Olive, but the two situations are extremely different. The President believed that we were in danger. This is the Main part of the case against Iraq. While I wish the US had gotten UN support for the operation, especially now, because the after part would be much different in my opinion. However, the President of the United States has an obligation to act to Defend this country with or without the UN.
Weíre just going to have to agree to disagree on this Dread.

Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsox
It is our duty as citizens to vote when we feel that the President has failed to meet this obligation, or has acted or misled the American people to war. I can assure you that if WMD is not found and it seems we were not in immediate danger I will not be voting for this man, nor will I vote for any congressperson or senator who gave him the power to invade Iraq. They are as responsible as he is, Democrats and Republicans alike!
this I can agree with!


Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsox[b]
Please name for me all of the other countries that Iran and North Korea have invaded in the past twenty years. Please name for me the number of times either of these two nations have used WMD on people?

Since we cannot bring up President Clinton without being told that this is not about him I will not go into the North Korea situation any further. [/b
Well, we invaded Iraq because we were told they were a threat to the US, not because they had committed a first offense against us (or anyone else- like you stated ďNowhere does the oath imply that soldiers are to be going around the world freeing oppressed people and nation building.Ē). This contradicts with saying we have to give other countries a first offense before we take them seriously. This is what I mean about consistency. And just because Iran hasnít invaded anyone yet doesnít mean their nuke program is pointless.

Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsox
Do you really think we have the troop stregnth and the manpower to go after Iran or North Korea right now? We are too thin to do much else right now.
Iím not saying we should. But I think if we make arguments to go against Iraq, itís fair to ask why weíre not going against Iran & N.Korea who both have WMD and NK has even threatened us with them.

Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsoxLast I checked we are taking steps to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia. Are you really surprised about the Saudi Arabian connection? 17 out of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. Osama was from Saudi Arabia. There is a difference between the Taliban harboring and protecting terrorists and a governement that has been cracking down on them. The Saudi Government is an enemy of Al-Qaeda. Osama hates them and over the past few months the headlines of crackdowns in Saudi Arabia demonstrate that they are actively working to stop terrorism. Quite different from Afghanistan after 9/11.
Nope, Iím not surprised at the Saudi Arabian connection. I guess I'm more focused on the fact that there's a link between Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda, but none with Iraq. Yet we went for Iraq , while implying they were connected with when that wasnít true. And if the SA government is so focused on getting rid of AQ, why didn't we work with them in the first place, instead of all of the sudden jumping on Iraq? After all, AQ are the ones who attacked the U.S. in the first place, not Iraq!

Quote:
Originally posted byDreadsoxIf the UN were involved from the start, and we had a broader coalition, this phase in Iraq would be going better. As to your question above. These are volunteer soldiers. I volunteered, they volunteered. The President decided that Iraq was a threat. Congress authorized the use of force after looking at the evidence. Democrats and Republicans agreed with their vote last fall that there was a threat to the United States. They are looking out for our lives.
I guess I would assume that in volunteering, their own safety and lives would be looked out for as much as possible, and I personally feel that there are soldiers there dying uselessly now. Also- I think itís clear we disagree that Iraq was a threat to our lives.

Olive.
__________________

oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 08-07-2003, 09:07 AM   #43
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 637
Local Time: 02:22 AM
So Olive, you seem to have a lot of interesting answers. What should the US have done with Iraq?
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-07-2003, 11:02 AM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:22 PM
1st thank you for the nice response to my points on the issue. THere are some that we are probably a little closer on than others. Especially the accountablitiy of the Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate.


Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
Well, we invaded Iraq because we were told they were a threat to the US, not because they had committed a first offense against us (or anyone else- like you stated ďNowhere does the oath imply that soldiers are to be going around the world freeing oppressed people and nation building.Ē). This contradicts with saying we have to give other countries a first offense before we take them seriously.
Part of the case the was definitely about the threat. The reason that he was viewed as a threat was that he had used the WMD's before. He has acted irrrationally before. These weapons in his hands made him a threat. HIs attempted assasination of former President Bush made him a threat.

The last point the WHite House clearly cannot use because it makes it a personal vendetta. However, to me it is still valid.

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
This contradicts with saying we have to give other countries a first offense before we take them seriously.
I agree with you here on some level. I do believe we violated international law by acting without the security council. Others here clearly do NOT and I understand their points. I believe we do not have to have permission to defend ourselves, so if we have to strike first so be it.

That said when we strike first WE as citizens must hold all of the politicians to the highest level of accountability. If the White House sold the Congress a load of crap, why aren't they going after the President in a big way? Why aren't they calling for an investigation? Maybe we need more time. I still think with the vote the way it was, meaning lopsided that the congress was 100% convinced this was necessary.


Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
This is what I mean about consistency. And just because Iran hasnít invaded anyone yet doesnít mean their nuke program is pointless.
Olive, I never meaned to imply that their nuclear program pointless. How old were you when the Iranian Revolution occured? Do you remember it? I remember it. Iran is no friend of this country at all and the thought of them holding these weapons scares the out of me. Yet, they have not through their actions in the last twenty years invaded another country unprovoked or used WMD.


Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
[B]Nope, Iím not surprised at the Saudi Arabian connection. I guess I'm more focused on the fact that there's a link between Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda, but none with Iraq. Yet we went for Iraq , while implying they were connected with when that wasnít true. And if the SA government is so focused on getting rid of AQ, why didn't we work with them in the first place, instead of all of the sudden jumping on Iraq? After all, AQ are the ones who attacked the U.S. in the first place, not Iraq!
I am pretty sure that we are and were working with the SA governement. The SA governement publicly puts on a different face than they do behind the scenes. They are and have been supportive of the United States. The people living there however, hate the US.

I do believe we began to and are continuing to deal with Al-Qaeda. WE began that part of things 1st. 2ndly Iraq's influence on our foreign policy, ie Keeping Trops in Saudi Arabia, was/is one of the main problems that Al-Qaeda has. They believe that it is a sin for us(infidel) to be on their holy land. Taking care of Iraq after 12 years of waiting for the UN to was a very important piece of this. If a stable government can be places in Iraq we can remove our soldiers from the holy land, and MAYBE the target from our backs. I would not call the move against Iraq all of a sudden. Twelve years of resolutions, attempts to work with the UN, and plenty of warnings since 9/11.

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
I guess I would assume that in volunteering, their own safety and lives would be looked out for as much as possible, and I personally feel that there are soldiers there dying uselessly now. Also- I think itís clear we disagree that Iraq was a threat to our lives.

Olive.
And it is indeed this phase of the Operation that has pissed me off. If there are no WMD we were wrong. If we jumped to conclusions on faulty intelligence, we were wrong.

I am holding my breath, it has been almost three days since a soldier has been killed in Iraq. Maybe things are starting to pan out. I think there is an apparent lack of planning here. Maybe the offensive part of the war went too well too quick, but I strongly feel that this part has not been going well at all.

Good dialogue.

Peace
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-07-2003, 03:48 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23
So Olive, you seem to have a lot of interesting answers. What should the US have done with Iraq?
Well Iím certainly not attempting to be a smart ass about things. I understand the situation is complicated. It's hard for anyone to say what we should have done.

Yet I think waiting would have been a better course of action. We attacked without any reason to believe, after 12 years, that all of a sudden Saddam was a grave threat to us.

We should have allowed the inspectors to continue doing their job. If we could find WMD then, we would have had the UN support that was necessary. Delaying war would also result in a far lower cost, in $$ and lives, than war has been to the US. In the meantime, we could have gained intelligence, and most of all PLANNED for a possible war, and it's aftermath. Perhaps it would turn out Iraq is a threat to us, but we (all) deserve proof of that, and i think it's coming out now how we didn't really have any.

I do believe Sadam is a man who has terrorized, killed, tortured, raped, ravaged thousands of people. I believe he is evil. But we didn't attack him because he's evil and has terrorized his own country. We attacked him on the assumption he has WMD, and I don't think an assumption is good enough to go on, to use the lives of our service men and women, and our money- not when we ignore other countries who are threatening us with their nukes, and not when we ignore other countries with Al Qeada connections.

Olive
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 08-07-2003, 10:21 PM   #46
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 637
Local Time: 02:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm


We should have allowed the inspectors to continue doing their job. If we could find WMD then, we would have had the UN support that was necessary. Olive
How freckin' long???? Saddam was supposed to be complying with inspections since 1991! He was a master at playing hide and seek with the weapon inspectors. I seriously doubt that the UN inspectors would have ever found anything. You know why? Because Saddam was having scientists bury nuke parts under their rose bushes. C'mon!! I don't know about you, but if I was working for Saddam and he told me to bury something, I'd do it. And if an inspector asked me about it, I'd lie right to their face because I would not want wife raped and killed. So, to sum up, there would have never been a satisfactory ending to the UN inspection process. Bush did the right thing by taking action when he did.

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
Delaying war would also result in a far lower cost, in $$ and lives, than war has been to the US. In the meantime, we could have gained intelligence, and most of all PLANNED for a possible war, and it's aftermath. Olive
I could not agree with you more. It's quite obvious that the White House didn't spend much time thinking about how to win the peace. Now we've got terrorists in there as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
Perhaps it would turn out Iraq is a threat to us, but we (all) deserve proof of that, and i think it's coming out now how we didn't really have any.Olive
Bush had two choices, 1. Turn a blind eye ala Clinton and hope to God that none of those weapons wind up in NYC or 2. Remove a mass murdering nutjob and install a democratic, free government in the most dangerous, anti-US region on the map. Which choice would you prefer to be on the WRONG side of? I'll take number 2.

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
But we didn't attack him because he's evil and has terrorized his own country. Olive
This was part of the reason.

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
We attacked him on the assumption he has WMD...Olive
This was the main reason.

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
...and I don't think an assumption is good enough to go on...Olive
I do. Again, with this stuff, after 9/11, you have to think worst case scenerio. Maybe Saddam wasn't a threat right now. But if the UN declared he was all clean and the US backed off with their troops (the only thing Saddam responds to, BTW) what do you think Saddam would have done just after the sanctions were lifted? Open a flower shop? No way. He'd start working on WMD again, probably nukes.

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
...we ignore other countries who are threatening us with their nukes, and not when we ignore other countries with Al Qeada connections. Olive
I agree with you. The Iran and N. Korea situation is a serious cluster f**k. I have a hard time seeing a peaceful way out of the N. Korean crisis (thanks Clinton-oops! ). Which is just another reason why the time was right to take out Saddam when we did. N. Korea was already too far along in their WMD programs. We didn't have enough on Iran (although we may soon if they keep up their nuke ambitions). But with Iraq, you had a murderous leader who used WMDs against his own people in the past, WMDs that were unaccounted for and sanctions already in place from the UN. Taking out Saddam when we did was the right thing to do. Go Bush!
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-08-2003, 11:57 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Thanks Dread, this has been an interesting dialog for me as well. Itís nice to speak with someone who isnít aggressive but willing to discuss. I definitely think we can relate on some of these issues (and mainly that we donít want the US involved in things it shouldnít be).

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox Part of the case the was definitely about the threat. The reason that he was viewed as a threat was that he had used the WMD's before. He has acted irrrationally before. These weapons in his hands made him a threat. HIs attempted assasination of former President Bush made him a threat.

The last point the WHite House clearly cannot use because it makes it a personal vendetta. However, to me it is still valid.
He has acted irrationally before- but not against the US. If we disagreed with his using WMD against his people, we probably should have acted then. It's hard to forget who gave him those weapons in the first placeÖ

I agree with the part about it being a personal vendetta. It is reason to be wary, but not aggressive.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I agree with you here on some level. I do believe we violated international law by acting without the security council. Others here clearly do NOT and I understand their points. I believe we do not have to have permission to defend ourselves, so if we have to strike first so be it.
I agree with you also- and I understand the point of other people. If we were attacked, and the security council did not support us, I think we have the right to defend ourselves. But I donít think this situation called for that response.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
That said when we strike first WE as citizens must hold all of the politicians to the highest level of accountability. If the White House sold the Congress a load of crap, why aren't they going after the President in a big way? Why aren't they calling for an investigation? Maybe we need more time. I still think with the vote the way it was, meaning lopsided that the congress was 100% convinced this was necessary.
Ö. However, it is an enormous risk for a politician to stand up on their own and start accusing and asking these sort of questions, especially in a republican controlled (in both houses) congress. So it's sort of not surprising that, despite the growing amount of evidence of improper actions that not much has yet been doneÖ especially when anyone (from politicians to musicians- i.e. Dixie Chicks- to celebrities) who dissents is painted as anti-American, and harassed. This needs to change and hopefully it does, but the fact remains that right now itís very dangerous for anyone to come out as having a problem with what is going on. It seems the White House has created an environment that is particularly hostile to dissent about the war. This, I think, is a whole other thread ;-)

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox Olive, I never meaned to imply that their nuclear program pointless. How old were you when the Iranian Revolution occured? Do you remember it? I remember it. Iran is no friend of this country at all and the thought of them holding these weapons scares the out of me. Yet, they have not through their actions in the last twenty years invaded another country unprovoked or used WMD.
Dreadsox, I'm not sure if you meant that to sound as condescending as it did. But I have to say, I find it demeaning when someone asks me how old I was during a discussion like this. Iíve had a coworker do it (regarding this same issue, which he obtrusively brought up in my office without invitation or desire on my part to discuss). Does "witnessing" an event automatically equal knowledge about it? This sentiment makes it seem like anyone (presumed) "young" shouldn't bother with grown-up stuff.

That said, I know you didnít say Iranís nuclear weapon program was pointless. But weíre treating Iraq as if they have already let loose some WMD on us, and ignoring Iran when we know what Iran is capable of. I understand what you are saying that Iran hasnít used them at ALL- but Iraq never did use them on us (while AQ, on the other hand, DID attack us).

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I am pretty sure that we are and were working with the SA governement. The SA governement publicly puts on a different face than they do behind the scenes. They are and have been supportive of the United States. The people living there however, hate the US.

I do believe we began to and are continuing to deal with Al-Qaeda. WE began that part of things 1st. 2ndly Iraq's influence on our foreign policy, ie Keeping Trops in Saudi Arabia, was/is one of the main problems that Al-Qaeda has. They believe that it is a sin for us(infidel) to be on their holy land. Taking care of Iraq after 12 years of waiting for the UN to was a very important piece of this. If a stable government can be places in Iraq we can remove our soldiers from the holy land, and MAYBE the target from our backs. I would not call the move against Iraq all of a sudden. Twelve years of resolutions, attempts to work with the UN, and plenty of warnings since 9/11.

Definitely, Al-Qaeda was angry about our troops being over there. Instead of leaving to pacify Al-Qaeda, we should be dealing with the two situations separately (post-war Iraq, and finding the miserable bastards of AQ).

I think post-war Iraq deserves another thread. For us to leave the middle east, weíre told we want Iraq to have a secure govt. But right now the infrastructure in Iraq is a mess. The people are not safe or secure or prosperous or happy. Islamic fundamentalists are right in line to take over. Yet if we leave, are we any better off? After all the men and women weíve lost, and all the money spent, and our economy is the worse itís been in years? But, it doesnít seem sending more troops (now to Iraq) would defuse the situation. Certainly controlling Iraq isnít the answer, even if we did ďliberateĒ them.. I know you didnít say we should send more troops and have stated that weíre doing a poor job post-war. But itís impossible to justify the war by saying 'at least our troops will leave the Middle East and not instigate AQ' when our troops arenít leaving the Middle East for the foreseeable future, and we will probably need to send in even more before it's all done... not to mention any troops we may need to send in to deal with a potential iran situation, or ones that we *should* send to clean up the mess we made in afghanistan... the only reason AQ is related to iraq in this discussion is because the white house continued to imply that it iraq was involved in 9/11 in order to raise popular support for an invasion.

I understand what you mean about 12 years of resolutions, etc, but there werenít any known WMD. So find them, and then go in there and do the job the right way. Without that precedence, I donít see proper defense behind the attack.

Good discussion,
Olive
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 08-08-2003, 01:51 PM   #48
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:22 AM
Olive,

I undersign every post of yours in this thread. Excellent stuff!
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 08-08-2003, 03:19 PM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:22 AM
I'm feeling so damn frustrated about all of this in the Middle East. Some of the people who have power there are good, but many are not. All of these problems are so old they're not going to be solved by changing someone's government, although this may facilitate some change on down the line. Quite frankly I'm petrified of a fundamentalist outfit taking over Iraq. Whew! It's overwhelming, all of the problems in this part of the world. I've been reading some books about Saudi Arabia, their government and especially the way they treat women. It's awful.
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-08-2003, 03:25 PM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
Dreadsox, I'm not sure if you meant that to sound as condescending as it did. But I have to say, I find it demeaning when someone asks me how old I was during a discussion like this. Iíve had a coworker do it (regarding this same issue, which he obtrusively brought up in my office without invitation or desire on my part to discuss). Does "witnessing" an event automatically equal knowledge about it? This sentiment makes it seem like anyone (presumed) "young" shouldn't bother with grown-up stuff.
I think you read way to much into it. If you found it that way, I can only say it was not meant that way.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-08-2003, 04:09 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS
Olive,

I undersign every post of yours in this thread. Excellent stuff!
Thanks Alexrus
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 08-08-2003, 04:10 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I think you read way to much into it. If you found it that way, I can only say it was not meant that way.
Sorry to misinterpret Dreadsox. It is something that bothers me, perhaps I'm sensitive to it.
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 12:49 AM   #53
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
President Clinton most definitely deserves some of the credit for where we are today. It is not a debate over who is at fault but the failed strategy of sending missles into Afghanistan to hopefully hit Al-Qaeda leadership was obviously not the answer. There was clearly not an aggressive enough policy in going after Al-Aqeda. This is also President Bush's fault because he very clearly did not take the threat seriously, nor did Ms. Rice who clearly lied when they claimed they never immagined planes being used.

Under Clinton however, there was a change in the FBI and the CIA in which there were cuts in on the ground intelligence gathering. Many veteran intelligence people were passed over jobs because people were being promoted not based on the jobs that they did, but because of the race and gender. This caused many valuable people to LEAVE our intelligence agencies for the private sector. The loss of these people coupled with a move towards more electronic intelligence and less human on the ground intelligence left us open. This is detailed in Bob Gertz's bokk Breakdown and he makes and excellent case about the failures of the Clinton administration in this area over eight years.


Now as to the WMD. This administration did make its case that there was an immediate threat. There very clearly was not, unless the WMD's have been shipped to another country. The readings that I have done on this topic indicate that the United States has been operating BLIND in regards to Iraq since 1988 when the inspectors were last there. The inspectors were basically our on the ground intelligence. Yes we had intercepts, but without the on the ground intelligence, we went to war based on 1988's last inspections by the UN.

Like it or not, 5 year old intelligence was our best intelligence. There is no published link between September 11 and Saddam. The terrorist camp that we raided in Iraq was linked to Al-Qaeda, however, they were not an Al-Qaeda camp. They were a group of Iraqi's that were funded by Al-Qaeda and their main goal was to overthrow Saddam. See, Saddam and Al-Qaeda were not friends with each other because Saddam's regime show religious tolorance towards Christians.

September 11 is linked to Al-Qaeda because we have had troops in Saudi Arabia protecting our oil interests there. That is the link. IF we were not there it is doubtful that 9/11 and all of the incidents that Wolfwill listed would have happened. These events over the last twelve years fall on the heads of both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. There should have been more pressure to have dealt with Saddam earlier rather than 12 years later. The fact is, President Bush should have finished the job in the Gulf War. Instead he stopped the war for his own political gain. Iran was not going to invade a UN controlled Iraq.

TO say that the administration made a case on a humanitarian level is somewhat true. They did mention that he was a bad man. They did not make it the central theme to their case for war. They did not stand in front of the UN and have Collin Powell speak about the fact that Iraq's administering of the Food For Oil program was killing more Iraqi's a year than the entire 1st Gulf War. They FAILED to make this the central part of their case.

The central part of the case was that the UN was not enforcing its own resolutions. The central part of the case was that we were in a different world after 9/11 and that there was an immediate threat to the United States and its interests. The people of the UNited States were led to believe that we had WMD. Very clearly Saddam wanted us and the world to believe it for some reason. Maybe for the security of his regime. I do believe that the US Generals thought there would be a chemical attack on the troops.

So where are they? If he did not have it, it made a great deterrence. If he did have them and moved them where are they?
Dread, the first time I read your post here I couldn't really figure out if you were defending the actions of the current administration or not. I just re-read much of this thread, happened upon your post again, and I still am not totally sure of where you're coming from. I composed some responses to parts of the above-quoted post, but I have decided not to post them because, quite frankly, they partially come from annoyance and frustration and they read, well, rather pissy.

Instead, I will simply say this: You are free to reference events of the late 1980's through the present, and you are free to implicate Clinton in your argument, but the fact remains: President Bush lied in making his case to go to war. I'm talking about the case he made beginning after September 11, 2001 and ramping up late in 2002 up until the invasion began on March 20, 2003.

From abcnews.com -- April 25, 2003:

"But what if Sept. 11 had never happened? Would the United States have gone to war with Iraq? Administration officials and others say no, at least not now.

The Bush administration could probably have lived with the threat of Saddam and might have gone after him eventually if, for example, the Iraqi leader had become more aggressive in pursuing a nuclear program or in sponsoring terrorism.

But again, Sept. 11 changed all that."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/night...ow_030425.html
pub crawler is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 01:14 AM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler


Dread, the first time I read your post here I couldn't really figure out if you were defending the actions of the current administration or not. I just re-read much of this thread, happened upon your post again, and I still am not totally sure of where you're coming from. I composed some responses to parts of the above-quoted post, but I have decided not to post them because, quite frankly, they partially come from annoyance and frustration and they read, well, rather pissy.
I have seen so many innacuracies posted by both sides in this thread that it does look like I am riding the fence.

1) Clinton was more responsible for the AL-Qaeda and Iraq situation than Bush. HE had eight years to do something besides lobbing cruise missles.

2) Clinton decimated the intelligence agencies by A) eliminating on the ground agents and increasing electronic intelligence B) Promotions not based on the job you do but on your sex and race. This lead to many of the best agents leaving the agencies of the FBI and CIA. This information comes from "Breakdown" by Bob Gertz.

3) President Bush and his advisers were using 5 year old intelligence to make their case for war. NOT GOOD. Now we are seeing why. WMD are not in as large a quantity as we thought.

4) 9/11 IS directly linked to the fact that we have had soldiers in Saudi Arabia for 12 years to protect them from Iraq.

5) This administration DID mention humanitarian reasons for WAR. It was not their MAIN reason. They should have focused on the FOOD FOR OIL program as being corrupt and not working. It was killing more people than the two wars combined. Saddam used the program to oppresss his people further. The American public was not presented this case forcefully enough. In my opinion it should have been a CENTRAL part of the case. TO say the administration just came up with this after the war is NOT true however.

6) Al-Qaeda hated Saddam Hussein. They were not working together.

7) The terrorist camp in Iraq that Wolf mentioned to my knbowledge was indeed linked to Al-Qaeda, but they were a separate entitiy from Al-Qaeda. They were working to do anything other than Eliminate Saddam because Al-Qaed hated Saddam. So while Wolf is correct we raided a terrorist camp, he is incorrect that they prove that Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda and 9/11.

8) I believe that he(Saddam) destroyed most if not all of his weapons. I believe that he thought he could deter other nations from looking at him as an easy target by keeping up the thought that he was armed beyond what he was. I believe that he did not think the US would invade without the UN. I think he miscalculated the effect 9/11 had on US FOreign policy.

9) WMD will be found. I believe it.

10) President Bush lied to make his case? I think that the administration is guilty of not listening to the CIA when making its case. I think more and more that there were many who had decided to go after Iraq and were scouring to find a reason that they could use to sell it. I am not ready to yet judge if the case was a lie.

You can PM me anytime if you are confused with something I said.

PEace
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 01:21 AM   #55
Refugee
 
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: your skull
Posts: 2,311
Local Time: 08:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler
They are not going to stake their political careers on a promise that they cannot keep.
theyre politicians.
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 10:04 PM   #56
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Here's how they're gonna find those WMD's next month

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...016856,00.html

"The former UN inspector hired by the Bush administration to find evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction will claim in a report next month that Iraqi forces were ordered to fire chemical shells at invading coalition troops, according to US reports.
But David Kay, who heads the 1,400-strong Iraq Survey Group, has admitted he has found no trace of the weapons themselves, and cannot explain why they were never used.

One possibility is that the orders were part of an elaborate bluff, in the hope that they would be intercepted by the US and deter an attack. "
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 08-12-2003, 10:36 PM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
One possibility is that the orders were part of an elaborate bluff, in the hope that they would be intercepted by the US and deter an attack. "
That was my theory in here a few months back. I was laughed at. It is looking very possible that he was indeed bluffing!!!!!
__________________

Dreadsox 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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×