He did not let us in

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:10 pm

I saw this on the sidebar at commondreams.org:

*Claim*

"We gave [Saddam] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore we decided to remove him from power."
- George W. Bush, 7/14/03
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 714-3.html

"[Iraq] did not let us in."
- George W. Bush, 1/27/04
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 127-3.html

"If in fact [Saddam] didn't have them, why on earth didn't he let the U.N. inspectors in and avoid the war?"
- Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts, 1/25/04

*Fact*

"With the basic equipment and a group of weapons inspectors in place in Baghdad, the first search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in almost four years is set to begin in two days, the chief U.N. weapons inspector said November 25."
11/25/2002 - US State Department
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/02112508.htm

"U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war."
3/18/2003 - AP
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/ ... 4280.shtml

"The United States will not permit United Nations weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, saying the US military has taken over the role of searching for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction."
4/24/2003 - Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/ ... 06319.html

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:20 pm

There's a big difference between the token "let us in" (ie, let us wander around certain sites Saddam already knows is clean) and the real "let us in" (ie, let us inspect any site we want, including hospitals and schools, with no warning).

*fact* you just posted a crap conclusion because you didn't draw the distinction.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:38 pm

Do you think the U.S. would ever allow such inspections? Imagine Al Qaeda, or a nation in which we have been at war with in the past 10 years, coming in and saying, "we want to inspect your schools and hospitals."

You viewed Iraq as a threat, fine. But you can't ignore that the Iraqi government always viewed us as a much bigger one. Your going to try and protect your sick and children from someone whom you view as your enemy.

This isn't good vs evil. This is two different cultures clashing.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:41 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq, at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centers, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile-production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites.

- Hans Blix, February 14, 2002<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:19 pm

But no hospitals Vander

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:19 pm

C'mon Vander, you know better than that. Do you really believe that Bush is lying when he says that the inspectors didn't have access? Even the wackiest leftists understand that the it was the United Nations, one of the most impotent and worthless organizations on the planet, that passed Resolution 1441 which states precisely the opposite.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Right? I mean, maybe it's just me, but my reading of it is that either you've got your facts twisted, or the United Nations, after months of investigation, fact gathering, and debate, came up with a really wrong resolution. I'm leaning toward the U.N. on this one.

And Gooberman, I think at some point, we need to drop the "Gee this is just a clash of cultures, don'cha see, not a moral question" routine. This guy gassed and killed 5000 Kurdish civilians, not soldiers, living in northern Iraq, just to see if he could do it. They are uncovering mass graves over there, and they're finding children in them. Hussein's regime tortured dissidents in the most horrible fashion imaginable. He invaded a country for no other reason than the fact he wanted its riches. The idea that activities within the United States can even remotely be compared to these atrocities is simply naive. That is why no one is trying to force their way into the U.S. for weapons inpsections.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:24 pm

THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

...

I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

...

Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.

...

The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll always believe deep down there was excessive justification to overthrow that p.o.s. and his regime when all angles are taken into account (lack of disclosure about WMD, human rights abuses, use of chemical and biological weapons on civilians, invading and trying to annex Kuwait, systematic torture, murder, executions, plotting assassinations, bribery, massive environmental damage, sending blood money to suicide bombers' families, raiding the "oil for food" program for personal use to name a few). The man and his regime were rotten to the core and stayed in power far longer than they should have. The first Bush should have taken the regime out, and in 1998 when Iraq banned inspectors the world collectively should have taken it out. The slimeballs deserved it, plain and simple, the rest is nitpicking imho. People quibble over whether Hussein supported terrorists ... he was a terrorist. So much of this war is wrapped up in partisan hatreds that we rarely even seem to hear about Hussein's brutal handiwork, or it's just glossed over as "yeah, but ..."

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:03 pm

"Do you really believe that Bush is lying when he says that the inspectors didn't have access?"

I believe that stating that we went into Iraq because weapons inspectors were denied access is misleading. I have no doubt that the pressure the Bush administration applied played a big role in the reintroduction of weapons inspectors. But weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq with access didn't seem to be good enough when we went to war.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:49 pm

Vander, don't confuse apparent access with real access. The inspectors rooms were bugged and there were time the inspectors wanted access to something only to be told the guy with the key wasn't around and that they would have to come back. The question is how much real freedom did the inspectors have.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:24 pm

Do you know when the first time Saddam actually gave in and respected the cease fire agreement that saved his ass at the end of DesertStorm.....

It was the minute a U.S. soldier pulled his sorry ass from a hole in the ground at gunpoint.

Not once before that minute did he ever live up to the agreement and he never would have.
He was given a 12 year grace period before the repo man showed up at his palace and the sheriff found his hideout.
That's much more than any mass murdering terrorist deserves. I don't care how either side spins the story, it doesn't change the fact that he had to go.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:09 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vander:
I believe that stating that we went into Iraq because weapons inspectors were denied access is misleading. I have no doubt that the pressure the Bush administration applied played a big role in the reintroduction of weapons inspectors. But weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq with access didn't seem to be good enough when we went to war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I'm just not comprehending here. The "pressure the Bush Administration applied" is apparently Gulf War II. And it was applied by the United States of America, under a U.S. Congressional resolution authorizing force. There was no "re-introduction" after 1998. Until quite recently.

Now if you're suggesting that in your opinion, the fact that Hussein would not permit inspections after 1998 (and permitted only limited inspections in the years prior) is insufficient reason to go to war in the present context, then we can agree to disagree on that point. But the fact is that even the U.N. recognized that inspectors were denied access:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Councilâ??s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people . . . .]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not a conspiracy, my man, unless the U.N. was in on it.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:30 pm

Still trying to get it to stick to the wall, eh, Jeff?

Americans' memories are short. They have to be.

Bottom line is most Americans feel good about what we've done in Iraq (what's not to feel good about after liberating a country and sending a global gadfly and mass murderer to jail?) and it's doubtful the lack of a Smoking Gun will be an election issue for the overwhelming majority of Americans, despite the left telling us it should be the election issue. *yawn* Sorry, we just don't care. America is soooo moved on beyond the WMD discussion that is feels like ancient history just seeing it brought up again. I am mainstreet, hear me roar! My advice to the Dems would be to find an issue that more of us actually give a sh*t about.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 8:17 pm

"The "pressure the Bush Administration applied" is apparently Gulf War II. And it was applied by the United States of America, under a U.S. Congressional resolution authorizing force. There was no "re-introduction" after 1998. Until quite recently."

When I said "the pressure the Bush administration applied," I was talking about the tough talk, the troop movements, etc, before the war. Those threats seemed to motivate Saddam to permit UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq in 2002. That was a good thing, but was apparantly so meaningless to the decision making process of the Bush administration that it is not worthy of mention now.

That is the main point of this thread. Bush makes it seem like Saddam wouldn't let the weapons inspectors in, when in fact, inspections were happening just days before the war. While I haven't called this a lie, it is definitely misleading.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 12:13 am

OH. That inspection.

The hyperlink clips you cite in chronology, omit to mention the interim January, 03 Blix report to the U.N. that noted several instances of procedural and substantive noncompliance with the late 2002 inspections. Ooops. And in that vein, as another poster mentioned, there's compliance and then, there's . . . compliance.

Just an oversight, no doubt, by the original poster at the website to which you allude in your first post. Some might even characterize such an omission misleading.

If memory serves, I think Hussein actually buckled just days before the war, saying something to the effect of "ok ok, now I'll really comply." But the problem is, at a certain point one's credibility becomes suspect. Hussein never had much credibility to begin with, and decided to play games until the end.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:20 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bash:
My advice to the Dems would be to find an issue that more of us actually give a sh*t about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean 500+ dead American soldiers isn't something to care about?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 12:09 pm

As much as the 3,000 that died on 9/11.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 3:49 pm

So those 500+ more deaths were "worth it" in your opinion?

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 4:57 pm

Yes. You join the armed services your life basically becomes forfeit regardless of rhyme or reason. Your only job is to make sure you live long enough to take a few more of the enemy down before you go.

This is the nature of military and war. You do your job, no questions asked. The morality of it sinks in after its done, not during.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 6:32 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Solrazor:
So those 500+ more deaths were "worth it" in your opinion?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup...right up there with all those who died in WW2.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:09 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tyranny:
Yes. You join the armed services your life basically becomes forfeit regardless of rhyme or reason.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kinda' makes one wish there was a James Bond in the world that could annihilate insane madmen like Hussein without causing the bloodshed of so many more. Alas.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:57 pm

Yup

Starken · Post by **Starken** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:40 am

Revisionist history is nothing new to US politics, but this administration does seem to enjoy it don't they?

I'm convinced that very few people prefer 'truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'. They're content with the feel good spin that lets them 'move on' without the tiresome soul searching.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:45 am

Starken, perhaps you could enlighten us lesser mortals as to what the "truth" is.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:47 am

I DID NOT just see woodchip even compare this little taggle to WW2. Germany was a threat. Not some little po-dunk Arab in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of kids that were bullies.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:21 pm

I again refer Vander to the distinction between quote-compliance and real compliance.

For those of you saying the US wouldn't allow weapons inspections -- you're right; we're not required to comply to any weapons limitations by any treaty. Saddam, having lost GW1, was required to submit to inspections.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:00 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Zuruck:
I DID NOT just see woodchip even compare this little taggle to WW2. Germany was a threat. Not some little po-dunk Arab in the middle of nowhere with a bunch of kids that were bullies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Germany was a threat"? At what point along the continuum, prior to the U.S. entering the war, did Germany become a threat, in your view?

Was Germany a threat before or after it invaded Poland? How many invasions must occur, would you say, before the invading sovereign is deemed a threat?

How many civilians, would you say, must be slaughtered before a country becomes a threat? 1000? 5000? How about 15,000 killed and maimed?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm

"Bullies"? I am sure that is not how you view the slaughter of innocents. I think it's reasonable to disagree on the level of the perceived threat, but to characterize Iraq as "podunk", "in the middle of nowhere" and mere "bullies" is pretty flip. Check your history of WWII -- there are good reasons to strike violent, malevolent dictators bent on trouble, before they strike you.

BD

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:17 pm

While he wasn't 'podunk', one of my biggest problems with this war is that it set a new precedent. It is not like WWII, where we were directly attacked by the country, and struck back.

And the evidence was shakey, as you can see neither side here can really prove their case either way. He *could* have had them, and dug a hole in the ground and hid them. He could have given them to Syria, or he could not have had them at all.

Personally, the kind of egomaniac dictator hussain was, I think if we had had the WMD, he would have pulled out all the stops in the war and used them all. Do you really think he puts the 'causes of the terrorists' above himself and hid his WMD so other countries could use them? Nope. He is a blithering ego-maniac, who would never have stayed in a whole for 2 months if he didn't really have to.

We created the dangerous new policy of 'pre-emptive strike'. It's all fine and good in our hands, but what if other countries decide to do the same thing, on the same kind of contriversial evidence that divides the entire world from over-confident presidents? We're opening up a can of worms I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole.

We attacked an enemy and overthrew them that never had attacked us. Don't give me the BS about us going into Iraq to liberate them, that's just as much of a BS line as saying we entered WWII to save those dying in concentration camps. Since we obviously didn't go in on a humanitarian mission (well, the troops may have felt this way, but this wasn't the president's motive) there must have been some perceived threat (or desire to 'modernize' the middle east from the PNAC paper). There are also plenty of other horrible atrocities caused by dictators in different parts of the world, so it seems rather randomly selective to claim liberation as a cause.

If you are going to have a pre-emptive strike, there better be some damn good evidence of a plot against the US. But no hard evidence existed. You can dance around the points, the briefs in different manners, but you still really have poor evidence to actually declare war. The Bush adminstration grossly over-stated their assurance of the WMD problem. They specifically stated they had intelligence about the existance of WMD, and that it was a 'real threat'. This was undeniably a gross exaggeration of the truth.

Saddam Hussain was no obvious threat to us. And we are replacing him with who? That's another important question to ask. Yes, he is bad, but can we actually create a unified democracy in Iraq? So far, no but I hope we do. I fear it may just fall into another dictatorship.

Are we really better off? I'm not even necessarily talking about safety of the people in the US. The country is more divided than ever on this issue and the world disagrees with us and dislikes us more than ever (which, by the way, is a contributor to terrorism). Even if more inspections would have been futile, we had Hussain at bay. There was no reason not to extend the olive branch to our fellow international friends (Yes, I know countries like France had oil motives, but everyone always has ulterior motives) and at least appear as if we were listening in the UN and willing to co-operate. I don't care if waiting would have made an ounce of difference, it would have done wonders for our international relations.

But, we're talking about the King of Diplomacy who called other countries "The Axis of Evil" and used diplomatic phrases such as
"with us or against us."

I'm not trying to be some sort of bush hater here, please objectively read my statements. It's easier to defend your country and want to believe everything we do is right, but that is not always the case. Sometimes our leaders make poor decisions, and I think this was one. Changing the subject to the election is avoiding the issue, and doesn't really matter to me. Democrat or republican we have a paid of shark that doesn't represent the people, only special interests.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:45 pm

Much has been said by the left of David Kayes testimony before a senate panel about a lack of WMD's or at least the perceived lack of WMD's. When Kaye was questioned on Sundays Fox News he made a couple of interesting observations as to why we were still obligated to go into Iraq.

One was that Saddam was starting to loose his grip as he was increasingly out of touch with the people of Iraq. The frightening scenario would be a Iraq in a 3 way civil war between the Sunni's, the Shiites (sp?) and the Kurds. Iraq in turmoil would have encouraged the Iranians, the Syrians and perhaps the Turks to try and get a piece of the oil rich pie...and the unknown stockpile of WMD's (which everyone assumed Iraq had)

A second scenario was Iraq would be a world market place where foreign traders could come and barter their goods. Russians could come in to sell pocket nukes to the highest bidder, China could sell centrifuges, Pakistan could come and sell enrichment materials and Korea could sell long range delivery systems. I'll let you all imagine who might pick up on these "commodities".

The problem with the liberal out of power politicians and their liberal press allies, is they keep focusing on why we shouldn't instead of being forward looking and why we should. For that reason alone I wouldn't consider any one of the femdem presidential hopefuls as being worthy of my vote.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:29 pm

Wood, my primary reason for being against was the case for 'should' was shakey and unclear. The Hawks had arguments, but never clear enough evidence to declare war.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:36 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Birdseye:
 It is not like WWII, where we were directly attacked by the country, and struck back.....

...We created the dangerous new policy of 'pre-emptive strike'. It's all fine and good in our hands, but what if other countries decide to do the same thing, on the same kind of contriversial evidence that divides the entire world from over-confident presidents? We're opening up a can of worms I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole....

...We attacked an enemy and overthrew them that never had attacked us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We were attacked, we recognized that geography and borders don't define who is in charge or who is a major threat in this modern world. So we returned fire.
Hussain was just one of many players we want to be rid of, the time was ripe so now he's gone. All the talk of WMD's was just packaging for those who want to think in terms of 1942 type threats.

The parallels between Hitler and Hussain go far beyond each mans affinity for silly mustaches and plastering giant posters of their own image everywhere.
Saddam was poised to perform the same power grab that Hitler did.
If we had done the same to Hitler at some early stage imagine the millions of lives saved.
It didn't happen because there were people who didn't want to get involved, people who were thinking in an outdated frame of mind, countries who had self serving interests, countries who were afraid....

The similarities are striking but in this case the snakes head was chopped off before the bite.
Take politics out of the equation and the arguments for keeping Hussain in power are laid bare as patently ridiculous!

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:46 am

I somewhat agree with what Will said. See, the whole perceived notion that Hussein was a threat to the US is just plain silly if you ask me. However, we do have allies in the middle east, and Saddam's defiance of the US was starting to grow again. Which, IMO, meant that he was poised to try to do something more localized in the middle east.

Something that he knew we wouldn't like. Is that a solid basis for going in and uprooting him? No. However, I think the fact that we did do what we did ensured that he couldn't do something later on, regardless of what that might have been. This whole thing has continued to be a broken record though...

Was it right or wrong? It doesn't matter, it is done. Sit back and pay attention to the events that follow because talking about coulda, shoulda, woulda, won't put us back to this time last year before everything got started so we have a chance to do something different.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 12:27 pm

"We were attacked, we recognized that geography and borders don't define who is in charge or who is a major threat in this modern world. So we returned fire."

Hi,
Please show your proof of the 9-11 saddam hussain connection, which the bush adminstration itself says does not exist. I'm surprised from you, will. If we were going to attack any country as a result of 9-11, it would be Saudi Arabia.

"Saddam's defiance of the US was starting to grow again. Which, IMO, meant that he was poised to try to do something more localized in the middle east."

Post proof.

"I think the fact that we did do what we did ensured that he couldn't do something later on, regardless of what that might have been. "

So you would like to take out many other dictators as well? How about N. Korea? They actually have nukes.

I'm not arguing Hussain ousted is a bad thing. But why him? There are many other dictators causing equally as bad atrocities. It's clear we didn't go into WWII or Iraq on humanitarian missions.

I won't let the issue die because I feel like the facts have been distorted and exaggerated to push their cause for alternate reasons which were not disclosed to the public, which is wrong. This is lying to the public. Nobody should get away with something like that. The had alternate reasoning, such as the need to "Modernize" the middle east according to the PNAC paper, and to paraphrase the document, they needed something on the scale of pearl harbor to take out Iraq.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 12:46 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Birdseye:
 Hi,
Please show your proof of the 9-11 saddam hussain connection, which the bush adminstration itself says does not exist. I'm surprised from you, will. If we were going to attack any country as a result of 9-11, it would be Saudi Arabia<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't make it clear obviously. I mean we were attacked by a conglomeration of threats of which Saddam is a member and supporter. So when 9/11 happened we reacted by attacking all of them.
Saudi Arabia is a heartbeat away from being taken over by bin Laddin and/or his people so we don't dare upset that balance just yet because we aren't prepared to spread out that thin. Hopefully we will get Iraq calmed down before taking on any more work.
Why not N.Korea, because they do have nukes so it's a little more dangerous. Also, they really only threaten S.Korea and if they attack them it is suicide for them so really they are more contained than Saddam ever was.
N.Korea's exportation of arms is still a threat but have you noticed our navy has suddenly started boarding ships around the globe in search of weapons shipments...we are clamping down on N.Koreas one avenue of causing damage to us.

' ....Modernize the middle east according to the PNAC paper,...'

Exactly the motive, and the proper solution in my judgement.

"to paraphrase the document, they needed something on the scale of pearl harbor to take out Iraq."

Exactly what happened, and Bush decided to sieze the day.
Dangerous, bold and perhaps on a par with the greatest thing any president has ever done....if it works.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:41 pm

The other thing with North Korea is that, verily, it is the problem of South Korea, Japan, and even China to work out. A rogue state like North Korea doesn't do anyone there any favors. The positive aspect is that southeastern Asia is relatively stable and they should be capable of working out a solution to the North Korea problem themselves. In my opinion, North Korea is a greater threat to entreprenuering Japan and South Korea moreso than us.

I'd be hard pressed to see a legitimate argument that the Middle East isn't better off with Hussein gone. The plain and simple truth is that so long as Hussein was in control of Iraq, there was no way peace would ever have a chance. Now we've ousted the dictator and the people he once presided over - intelligent people with a strong middle-class - have a chance to rise up and become a significant economic power in the Middle East. You plant the seed for this to happen in Iraq, and eventually its neighbors will see that progress and want a piece of it for themselves. Best case scenario: the Middle East goes from developing region to fully industrialized region.

Suffice it to say, I don't see how this would be possible with a crazed Hitler-esque tyrant next door.

If it works, what we accomplished in Iraq will have significant repercussions in the future. All modernized countries would benefit from stability in the Middle East region. That goes far beyond this argument about WMDs.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:26 pm

Birds, if you can't get over the fact that the US govt. lies to you and the rest of us, then your mental anguish over it won't be cured anytime soon. The fact of the matter is they've done it long before you or I were ever born, and they will continue to do it. Why? because they still feel the public can't handle the truth and because we are more content going about our little lives unburdened by the outside events that exist out of our control.

Sure, we live in an age where modern media constantly scrutinize the situations going on, but truth be told, the information being told by the media, by the govt, by a lot of people has always been a great deal further from the truth then most of us would like. 'tis the nature of the beast

In the long run it doesn't really matter though, so I don't understand why you persist to call into question the real reasons for Saddam's asskicking. I don't know...the middle east has been a pock mark on the face of this planet for quite a while now, so much violence in a place that gave birth to modern organized religion. Religion that preaches peace and kindness, but because wielded by humanity only seems to bring death and hatred in that region.

As far as I'm concerned it should have been turned into a smoldering crater years ago.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:19 pm

Birds, you really should quit asking "why not North Korea" since I've answered it for you at least a dozen times now.

Why not North Korea, but why Iraq? It's all about the oil -- in particular, North Korea has none, nor any other significant resources, so they can just be starved out. Economic pressure can pretty well shut down their crap. Iraq, on the other hand, has oil they can keep trading somehow, so economic pressure didn't have any significant effect on Saddam over the course of a dozen years.

KJI2 is trying to make NK sound like it's a big threat, because he has no other bargaining chips. He's desperate to improve his position, which is why he's laying so many cards on the table.

Also, KJI2 isn't a radical Islamic terrorist, and he doesn't have any particular ties to any; he's a "highest bidder" type guy. Saddam, on the other hand, does have some ties to some radical Islamic terrorists (remember the 25K payment to families of palestinian suicide bombers?) Since we got attacked by radical Islamic terrorists, guess who we went to war with?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:30 pm

"It didn't happen because there were people who didn't want to get involved, people who were thinking in an outdated frame of mind, countries who had self serving interests, countries who were afraid...."Will

Re-phrased:

It didn't happen because there were people who didn't want to get involved: The French

people who were thinking in an outdated frame of mind, The French

countries who had self serving interests. The French

countries who were afraid. The French

Sorry I couldn't resist

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:32 pm

But, we're talking about the King of Diplomacy who called other countries "The Axis of Evil"

Yes, they're such benevolent governments. Let's take a peek, shall we:

North Korea
Amnesty International has received reports of public executions carried out at places where large crowds gather, with advance notice given to schools, enterprises and farms. Some prisoners have reportedly been executed in front of their families. Executions are carried out by hanging or firing-squad.

Opposition of any kind is not tolerated. According to reports, any person who expresses an opinion contrary to the position of the ruling party faces severe punishment, and so do their family in many cases. The domestic news media is strictly censored and access to international media broadcasts is restricted.

Any unauthorized assembly or association is regarded as a "collective disturbance", liable to punishment. Religious freedom, although guaranteed by the constitution, is in practice sharply curtailed. There are reports of severe repression of people involved in public and private religious activities, through imprisonment, torture and executions. Many Christians are reportedly being held in labour camps.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/EN ... of=ENG-PRK

Iran
The 2002 U.S. State Dept. Human Rights report cites Iran as a â??major violatorâ?

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:54 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Birdseye:
While he wasn't 'podunk', one of my biggest problems with this war is that it set a new precedent. It is not like WWII, where we were directly attacked by the country, and struck back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think your answer to the following question will help narrow the issues.

Are there any circumstances under which you feel the United States would be justified in attacking another country, other than in retaliation to a direct attack? If you contend such circumstances exist, describe them.

 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
And the evidence was shakey, as you can see neither side here can really prove their case either way. He *could* have had them, and dug a hole in the ground and hid them. He could have given them to Syria, or he could not have had them at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are looking at two different sets of facts. I allow for the possibility that we won't discover WMD. But to say "the evidence was shaky"? Hussein used Mustard gas, a blistering agent which affects membranes of the nose, throat, and lungs, and nerve agents such as sarin, tabun, and VX on his own people in Halabja. Nothing shaky there.

Then, the United Nations made specific findings which contradict your assertion that "the evidence was shaky" in U.N. Resolution 1441. Hussein refused to disclose how he disposed of weapons he admitted he had. The evidence was and is overwhelming.

 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Personally, the kind of egomaniac dictator hussain was, I think if we had had the WMD, he would have pulled out all the stops in the war and used them all. Do you really think he puts the 'causes of the terrorists' above himself and hid his WMD so other countries could use them? Nope. He is a blithering ego-maniac, who would never have stayed in a whole for 2 months if he didn't really have to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting prediction. It appears you were incorrect. I'm not sure that your incorrect prediction is a basis for concluding there was no threat of WMD.

 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
We created the dangerous new policy of 'pre-emptive strike'. It's all fine and good in our hands, but what if other countries decide to do the same thing, on the same kind of contriversial evidence that divides the entire world from over-confident presidents? We're opening up a can of worms I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See my question to you, supra. My guess is that your answer will be "no". That response will be telling, because it separates us, ideologically.

 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
If you are going to have a pre-emptive strike, there better be some damn good evidence of a plot against the US. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about a plot to assassinate a United States President? How does that rate?

 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
There are also plenty of other horrible atrocities caused by dictators in different parts of the world, so it seems rather randomly selective to claim liberation as a cause. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are going to have a pre-emptive strike, there better be some damn good evidence of a plot against the US. But no hard evidence existed. You can dance around the points, the briefs in different manners, but you still really have poor evidence to actually declare war. The Bush adminstration grossly over-stated their assurance of the WMD problem. They specifically stated they had intelligence about the existance of WMD, and that it was a 'real threat'. This was undeniably a gross exaggeration of the truth.

Did you speak out against Operation Desert Fox? Do you even know what Operation Desert Fox is? Begin your googling now, or see http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/ , and if you contend that no hard evidence existed to support this pre-emptive strike, explain how.

Please think critically, your grade depends on it.

That's another important question to ask. Yes, he is bad, but can we actually create a unified democracy in Iraq? So far, no but I hope we do. I fear it may just fall into another dictatorship.

Excellent question. I refer you to Japan and Germany, post WWII, but I think there are significant differences here, which may make the present situation far more challenging.

Are we really better off? I'm not even necessarily talking about safety of the people in the US. The country is more divided than ever on this issue and the world disagrees with us and dislikes us more than ever (which, by the way, is a contributor to terrorism).

I believe we are better off. I believe that a dictator who is ensconced in a region hostile to the U.S. and is laden with billions; who has a history of invading sovereign nations for no other reason than increasing his own power; who slaughters 5000 of his own countrymen with nerve agents just to see if he can do it; is viewed in the context of a world where Muslim hostility to Western civilization is at its arguable peak; and where technological deployment of chemical, biological, or god forbid -- nuclear weapons -- , is at its most accessible -- is a threat to the United States. Call me crazy.

As for the affection of other countries -- it's hard for me to give a good ***damn less about them. They'll get on board once they've had 3000 or so husbands, wives, sons and daughters die a fiery death at the hand of extremists from the Middle East. Until then, I can do without them.

 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Even if more inspections would have been futile, we had Hussain at bay. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check with David Kaye on that. He says Hussein was actually more of a threat than we perceived before the war. Or is Kaye right about the WMD, and wrong on this point?

 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But, we're talking about the King of Diplomacy who called other countries "The Axis of Evil" and used diplomatic phrases such as "with us or against us."

I'm not trying to be some sort of bush hater here, please objectively read my statements. It's easier to defend your country and want to believe everything we do is right, but that is not always the case. Sometimes our leaders make poor decisions, and I think this was one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've made some fair comment, birds, but a number of previous administrations sat back and did nothing in the face of growing terrorist threats, and put us where we are today. It began with Reagan in Lebanon, continued with Bush I - through Clinton, and the buck has finally stopped. The Boeings came home to roost when they hit the Towers. The world is different, although some do not wish to believe it.

BD

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 9:52 pm

An interesting perspective on the 8000 liters of botulium Saddam was thought to have...would fit into one tractor trailer. Now, how hard would that be to hide, bury or ship out of country? The problem that the "Bush Lied" crowd is, their math works out to:
No WMD found = no WMD there.