• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Topic: Okay, Explain it to Me

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Okay, Explain it to Me

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    Okay, we've had a bunch of investigations and reports come out over the last couple months. Here's what we've got:

    1. The 9/11 Commission said there were no credible ties between Saddam and Al Queda/9-11.

    2. Cheney's own requested report came back Monday saying that Saddam had no link to terrorists, including Zarqawi.

    3. The weapons inspectors just gave us their final report saying that there is absolutely no evidence of WMDs in Iraq since 1991, and no evidence that he was trying to build an arsenal, no evidence that he COULD have built an arsenal if he wanted to -- that his capability for such was weakening.

    So WHY was Saddam considered a threat and WHY did we go to war?

    Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do....

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Dorset, UK
    Posts
    470

    Re: Okay, Explain it to Me

    Quote Originally Posted by robgb
    So WHY was Saddam considered a threat and WHY did we go to war?
    How can you doubt the overwhelming danger he presented when he defied 17, yes 17, UN resolutions! And did you know he refused to eat his cabbage and stayed up late to watch porn!!



    Just thinking. Your own Mark Twain said "if you have a hammer in your hand everything looks like nails". What if you are just given the most powerful job with the biggest hammer in the world, by God, who has told you to do a good job. Then 9/11 happens, and you have to do something, Afghanistan -not enough; -if it happens again and you haven't done stuff..the guilt!-, people around you point at Iraq and say "there's another nail". You'd flatten it, wouldn't you?

    I also think Cheyney and Rumsfeld were surprised out by the opposition to the war. They figured that Saddam was so hated that people on the whole wouldn't care too much about reasons: a vague lumping in with terrorism and 9/11 was thought to be enough. (This isn't an answer to your question, is it, and its late)

  3. #3

    Re: Okay, Explain it to Me

    I LOVE the Twain quote -- but COME ON, where are all the conservatives who support Bush's folly? Wes? Eric? Answer my question.

  4. #4

    Re: Okay, Explain it to Me

    Ok Rob since you bait me

    We went to war because:

    -US, Britian, France, Russia, and Germany's intelligence services said he had the weapons.
    - Recorded conversations show his own troops thought he had them.
    - He refused to allow unfettered access to prove he didn't.
    - We knew he had them in the past.
    - We knew he used them in the past.
    - The final un resolution said disarm (prove it), or face serious consequences.

    Now, in a post 9/11 world, looking at the above, which is what we knew before the war, would you NOT have done something?????
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    Eric Doggett
    MoonDog Media
    www.moondogmedia.net

  5. #5

    Re: Okay, Explain it to Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Doggett
    Now, in a post 9/11 world, looking at the above, which is what we knew before the war, would you NOT have done something?????
    Ahh. The war vs. doing nothing view. It's a false choice.

    Enforcing sanctions, owning their airspace, dropping the occassional bomb, funding anti-Baathist groups and having active weapons inspections was far from doing nothing. You may chip away at these actions, but you cannot claim that it was doing nothing.

    So, what of Korea? As far as I know there are no enforced International sanctions (I could be wrong), we don't drop bombs there, we don't fly over their air-space, and we no longer monitor their nuclear facilities. We don't even hold talks with their leaders. Now that's doing nothing.

    Our actions in Iraq prevented Saddam from acquiring any viable means of harming us. During a time of inaction and a hyper-aggressive stance (speaking loudly without a stick), North Korea has pushed its nuclear program forward.

    Anyway, long post. Nobody was advocating doing-nothing in Iraq.

    -JF

  6. #6

    Re: Okay, Explain it to Me

    I can explain it:

    Intel seems to be conveniently malleable:

    When it goes against your position it's "flawed", "bad", "wrong", "faulty", "a lie" (my personal fav.)

    When it goes for your position it's:

    FLAWLESS

  7. #7

    Re: Okay, Explain it to Me

    The reason the pre-war intel was bad was simply because it was so minimal and tenuous. We didn't really have any solid intel since '98 when the UN inspectors last left.

    Now we have TONS of very solid intel, since we have teams searching everywhere, David Kay, then this new guy. No WMDS or programs.

    The best pre-war intel we had was from the 90s UN inspectors. After 5 years, we FINALLY got the inspectors back in there (good idea), then before getting fresh new intel, Bush kicked them out and attacked.

    We basically launched a war on 5 year old intel, and any new intel was very flimsy and coming from INC with ulterior motives to get us to attack. Bush didn't even try to get new intel from the UN inspectors to see if there were any WMDs. He just kicked them out and charged in in such a hurry. Does not make sense at all.

  8. #8

    Re: Okay, Explain it to Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Doggett
    Ok Rob since you bait me

    We went to war because:

    -US, Britian, France, Russia, and Germany's intelligence services said he had the weapons.
    - Recorded conversations show his own troops thought he had them.
    - He refused to allow unfettered access to prove he didn't.
    - We knew he had them in the past.
    - We knew he used them in the past.
    - The final un resolution said disarm (prove it), or face serious consequences.

    Now, in a post 9/11 world, looking at the above, which is what we knew before the war, would you NOT have done something?????
    NO. You know why? Because AT THE TIME (I'm not talking hindsight here), there were a large number of INFORMED U.S. citizens who actually knew about all the information in those reports long before they were written and long before we invaded Iraq. That's exactly WHY we were against the war.

    When I say informed, I mean we read non-mainstream press, we read foreign papers, we listened to non-mainstream radio -- all of which were pointing out the fallacy of WMDs, the Saddam threat, etc. AND WE WERE RIGHT.

    Remember Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector? He came out at the time and said there's NO WAY Saddam has WMDs. And he wasn't alone.

    The information was OUT there and most of America ignored it. As did George W. Bush -- and, for that matter, John Kerry.

    So, again, I ask, WHY did we go to war?

  9. #9

    Re: Okay, Explain it to Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Doggett
    Ok Rob since you bait me

    We went to war because:

    -US, Britian, France, Russia, and Germany's intelligence services said he had the weapons.
    - Recorded conversations show his own troops thought he had them.
    - He refused to allow unfettered access to prove he didn't.
    - We knew he had them in the past.
    - We knew he used them in the past.
    - The final un resolution said disarm (prove it), or face serious consequences.

    Now, in a post 9/11 world, looking at the above, which is what we knew before the war, would you NOT have done something?????
    I'm sure this has been said before. But, one by one, as these paper thin arguments are the only ones for the invasion. Encore une fois:

    Hey that's strange. Here in Britain it's pretty clear we had no such evidence and just went along with it because Blair poodles along with Bush and US intelligence. If you are actually saying there is any British intelligence that points to possession of WMD's you need to look at things like the UK's independant Butler report that says there was none.

    Who allows anyone unfettered access to their military? Saddam argued that he didn't want his military capabilities to be available to the Americans in case they used the information to invade him. Oh. They did that, didn't they.

    Yes he had them. But he, like, got rid of them. Like he was supposed to.

    He used gas in the past against the Kurds. I'll give you that.

    The final resolution did say disarm. But he already had. There was no further UN resolution to qualify the nature of the serious consequences. That might be why the secretary general of the UN declared the invasion illegal.
    duh????

  10. #10

    Re: Okay, Explain it to Me

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    Ahh. The war vs. doing nothing view. It's a false choice.

    Enforcing sanctions, owning their airspace, dropping the occassional bomb, funding anti-Baathist groups and having active weapons inspections was far from doing nothing. You may chip away at these actions, but you cannot claim that it was doing nothing.


    -JF
    According to the summary report just released, the UN including 3 UNSC members had been compromised by Saddam. Up until 95, all the things you mention were working. We had taken care of most of his existing WMD stocks and dismantled much of his capability and the sanctions seriously erroded much of his industrial infrastructure that remained after the Gulf war. After 95 the report says SAddam was able to rebuild his industrial infrastructure, aquire enough dual use equipment and build new clandestine lab complexes used for WMD research and basically continue to rebuild his WMD production capability (although not at the military complex scale)...through his compromising the UN and UNSC members and oil for food program and undercutting the sanctions.

    The UN policy of containment, inspection, sanctions..etc..had been compromised by 95..and Saddam began reversing the degredation of his industrial capability, and been aquireing dual use equipement and began restructuring his complexes to much smaller , segmented clandestine labs ..some of which were never known to exist by UNSCOM/Blix and had seriously undermined the UN and UNSC ability to enforce anything against him.

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •