[quote]JeffR wrote:
First of all, calling me a liar is uncalled for.
I don’t lie.[/quote]
You uncritically accept anything that supports your pre-established conclusion and repeat it verbatim. Repeating the lies of others, or embellishing your side of the issue, while dismissing any contrary facts, does not present the truth of the matter.
And to you, everything wrong everywhere boils down to “it’s the Dem’s fault.”
[quote]Second, the Sunni’s in Anbar are banding against al qaeda terrorists.
Yeah, I remember the “23 reasons” speech… I even commented on it. About 17 of those were related to WMDs; a few others to unsupported links with Al-Qaeda (who’s definitely there now) and a sprinkle of bullshit to top it off.
I don’t remember getting a reply to that post. I wonder why.
Why wasn’t Hans Blix complaining then? He was there and apparently satisfied with the access he was given by the Iraqis.
He didn’t have WMDs to arm terrorists with in the first place. Why not worry about Russia, China, or even North Korea who definitely have WMDs and could “accidentally” (of course) misplace a few. It’s already the case in Russia.
While ignoring the setbacks occurring at the same time.
Basically, you’ve already decided that the reinforcements will work, regardless of what’s actually happening over there.
Guerilla warfare is designed for asymmetric forces; your tiny reinforcements will temporarily affect a few small regions, but the insurgents will simply move around and strike elsewhere.
Just look at the monthly casualties: A small decline at the beginning or “the surge” and, as the insurgents adapt and redeploy, a return to the same levels of violence as previously experienced.
I’d like to believe that this time, it will really, really work. But I’m not seeing it.
Odd, since there is apparently so much of it. Damn the evil Democrats and their complete domination of the media.
Of course, anyone reporting anything that disagrees with your foregone conclusion is “a hostile press” manipulating stories because of some innate desire to always be right.
I wonder who’s desperate to always be right here…
Al-Qaeda actually establishing a strong base of operation in Iraq was also a HUGE development. You conveniently forget to mention that one. Lying by omission is still lying.
Yeah, yeah. Can’t refute anything I say, so you resort to ad hominem. Your tactics are as pathetic as your understanding of how modern wars involving unequal forces are waged.
Violence in Baghdad continues; this morning, dozens of people were killed and injured in two separate car bombings.
Who can argue with THAT progress?
Michael Yon is not afraid to criticize the admin, the military and the way the war has been fought. He has this to say.
Although there is sharp fighting in Diyala Province, and Baghdad remains a battleground, and the enemy is trying to undermine security in areas they?d lost interest in, the fact is that the security plan, or so-called ?surge,? is showing clear signs of progress. The city of Hit, for instance. Only about a hundred days ago, Hit was a city at war.
Today, the buildings are still riddled with bullet holes, but the Iraqi people are opening shops and painting over the scars. They are waving and smiling while hundreds of men are volunteering to join the police.
I saw a ?policeman? on duty today whose ?weapon? was a plastic pistol. I photographed the toy. And so this man was on ?duty? with a toy pistol, though he has not yet attended the police academy and is not even being paid.
A writer could probably squeeze bad news from that story, but I won?t try. In fact, Hit is a place where writers who wish to escape combat and bad news should visit.
And of course he is over there.
Excellent article. Keep them coming!!!
JeffR
While Jeffry was playing with his ponys:
BAGHDAD – The U.S. military announced Tuesday that 10 American soldiers were killed in Iraq on Memorial Day, making May the deadliest month for U.S. troops this year, as insurgents continued attacks on official and civilian targets.
Gunmen dressed in police uniforms staged a well-coordinated kidnapping at Iraq’s Finance Ministry and abducted five people whom the British Foreign Office identified as British citizens.
Two vehicle bombings in Baghdad left at least 44 people dead and 74 wounded. And the bodies of 32 men – all shot and tortured, some handcuffed and blindfolded – were found in two locations north and south of the capital Tuesday, a senior Iraqi security official said.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
First of all, calling me a liar is uncalled for.
I don’t lie.
You uncritically accept anything that supports your pre-established conclusion and repeat it verbatim. Repeating the lies of others, or embellishing your side of the issue, while dismissing any contrary facts, does not present the truth of the matter.
And to you, everything wrong everywhere boils down to “it’s the Dem’s fault.”
Second, the Sunni’s in Anbar are banding against al qaeda terrorists.
It’s called the Anbar Salvation Council.
That’s good. Why are there so few after 4 years?
Third, I refuse to link Bush’s 2002-2003 speeches AGAIN. If you want to believe that WMD were the only reason the U.S. went in, that’s your choice.
Yeah, I remember the “23 reasons” speech… I even commented on it. About 17 of those were related to WMDs; a few others to unsupported links with Al-Qaeda (who’s definitely there now) and a sprinkle of bullshit to top it off.
I don’t remember getting a reply to that post. I wonder why.
Further, undeclared conventional weaponry and sarin was found. Further, he was pouring money into R & D with the goal of reconstituting his weaponery. Finally, he was openly lying about his capabilities and goals and circumventing inspections.
Why wasn’t Hans Blix complaining then? He was there and apparently satisfied with the access he was given by the Iraqis.
If you look back and feel that he was never going to arm terrorists with WMD or that he wasn’t going to attack our allied, that’s entirely your problem.
He didn’t have WMDs to arm terrorists with in the first place. Why not worry about Russia, China, or even North Korea who definitely have WMDs and could “accidentally” (of course) misplace a few. It’s already the case in Russia.
Finally, this thread is to point out the successes achieved under a new strategy.
While ignoring the setbacks occurring at the same time.
Basically, you’ve already decided that the reinforcements will work, regardless of what’s actually happening over there.
Guerilla warfare is designed for asymmetric forces; your tiny reinforcements will temporarily affect a few small regions, but the insurgents will simply move around and strike elsewhere.
Just look at the monthly casualties: A small decline at the beginning or “the surge” and, as the insurgents adapt and redeploy, a return to the same levels of violence as previously experienced.
I’d like to believe that this time, it will really, really work. But I’m not seeing it.
It’s unfortunate that good news has to be sought and highlighted.
Odd, since there is apparently so much of it. Damn the evil Democrats and their complete domination of the media.
Unfortunately, a hostile press who, like you, are trying to be “right” buries much of these developments.
Of course, anyone reporting anything that disagrees with your foregone conclusion is “a hostile press” manipulating stories because of some innate desire to always be right.
I wonder who’s desperate to always be right here…
Sunni’s banding together to kill al qaeda is a HUGE development.
Al-Qaeda actually establishing a strong base of operation in Iraq was also a HUGE development. You conveniently forget to mention that one. Lying by omission is still lying.
Again, if you downplay it, that says more about you than anything else.
Yeah, yeah. Can’t refute anything I say, so you resort to ad hominem. Your tactics are as pathetic as your understanding of how modern wars involving unequal forces are waged.
[/quote]
pookie,
I’ll let you have the last word. As usual, you have to be shoved into accepting alternative viewpoints. You and I have had several examples of this in the past.
I appreciate your passion. However, I think you are wrong headed in many regards.
hussein was never going to cooperate enough to make inspections effective. Remember the u.n. being thrown out in 1998? What got them back in? I’ll tell you: Force. Threats of violence. How long do you think we could have massed our troops on the borders to make him grudgingly comply?
How long tell he called our bluff?
Second, I laughed out loud when you accused me of selective sourcing or omissions.
You are the canadian version of bradley. If it’s critical of the Administration, you are all over it. Sorry, but it’s the truth. You are a slightly better person because you can be forced to admit your errors. However, it takes way more time and effort than I’m willing to put into this.
Third, I’m happy to discuss and point out where I think the Administration has erred. I think they erred in not directly targeting and killing more of the milita leaders (even in Mosques). Killing and capturing iranian operatives. Another was rumsfeld. As much as I like the man, I would have fired him earlier.
I understand what they were thinking at the time. However, it was still an error.
Conversely, I hear quite a bit of second guessing about troop levels regarding 2003.
I must tell you frankly that I’m sick of the hindsight crap when it comes to troop levels. I remember the Administration was trying to employ Afghanistan on a larger scale. You know, minimize force levels and let the Iraqi’s (Afghans) do most of the heavy lifting. I remember open discussion about if we put too many troops on the ground, we’d be viewed as occupiers and stir up ill will.
Where is the magical number?
I also know full well that the same dinks that act like they knew all along about the need for more troops would have been decrying the cost of a monster force. “We are stretched too thin.” “Too many redeployments.” “Too much cost.” On and on and freaking on.
Therefore, I’m not going to sit here and say that I knew exactly what the troops levels should have been. I didn’t. You didn’t. McCain didn’t.
Pick your poison. Either too many with it’s inherent costs/risks or too little and the militas/al qaeda/iran infiltrate.
Finally, the worst argument that is made by you and your ilk is this, “If the U.S. attacks Iraq, why not iran, north korea, sudan etc…”
I HATE that crap.
It’s one of my least favorite. I almost prefer, “Bush lied, everyone died.”
It’s like saying, “I have multiple problems. Because I can’t fix all at once, I’m not going to fix any.”
Again, I HATE IT. It’s so nonsensical.
I GUARANTEE that had we attacked north korea, you and your sniveling pals would have said, “Wait a second, hussein is firing on your planes. He’s arming terrorists. He’s protecting zarqawi. He’s running ads for bin laden. He’s not disclosing his weaponry. He’s bribing the u.n. He’s violating the cease fire. Why attack north korea when saddam is more obviously guilty.”
In summary,
I am fully aware and acknowledge the volatility of war. I also realize that there have been mistakes made.
However, I’m going to give the military and Administration credit when they get something correct.
If one doesn’t, then one drifts into the realm of the hypocrite. Further, without taking a balanced look at events, one loses all credibility.
I’ll let you have the last word. As usual, you have to be shoved into accepting alternative viewpoints. You and I have had several examples of this in the past.[/quote]
I can see the alternative viewpoints just fine. I disagree with your conclusions; even with the sporadic good news coming from Iraq, I still think the whole thing will end with the region worse off than it was before you went in.
But believe me, I really hope I’m dead wrong about this. I just can’t look at the facts and reconcile them with your conclusion.
Indefinitely. Having your troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and patrolling the no-fly zones worked well for over 10 years. It could’ve gone on for quite a few more, at a much reduced cost, both in dollars and lives.
Saddam was effectively contained. Any WMD activity could’ve been dealt with by using surgical strikes / precision bombing. Just like Israel did when they bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981.
Come on. Even in his wildest dreams, Saddam never posed a serious threat to the US. He might threaten a few of your local interests, but at the very worse, he’d get his ass kicked to the curb like he did in Gulf War 1.
To hear you talk about it, it’s like Iraq was nearly on par with the US in military power. Don’t be ridiculous.
[quote]Second, I laughed out loud when you accused me of selective sourcing or omissions.
You are the canadian version of bradley. If it’s critical of the Administration, you are all over it. Sorry, but it’s the truth. You are a slightly better person because you can be forced to admit your errors. However, it takes way more time and effort than I’m willing to put into this.[/quote]
Well then, show me one, just one, URL or reference you’ve previously given that shows both sides of any issue. Hell, just show me one thread where you’ve nuanced your position or admitted that there might be factors you hadn’t considered.
I haven’t gone back and checked, but I’m pretty sure that when I was calling Rumsfeld an idiot 3 years ago, you were there, defending him and everyone of his dumb decisions.
And now you claim you would’ve fired him? I’ve remained constant in my appreciation of Rumsfeld; you, on the other hand, have flip-flopped to reflect the media talking points your beloved administration puts out.
As for being critical of the administration, don’t worry, I distrust every government and I give none of them a free pass on anything.
[quote]I understand what they were thinking at the time. However, it was still an error.
Conversely, I hear quite a bit of second guessing about troop levels regarding 2003.[/quote]
What I hear is that initially your generals were asking for close to twice what Rumsfeld wanted. He sent them back or got rid of them until he had people agreeing with his numbers.
Had you had more troops, securing the borders would’ve been easier. Restoring peace and order after the fall of Saddam would’ve been easier.
Instead, we had idiots in Washington substituting their “knowledge” for the ones the true experts offered. And a huge mess in the Middle East.
Iran must be laughing their asses off. They couldn’t have planned it any better had they had a high-placed mole in the Whitehouse.
You might want to check with them first, to make sure they’re on board with all that heavy lifting.
It’s a bit presumptuous to invade a country and then ask them to lend a hand, don’t you think?
Which, luckily, hasn’t happened with the current troop levels. Oh, wait…
As many as your top generals ask for to do the job you’ve assigned them. Winning wars is their job. Don’t ask them to do it but then tie one hand behind their backs.
Who cares about the dinks? (Whoever they are). You want to wage war? Plan it. Extensively. And then commit what your experts tell you they will need. Who the fuck wages a war based on public opinion and media polls? Oh, right. You do. See how well that works?
If you’re unable or unwilling to wage proper war, then find better means of reaching your goals. Don’t saddle the world with a humongous clusterfuck that no one knows how to get out of.
At least double what you had. The more, the merrier. Having too many troops sounds like a much easier problem to deal with than not having enough. Who cares about the costs. Even if the costs had been tripled, getting the job done and out of there in a year would’ve saved you money and lives in the long run. Not to mention international good will.
Gee, is it just me who find this choice incredibly easy to make?
[quote]Finally, the worst argument that is made by you and your ilk is this, “If the U.S. attacks Iraq, why not iran, north korea, sudan etc…”
I HATE that crap.[/quote]
I agree that it’s a completely stupid argument. But it’s an entirely legitimate answer to the completely stupid reasons given for the war. Why Iraq? All the reasons given for the 2003 invasions apply equally (sometimes more) to other nations and dictators. Give us the real reasons and I’m sure that argument will die on it’s own.
It wouldn’t bother you so much if you weren’t unable to refute it intelligently.
Still, when you have many problems, but can only fix one, you make the decision based on various criteria. The problem is that the various stated “official” criteria don’t add up. They don’t reasonably justify picking Iraq over Iran or North Korea. Was it a coin flip? A dartboard? A personal vendetta for Bush? What’s the missing criteria and why can’t we know what it is?
I don’t really care who you pick as long as the reasons given can be backed up and make sense.
Why would so many of your allies who were with you in 1991, or in NATO and Afghanistan decide to sit this one out?
If the case was as airtight as you like to pretend it was, it would’ve been a no-brainer to join the coalition and lend a hand.
[quote]In summary,
I am fully aware and acknowledge the volatility of war. I also realize that there have been mistakes made.
However, I’m going to give the military and Administration credit when they get something correct.[/quote]
Don’t blame the military for this. They do what they can with what they’re given. They’re the one who have to deal with all the shit that follows from having morons pursuing some half-baked plan.
I like this thread. You keep concluding with little zingers that apply better to you than anyone else.
Nothing left for me to do than to say: You got that one right.
The higher US deaths are linked to the surge. It was stated from the beginning of the Surge, that US deaths would rise. In short, the deaths are going up because US troops are actively expanding into terrorist strongholds.
pookie, you aren’t really trying to understand. You aren’t facing reality. When I see that you are saying saddam was “contained” or he was somehow chastened, is to ignore both saddam’s history and the history of dictators in general. We moved the troops to his border, Bush threatened war, the inspectors were allowed back in.
Oh, we had troops in Saudi Arabia in 1998. What happened between 1998 and 2002?
Contained my ass.
He was pouring money into R and D. He was hiding his weaponery. He was bribing officials.
Every recent post of yours makes me laugh out loud. To accuse me of supporting the “popular” option makes me laugh. The “popular” option is the ignorant one. Run from Iraq. Leave. Turn tail.
I don’t remember ever advocating that stance.
You ignore zarqawi.
You ignore paying terrorist families in palestine.
You ignore his history of using WMD.
Has north korea every used nerve gas on another country? Oh, wait.
Were the inspectors detectives?
Did they rely on the good will of the regime to be effective?
Can you find weapons if the regime doesn’t comply?
Why did our allies sit it out, MANY WERE IN BED WITH HIM. Being bribed.
Many were weaklings, cowards, and hypocrites.
Some of the worst offenders (arming saddam) wouldn’t help clean up the mess (germany).
You ask why Iraq over north korea and iran?
Iraq had the dictator that had the past. He wasn’t complying with the cease fire HE signed. He was supporting the very groups and ideas that led to 9/11. We cannot afford to be hit and be reactive when nerve gas or nuclear weaponery is involved. We couldn’t be sure we could bomb sites effectively enough to remove them (circa Israel). He was firing on our planes. His country was placed between iran and Afghanistan. Right in the middle of the conflict. A successful democracy would threaten every totalitarian regime in the region with the winds of freedom. saddam had total control over all opposition and our guerilla support had been an abject failure.
There are plenty more. If anyone else is interested they can read my posts from 2003.
For those of you whose minds aren’t slammed shut, please note that my opponents will work very hard to convince you that saddam wasn’t such a bad guy. Nor, a threat.
It’s amazing how far they will go to downplay his danger SOLELY to be proven “right.”
[quote]JeffR wrote:
He was supporting the very groups and ideas that led to 9/11. [/quote]
All of your arguments crumble when contemplating the Pakistani situation.
I’m not gonna run thru them one by one, but suffice it to say that Pakistanis are DIRECTLY involved with Al-Qaeda and 9/11. Add to that the fact that they ACTUALLY have WMDs and that Saddam’s regime was the MOST SECULAR in the region, and your position becomes intenable.
The fact of the matter is that you’re there for strategic control on the richest region in the world, no matter what your dear president tells you.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
He was supporting the very groups and ideas that led to 9/11.
All of your arguments crumble when contemplating the Pakistani situation.
I’m not gonna run thru them one by one, but suffice it to say that Pakistanis are DIRECTLY involved with Al-Qaeda and 9/11. Add to that the fact that they ACTUALLY have WMDs and that Saddam’s regime was the MOST SECULAR in the region, and your position becomes intenable.
The fact of the matter is that you’re there for strategic control on the richest region in the world, no matter what your dear president tells you.[/quote]
lixy,
As you and I both know, you wouldn’t support an attack no matter what the provocation.
If they are predominately Muslim, you defend them no matter what they do.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
As you and I both know, you wouldn’t support an attack no matter what the provocation.
If they are predominately Muslim, you defend them no matter what they do.
Therefore, please stay out of this argument.
[/quote]
Ever seen me defend the Sauds? Didn’t think so…
Anyway, I pointed out that the motives put forth by Bush weren’t credible because of Pakistan. Your arguments seem to echo those of Washington, with a pinch of “it’s the fault of the military strategy”. All I did was support Pookie’s viewpoint.
The use of force is inevitable in some rare cases, and Iraq wasn’t one of them. If you wanna kill countless civilians and turn their country into hell, you’d better have something better than suspicions of WMDs. I’m not entirely closed to the idea of resorting to violence if you can make a clear-cut case that all others means have been exhausted and that the ones you’re gonna attack represent an imminent threat. Nothing to do with religion as you claim. Had it been the 60’s, be sure that I’d come after you for Vietnam which I’m sure you would have been cheering.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey, lumpy. My commentary for pookie holds for you. The violence sucks. It strikes at our friends. It strikes at innocent civilans.
However, everyone knows about it. It is reported with an almost palpable glee every day by your pals in the liberal press.
It doesn’t need any highlighting.
Unfortunately, successes do.
Oh, the fact that you downplay positive events of this magnitude shows that you have no perspective. You are desperate to lose.
Finally, I laughed out loud when the dems couldn’t manage to get the surrender document rammed through Congress.
Ha Ha, loser.
JeffR
[/quote]
You play with ponies and I’m a loser?
Also, technically I’m right far more often (always) than you (never)–translation you lose more. Notice none of your turning the corner stories have born fruit. Painful your disconnect with reality is.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
As you and I both know, you wouldn’t support an attack no matter what the provocation.
If they are predominately Muslim, you defend them no matter what they do.
Therefore, please stay out of this argument.
Ever seen me defend the Sauds? Didn’t think so…
Anyway, I pointed out that the motives put forth by Bush weren’t credible because of Pakistan. Your arguments seem to echo those of Washington, with a pinch of “it’s the fault of the military strategy”. All I did was support Pookie’s viewpoint.
The use of force is inevitable in some rare cases, and Iraq wasn’t one of them. If you wanna kill countless civilians and turn their country into hell, you’d better have something better than suspicions of WMDs. I’m not entirely closed to the idea of resorting to violence if you can make a clear-cut case that all others means have been exhausted and that the ones you’re gonna attack represent an imminent threat. Nothing to do with religion as you claim. Had it been the 60’s, be sure that I’d come after you for Vietnam which I’m sure you would have been cheering.[/quote]
lixy,
Such nonsense. If we were actually thinking of attacking the Saudi’s, you’d be their greatest defenders.
[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey, lumpy. My commentary for pookie holds for you. The violence sucks. It strikes at our friends. It strikes at innocent civilans.
However, everyone knows about it. It is reported with an almost palpable glee every day by your pals in the liberal press.
It doesn’t need any highlighting.
Unfortunately, successes do.
Oh, the fact that you downplay positive events of this magnitude shows that you have no perspective. You are desperate to lose.
Finally, I laughed out loud when the dems couldn’t manage to get the surrender document rammed through Congress.
Ha Ha, loser.
JeffR
You play with ponies and I’m a loser?
Also, technically I’m right far more often (always) than you (never)–translation you lose more. Notice none of your turning the corner stories have born fruit. Painful your disconnect with reality is.
[/quote]
Hey, lumpy.
What is the pony reference?
I am wrong on occasion. I admit when something I championed hasn’t gone as I’d hoped.
You know, that puts me many rungs above your unthinking rear end.
Remember how excited you were about how the Iraqi elections had such a high turnout and lower than expected violence?
I don’t either.
You are far from the right guy to make this argument.
Besides, instead of following through on a bet, you change your name.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
pookie, you aren’t really trying to understand. You aren’t facing reality. When I see that you are saying saddam was “contained” or he was somehow chastened, is to ignore both saddam’s history and the history of dictators in general. We moved the troops to his border, Bush threatened war, the inspectors were allowed back in.[/quote]
Yes. Threat of using force can work just as well as using it. Look at how nuclear weapons have been used post WWII. Threats only.
[quote]Oh, we had troops in Saudi Arabia in 1998. What happened between 1998 and 2002?
Contained my ass.[/quote]
9/11 wasn’t an Iraqi plot. Why do you keep pretending it was?
He was apparently quite the master at hiding weaponry, since none of it was ever found.
Funny, at that time the official US position was that it was most probably Iran that had gassed the Kurds. Only when you needed to demonize a former ally, did Saddam suddenly because a monster who gassed his own people.
North Korea doesn’t have weak neighbors available to terrorize.
If the inspectors aren’t good enough, get better inspectors. Why do all the simple solution evade you?
Find out and make sure that strict parameters are respected. Threaten to go in with force to inspect. Make sure the inspectors aren’t being bribed. etc. Those aren’t difficult problems; at least, not in comparison to nation building.
What ever happened to intelligence? Espionage? Satellites? Infiltration? Oddly, you’re quite aware of what happens in Russia, Iran and China without invading to have a look. How was Saddam somehow invulnerable to all your technology and intelligence bureaus?
Hell, if your intel organizations are too bureaucratic and clueless, ask Mossad to do the job for you.
Yet the same allies joined you in 1991. And Canada wasn’t in bed with Saddam over anything; we didn’t join you either.
Translation: many saw right through your administration’s bullshit.
Odd how it’s only ok to sell weapons to a tinpot dictator when you’re the ones doing it.
[quote]You ask why Iraq over north korea and iran?
Iraq had the dictator that had the past. He wasn’t complying with the cease fire HE signed. He was supporting the very groups and ideas that led to 9/11. We cannot afford to be hit and be reactive when nerve gas or nuclear weaponery is involved. We couldn’t be sure we could bomb sites effectively enough to remove them (circa Israel). He was firing on our planes.[/quote]
So all your high tech surveillance and weaponry is useless against a backward little desert country. I’m sure your taxpayers will be thrilled to learn that.
By the way, how many of your planes did Saddam manage to shoot down between 1991 and 2003?
The winds of freedom. I like that one. I guess those winds must not be blowing from South Korea to North Korea, huh?
Why waste time reading your old crap when you provide fresh drivel daily?
Saddam was a brutal asshole, no question. No one is trying to paint him in any other light.
That doesn’t mean that the 2003 invasion was the best solution to the problem. Like I said, if you could give the actual reasons for invading Iraq, rather than the public speeches tailored for the American public, you might get somewhere.
And how far you will exaggerate his power and abilities solely to be right yourself. If we were to buy your crap, we’d have to believe that Saddam was somehow able to counteract all your best technology; defeat all your intelligence gathering; outfox you on the diplomatic scene; ignore any pressure you brought to bear; develop massive amounts of weapons right under your nose, hiding them and getting all the required material regardless of the any embargo. Pretty impressive what the guy could achieve using little more than sand and camel dung.
Don’t you wish Bush and the US were so capable? No wonder Saddam got 100% support in his elections.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Such nonsense. If we were actually thinking of attacking the Saudi’s, you’d be their greatest defenders.
Like your love with the iranians.
[/quote]
My “love with the Iranians” as you put it, is merely an obversation that they are their system is the closest to a democracy any country has come to in the whole region (with the exception of our beloved Israel).
For that reason, I see a lot more prospects of it being reformed in, say a decade. On the other hand, your blatant agression only hampers the reformist movements, and benefit the extremist kooks.
The Saudis are centuries away from a bud of democratic institutions.
Can you fit that in your brain, or do you need it broken down further?
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pookie, you aren’t really trying to understand. You aren’t facing reality. When I see that you are saying saddam was “contained” or he was somehow chastened, is to ignore both saddam’s history and the history of dictators in general. We moved the troops to his border, Bush threatened war, the inspectors were allowed back in.
Yes. Threat of using force can work just as well as using it. Look at how nuclear weapons have been used post WWII. Threats only.[/quote]
It only remains credible as long as you are willing to use it. Further, the most cooperation came right as the war was approaching.
[quote]Oh, we had troops in Saudi Arabia in 1998. What happened between 1998 and 2002?
Contained my ass.
9/11 wasn’t an Iraqi plot. Why do you keep pretending it was?[/quote]
I got you and you know it. You previously had stated that he was contained by our troops in Saudi Arabia.
Then I pointed out that he kicked out the inspectors in 1998.
Since nothing changed in Saudi Arabia, your premise was flawed.
I think you know that.
Further, even if you were a firm believer in inspectors, you have to admit that he was pretty free to do whatever he felt like for four years.
What allowed them back in? Was it saddam suffering from a conscience?
Beating the war drum only.
[quote]He was pouring money into R and D. He was hiding his weaponery. He was bribing officials.
He was apparently quite the master at hiding weaponry, since none of it was ever found.[/quote]
That is a complete falsehood. Further, you know it.
That makes it worse.
Here is an absolutely fascinating collection of the WMD finds in Iraq so far.
Remember as you are reading about them, how little press they received.
Kudos to this guy for doing what Bush isn’t apparently willing to do: Keeping track.
There were some that I knew about. For instance the 500 sarin nerve gas shells. However, what was chilling was the nearly two tons of enriched uranium removed, 1,000 pounds of powdered and easily dispersed uranium.
I haven’t had this argument for a couple of years.
I missed that the number 2 man in saddam’s Air Force that said in 2006 that he supervised 56 flights from Iraq into syria carrying chemical weaponery.
Ouch.
The rest of your post was complete rubbish not worthy of my time.
Thanks,
JeffR
P.S.
Canadian soldiers deployed to defend innocent Iraqi civilians: zero.
pookie’s contribution to humanity: zero.
Canadians like pookie waving their fist at Americans protecting innocents:
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Such nonsense. If we were actually thinking of attacking the Saudi’s, you’d be their greatest defenders.
Like your love with the iranians.
My “love with the Iranians” as you put it, is merely an obversation that they are their system is the closest to a democracy any country has come to in the whole region (with the exception of our beloved Israel).
For that reason, I see a lot more prospects of it being reformed in, say a decade. On the other hand, your blatant agression only hampers the reformist movements, and benefit the extremist kooks.
The Saudis are centuries away from a bud of democratic institutions.
Can you fit that in your brain, or do you need it broken down further?[/quote]
lixy,
I do have fun at your expense.
Hey, certainly not perfect, but, it is most certainly a “bud.”