Who cares if he had them or not. I still thought that we should have gotten rid of him a long time ago. Look at all those innocent people that he killed mass grave site are turning up in everyday in Iraq. Lets face it he was a Tyrrent and should have been removed from power along time ago. And we were the only ones that had the “Balls” to do it… If you guys like Iraq so much why don’t you go an move to Iraq. Or lived there when Saddam was ruling.
There is that innocent people dying thing. Between 300,000 and 1 million innocent people were systematically executed and buried in the desert since 1991.
Yeah, people are dying in Africa by the millions too but for the most part it’s war deaths, not a bus ride, tied hands, and a bullet to the back of the head. Taking out one dictator is pretty simple compared to what it will take to fix up the mess on the Dark Continent.
Even if Iraq DID have anything, he could still say that certain parts of the country are off-limits for national security reasons. That’s exactly what the USA has done after all. In 1997 or something, the U.S. Senate passed an act to implement the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction” (Short title: Chemical Weapons Convention) The Senate act, Section 307, stipulates that “the President may deny a request to inspect any facility in the United States in cases where the President determines that
the inspection may pose a threat to the national security interests of the United States.” Saddam has asked for no more
than that for Iraq. Presumably, under the Senate act, the White House, Pentagon, etc. would be off limits, as Saddam insists his presidential palaces should be, as well as the military unit responsible for his personal security, which an American colonel demanded to visit. Section 303 further states that “Any objection by the President to an individual serving as an inspector … shall not be reviewable in any court.” Again, this echoes a repeated complaint from the Iraqis – a recent team of 16 inspectors included 14 from the US and Britain, Saddam’s two principal adversaries, who are, at this very moment, busily planning new bombing raids on Iraq. The team was led by a U.S. Marine Corps captain, a veteran of the Gulf War, who has been accused of spying by Iraq. But the Iraqis do not have a corresponding right of exclusion. The same section of the Senate act provides, moreover, that an FBI agent “accompanies
each inspection team visit”. The wishes of the Iraqi government to place certain
sites off limits and to have less partisan inspectors have been dismissed out of hand by U.S. government spokespersons and the American media. “What do they have to hide?” has been the
prevailing attitude. lol
Maybe the USA didn’t say that they went in for oil, but they sure aren’t leaving without it. & I’m sure they’ll divert all Iraq’s water to Israel too.
Nobody remembers that Iraq violated the cease fire agreement from the first gulf war. As many have pointed out, the second gulf war was really a continuation of the first war. So all this talk of WMD’s is moot. Everyone forgets that Saddam is the one who didnt follow orders and do what he was supposed to. Bush had the backing of congress and nearly every country in the world besides france and germany.
"I think it is more likely that they did not use these weapons because it would have invited massive retaliation, not because they didn’t want to fight for Saddam. "
How could any retaliation be MORE massive than “shock and awe”?
If the intelligence was sketchy, and if intelligence is “always” sketchy, then lets deal with that. But lets NOT attack other nations in pre-emptive strikes (The “Bush Doctrine”) while basing our attacks on what we agree is sketchy intelligence. That is just plain stupid.
Froggie, that is the worst argument in the world. The US, and Bushies have never had any limitations put on them in regards to weapons that they didnt agree to as part of the world community, and any treaty they signed did not involve inspecting the White House. Iraq did when they agreed to a cease fire after the first gulf war. They agreed to it, and then screwed with it by trying to play hide and go seek. And even if that wasnt the case, your argument wont fly with any logical human being. Sorry, there is a big difference between the US and Saddams Iraq, and as such the United States gets a little more leeway in terms of what they want to agree to internationally. Y you may ask? Because we have earned it for a myriad of reasons ranging from “US=GG” hahah, to economic power, to the simple fact that we have the biggest guns and we decide. Deal with it, and don’t equate the two, because its insulting to Americans everywhere.
Are you dumb, or do you just play dumb on internet forums? Half the time you sound like you are just playing devils advocate which I truly hope is the case.
If Iraq had used WMD destruction the US would have used them also, possibly including strategic nuclear weapons, and yes, that is infinitely more retaliatory than “shock and awe.”
“Nobody remembers that Iraq violated the cease fire agreement from the first gulf war. As many have pointed out, the second gulf war was really a continuation of the first war. So all this talk of WMD’s is moot. Everyone forgets that Saddam is the one who didnt follow orders and do what he was supposed to. Bush had the backing of congress and nearly every country in the world besides france and germany.”
If you can’t acknowledge the following things you have absolutely no right to comment on Saddam breaking ceasefire treaties. Here is a short summary of what Washington has been engaged in from the end of World War II to the present:
Attempting to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments. (including Georgia recently)
Unprovoked military invasion of some 20 sovereign nations.
Working to crush more than 30 populist movements which were fighting against dictatorial regimes.
Providing indispensable support to a small army of brutal dictatorships: Mobutu of Zaire, Pinochet of Chile, Duvalier of Haiti, Somoza of Nicaragua, the Greek junta, Marcos of the Philippines, Rhee of Korea, the Shah of Iran, 40 years of military dictators in Guatemala, Suharto of Indonesia, Hussein of Iraq, the Brazilian junta, Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Taliban of Afghanistan, and others.
Dropping powerful bombs on the people of about 25 countries, including 40 consecutive days and nights in Iraq, 78 days and nights in Yugoslavia, and several months in Afghanistan, all three of these countries having met the first requirement as an American bombing target – being completely defenseless. And not once ever has the United States come even close to repairing the great damage caused by its bombings. Afghanistan and Iraq are of course the latest examples.
Increasing use of depleted uranium, one of the most despicable weapons ever designed by mankind, which produces grossly deformed babies amongst its many endearing qualities, and which, in a civilized world not intimidated by the United States, would be categorically banned.
Repeated use of cluster bombs, another fiendish device designed by a mad scientist, which has robbed numerous young people of one or more limbs, and some of their eyesight, and continues to do so every day in many countries as the bombs remain on the ground.
Assassination attempts on the lives of some 40 foreign political leaders.
Crude interference in dozens of foreign democratic elections.
Gross manipulation of labor movements.
Shameless manufacture of “news”, the disinformation effect of which is multiplied when CIA assets in other countries pick up the same stories.
Providing handbooks, materials and encouragement for the practice of torture.
Chemical or biological warfare or the testing of such weapons, and the use of powerful herbicides, all causing terrible effects to the people and environments of China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Panama, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia and elsewhere.
Encouragement of drug trafficking in various parts of the world when it served the CIA’s purposes.
Supporting death squads, particularly in Latin America.
Causing grievous harm to the health and well-being of the world’s masses by turning the screws of the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and other international financial institutions, as well as by imposing unmerciful sanctions and embargoes.
Much of the above has led to millions of refugees wandering homeless over the earth.
MQ, we get it, you hate the US. Some of the shit you dredged up has maybe a shred of truth to it but it’s couched in so much inflammatory rhetoric it’s not really worth responding to.
So, how about if you just address the point that Iraq violated a butt load of resolutions and thus was in major violation of international law…something the lefties love to drag out when the US gets a little heavy handed but don’t seem to give a shit that most of the rest of the world is also thumbing their nose at it as well.
Even if your allegations are true it doesn’t make what Iraq did any more legal or less deserving of getting their butt squished into the sand.
If France and Russia didn’t have so much money to lose, not to mention losing a good arms customer, the UN would have supported the invasion. So it’s bad when the US decides to do something in it’s best interest but it’s OK for France and Russia to derail a process for the very same reasons. I mean really, if France was the champion of peace they try to come off as they wouldn’t have been selling so many weapons to people like Saddam…something the US gets acccused of doing in the past.
I think Iceland and Costa Rica might be some of the few places in the world that don’t engage in back door dealings, supporting or undermining other governments on one way or another, and a lot of the things you’ve claimed the US did. Hell, Canada supports Castro by allowing tourism and travel there and you know he’s pretty much of prick of a dictator. Take a look at what the French have done and are doing in Africa too. Just because a woman is a whore doesn’t mean she can’t have a crime commited against her. Trying to smear the US to distract from the fact Iraq fucked up big time is a poor tactic, but playing to emotion and trying to distract people is the major debate tactic of the extreme left. Logic sure as hell won’t win them anything.
Good luck buddy. Maybe if there is enough lead in a water supply somewhere you might find someone to agree with you.
Biltrightwave
Yes, I do play “devils advocate” on some issues here.
That’s because some of the posts here bug the hell out of me…
“Hooray for war” (yes there were some threads like that)
“America never does anything wrong” (just plain dumb)
“Bush never does anything wrong”
“We are taking the moral high road by invading Iraq”.
I don’t claim to know the answers, but the smug attitudes about politics here is what prompts me to post. I never posted one single political thread here, until after reading some of Diesel’s idiotic “hooray for war” threads, and other peoples’ sickening “Kill the protestors” threads.
Steely…you said it best. Nice work. Its pretty easy to critize living in a place that reaps the rewards of US foreign police, armed forces, economic largess etc, yet never has to pay the costs for the most part. I believe TR said it best:"“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
I’d rather take out saddam and take the educated risk of possibly bringing about the short term wrath of some idiotic people such as Al Queda, in the hopes of establishing a better middle east and avoiding the long term risk of making it a permenant haven for terrorists.
ok, here’s my lil’ opinion. I was against attacking Iraq. For a year after 9/11 Bush and his administration were all about “The War on Terror”. Ok, so they took out the Taliban who support Al qaeda, we had proof of that, so no problem there. But then bin laden dissapears, and nothing good seems to be coming out of that area, domestic policy is non-existent and the happy US citizens start mumbling and complaining. Solution?? Iraq, in the last decade it has been america’s only “rival” if you will call it that (yes, attacking oil interests will make any country a rival to the US). So u dig some bs info about al qaeda and WMDs and spoonfeed it to US ppl via the worthless news channel known as CNN. public support says yes, so you go bomb the place. (bush has a very clear shoot first ask questions later if anyone is still standing policy). Billions of dollars later the truth comes out, no al qaeda, no WMD’s anywhere (hell, the info proved to be false). So now we are there, billions down the drain, and we can’t very well pull out, so we have to stay and spend billions more while Bush pulls money from who knows where to do his amazing tax cuts to help the economy and whatever else his brilliant team can come up with for domestic policy.
So let’s recap
Afghanistan - definite cause for attack, go USA
Iraq - Bush, you are an idiot, billions that coulda been used for other things, hundreds of soldiers lived that coulda been saved, you are the fucking man.
yes, you can call me liberal, i really don’t care, i DO support the troops that are there and i pray that god brings them back safely to us. i also hold the president personally accountable for every life loss needlessly in an invasion that the USA had absolutely no need to make, pre-emptive crap or not.
“Steely…you said it best. Nice work. Its pretty easy to critize living in a place that reaps the rewards of US foreign police, armed forces, economic largess etc, yet never has to pay the costs for the most part.”
There aren’t any rewards for having to live next to the USA. MacDonald understood clearly that the only threat Canada would ever have would be from the south & from nowhere else, nothing’s changed. The USA has never wanted an equal partner & still doesn’t today.
& that stuff I put up is nothing controversial. Most of it comes straight out of your own government’s declassified record. I think the following diologue is appropriate here:
Let me take you back to the year 1975. There was a committee of the US congress called the Pike Committee, named after its chairman Otis Pike. This committee investigated the covert side of US foreign policy and discovered a number of scandalous secrets, some of which were leaked to the public, while others remained secret. In an interview Congressman Pike stated that any member of Congress could see the entire report if he agreed not to reveal anything that was in it. “But not many want to read it,” he said. The interviewer asked him “Why?” And Pike replied: “Oh, they think it is better not to know. There are too many things that embarrass Americans in that report. You see, this country went through an awful trauma with Watergate. But even then, all they were asked to believe was that their president had been a bad person. In this new situation they are asked much more; they are asked to believe that their country has been evil. And nobody wants to believe that.”
The person who wrote that (former employee of the State dept) also says that no matter how paranoid you are, the stuff the US government is involved in is much worse than you can possibly imagine. My guess is that you just don’t want to believe it because it doesn’t coincide with the way you want to see the USA.
M.Q.
I generally enjoy the enchange we all have here on the forum. No matter what side people are on I try to respect their opinion. However,
you have really poisoned your mind with Chomskey and the like. I’m wondering if even the liberal minded folks on this forum pay attention to what you have to say anymore.
Of course we don’t want an equal partner. There is no such thing. Someone always has an advantage in every relationship, and we are smart enough to want that to be us. Whine about it all you want. The rest of the world doesn’t want to achieve equality with us by bringing themselves up to the same level we are at, but instead they want us to weaken ourselves. Hopefully, we will never elect people who don’t want to see America continue to be the most powerful country in the world. Hopefully, we never have leaders who think we should just be another country under the U.N.'s control.
“However, you have really poisoned your mind with Chomskey and the like. I’m wondering if even the liberal minded folks on this forum pay attention to what you have to say anymore.”
It comes from your OWN GOVERNMENT!! & it’s not just 1 or 2 notes someone scribbled down, it has all been well-documented & there’s enough stuff to fill up the room you’re in from floor to ceiling. If you can’t deal with that, then I don’t know what to tell you. Just go look at your own government’s National Security Archive & look. They’ve even got a website:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
last time I visited I downloaded a clip (not just the pic that’s been going around) of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, there’s also stuff about Kennedy wanting to meet with Castro in Havana & work something out so the USA would get along with Cuba. Or how about Nobel Peace prize winner Henry Kissinger giving death squads & a military dictatorship the OK in Argentina? I could go on & on. All that stuff above is so well-documentred I can’t even tell you. You just can’t deal with it.
M.Q.
Unfortunately you are clueless. I don’t have time to give you a history lesson, I’m too busy, but quickly; Rumsfeld met with Saddam when our mutual enemy was Iran - similar to Roosevelt meeting with Stalin or any of the other meetings between officials from governments that would usually be at odds with each other. Also, Castro did come to the US before things really went south with our relations with his country. Both the US and the Soviet Union were courting Castro. Apparently Castro was really pissed when he came to the US becuase Eisenhower wouldn’t or didn’t meet with him, instead Castro had to meet with Nixon. Anyway, shortly after his visit to the US, Castro got in bed completely with the USSR and things went bad quick. Kennedy never met with Castro but it seems he wanted to. Why? That Cuban missle crisis was a close call. Maybe he wanted to avoid another one.
Finally, Henrey Kissinger did not approve of death squads or whatever conspiracy theories you are trying spout. He certainly was active in advising the administrations during the 60’, 70’s and 80’s and a major concern during those decades was preventing the spread of communism in the Western hemisphere. Now, granted, the folks we supported in opposing communism were not boy scouts, they were also bad…but the main thing was they weren’t communist and that was the real problem back then.
Anyway, all of the nonsence that you cut and paste into this forum is totally out of context or doesn’t take into consideration any of the bigger picture.
I don’t know why I continue to waste my time responding to you.
“Rumsfeld met with Saddam when our mutual enemy was Iran - similar to Roosevelt meeting with Stalin or any of the other meetings between officials from governments that would usually be at odds with each other.”
and the problem with Saddam was that he stopped following orders & had to be replaced by someone more US-friendly. According to the State Dept in 1945, the Persian Gulf oil is “a stupendous source of strategic power, one of the greatest material prizes in world history” & a corollary to that is that the USA couldn’t let a country indigenous to the region get any substantial control over its oil resources. That was the problem with Saddam in 1991, he was having too much influence in the Middle East. The problem wasn’t him attacking the Iranians & accidentally killing a couple hundred (not thousands) Kurds.
“Also, Castro did come to the US before things really went south with our relations with his country. Both the US and the Soviet Union were courting Castro.”
Well you can look at what declassified internal US government documents say here (from your government’s national security archive):
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/index.htm
“Finally, Henrey Kissinger did not approve of death squads or whatever conspiracy theories you are trying spout.”
Actually the opposite is true & it’s all in the declassified record so stop trying to deny it. In the latest site update of the National Security Archive, Kissinger was quoted as saying to Argentine foreign minister Admiral Cesar Augusto Guzzetti, “If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better” ie, before Congress cut military aid. The government that came to power afterwards estimated that 10000 people ‘disappeared’ but human-rights groups put the number at more like 30000. And Guzzetti was “euphoric” and “convinced that there is no real problem with the USG” over human-rights abuses.
the details are here, if anyone cares:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB104/index.htm
if you understand Spanish:
“Anyway, all of the nonsence that you cut and paste into this forum is totally out of context or doesn’t take into consideration any of the bigger picture.”
If you want to consider the bigger picture, look at what kind of “democracies” (aka. military dictaorships & death squads) the USA has given indispensable support to over the last 50 years & you’ll see what kind of “democracy” we can expect in Iraq. That’s if you want to consider the bigger picture.
“I don’t know why I continue to waste my time responding to you.”
Neither do I; you never seem to have anything to say about it except to make things up, like trying to tell me I hate the USA. The USA has done lots of good stuff but it still doesn’t change the fact the the USA is a violent criminal state that is responsible for the suffering of millions of people at every corner of the world & should stop.
M.Q.
I’m just going to ignore you, or do my best at least, but to your credit you really have a way of getting under my skin. Probably because deep down I know what you are saying is true (there, I saved you the effort).
I would like to respond to the comment you made that all I ever do is accuse you of hating the U.S. I’d like to think that I have never said that, I generally like to avoid personal or derrogatory remarks to my fellow T-friends, liberal or conservative. But with you, I probably have said that. I certainly have thought worse.
MQ, we’ve done plenty in what some people felt was our national interest. We sent Marines in to put down rebellions so some ex-pat American fruit farmers with influential friends in the government wouldn’t lose their land. If you go back far enough we killed indiginous people, including noncombatants (pronounced women, babies, and old men). Old news.
In the real world governments do what they think is best for their people. I happen to have been aquainted with an ex-employee of the Canadian embassy whose primary job had been to collect industrial secrets in the US so they could be used to better position Canadian companies for competition. Israel, another ally, has engaged in out and out espionage on us. I’m sure they are not the only cases of such activity.
Like I said in an earlier post maybe Iceland and Costa Rica are the only countries that might not engage in questionable activities to further their national interest. I’m sure there are countries that are too poor to do much so they could be added to the list.
Propping up a dictator might be the cheapest way to make sure you can get cheap rubber to keep tires on the cars in your country. Unfortunately not everyone’s heart bleeds for the poor downtrodden fuckers in some bumfuck little country that have to suffer under a dictatorial regime and bust their ass in the cane fields, coffee plantations, or working in a mine. I’ll bet when it comes down to brass tacks you can put most people on the don’t give much of a fuck list.
We’re all a mix of good and bad. Governments are no different. We’re a big target because we’re a big country with lots of money and influence right now. Keep on swinging, it won’t add up to a pinch of shit but it keeps you busy.