Too bad for us, the Iraqis, and the world that we listened to the Neocons and their allies and not people like Scott Ritter.

(See This Gordon Prather Article).

Will we listen to the voices of reason this time or be maneuvered into attacking Iran?

(See This Common Dreams Article).

Wanna start by saying I just saw this topic and wanted to reply. Noticed it was 11 pages long and I amdit to not going back and reading every response so I apologize if I repeat answers or what not.

1. How long after Desert Storm do you believe Saddam had WMD, and why?
Bombs, Tanks, Rockets, and Missles are WMD's if used correctly so I'm going to address the chemical weapons side of the argument. I'm no expert on chemical weapons; but from what I understand most chemical weapons have a relatively short shelf life. Mustard gas can last for some years; but Sarin for instance lasts months. On the march to war many of the WMD's that were mentioned were chemical in nature. I couldn't say for sure how long after the Gulf he had them; but I feel safe in saying he didn't have them when we initially started this. Did he have them at one time? For sure we gave them to him. But in 2003 quite doubtful he had them then.
One reason I don't think he had them was because UN Inspectors didn't find them. With surprise inspections and even with limited co-operation I believe they would have found traces. Another reason (and personally the one that convinces me the most) is Collin Powells Paint Shop Power Point presentation to the UN. I remember watching it Live and the one thing that kept coming to my mind was "Really?! This photo shop presentation is the best the US Government can come up with?" A lot of the "evidence" was evidence that wouldn't even stand up in a court of law. He showed pictures of chemical weapons plants; but without proof it could be a Doritos factory or something.

2. Do you believe Saddam was a threat to the middle east?
Not a threat to the Middle East. He was an evil man and a threat to his own people; but not a threat to the region. After Desert Storm Saddam knew his place and how far he could really flex his muscle.

3. If so, do you believe this means that he was a valid concern for the United States in regards to the War On Terror?
Even if he was a threat he wouldn't have been a threat to the US (unless he threatened oil supplies or something). The War on Terror is largely a war against Islamic Extremists. Saddam while a Muslim was barely religious (by all accounts). Saddam was about Saddam and his ego.

4. Do you believe Saddam's genocide alone was reason enough to remove him from power?
Not quite sure how to answer this one. In my opinion mass murder and oppression is enough reason to remove anyone from power. That being said if this is the standard we are going to use; then it must be used across the board wither we are talking about Burma (or is it Myanmar), Kosovo, or Africa. So yes and no. Yes its reason enough; but no in this case because it is only a reason as opposed to THE reason. You can't do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

5. Do you trust the testimony of former Iraqi general Georges Sada in regards to Saddam having shipped his WMD to Syria in late 2002? Why or why not?
No I don't trust the testimony because it seems to me that if you wanted to prove what you were saying you'd bring forth the people you said you talked to that transported the weapons. Weapons being transported to Syria is an easy out in my opinion.

Sorry I haven't done any replies in here for a couple weeks, I've been thinning out my posting recently because Ive been very busy but I'll try and get back and read more of the recent replies as I get time.


TinFoilLiberal




Ive heard the argument that some of the chemicals used by Saddam have relatively short shelf lives, but Ive yet to read specifics on that and he did use several different types of chemicals. Now I wanted to address this part of the above paragraph..... ((we gave them to him.)) This is not entirely accurate, Ive heard it before and looked it up on a number of sites and to be specific we never gave Saddam developed chemical warheads. If thats what you were implying, then its a misconception. Read this section of the opening post......






He has been a threat to many in the middle east outside Iraq, now we'll leave the Iran Iraq war out of this because Iran provokes negative attention, and we helped Saddam with that War anyway, but did he not also savagely attack Kuwait in 1991? Is it not a fact that he planned to send chemically armed jets into Israel? Has he not committed many violent acts that defy the Geneva convention, are cowardly, and completely unjustified in several instances in the 80's and early 90's?

I just have to strongly disagre with the idea that he was not a threat to anyone but his own, Ive read all I need to on him to know thats the truth. Although some of my links are going dead in the original post, there is still a lot of information their in links, even if you do your own research the more you read about him the less he will sound like a misunderstood dictator. He starts to sound and the more like someone following in Hitlers footsteps. The differences between him and Hitler is that Hitler had more military power, and the politics are obviously different. However as far as their characters go and the fashion they waged war, there are some striking similarities.



Yes but I believe the two are linked, a war on terror is just that, ((a war on terror)). Saddam may not have been a member of the same terrorist element responsible for attacking us on our soil, and I don't even believe that Al Qaeda and Saddam worked together to plan 9/11 like some, but Saddam spread terror among 100's of thousands of people, as a Muslim living in the same region of the world as Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iran, all of whom are concerns for us. George Bushes axis of evil speech summed up his position on why the middle east is a problem that cant be looked at one dimensionally. Its an area of the world that has enemies of different faces, and which all have slightly different motives, but if one thing was ever pulled out of context, its the idea that the Bush Administration was unclear about why they wanted to go into Iraq. In 2003 over half the nation gathered in support of a war which had objectives which were never a secret, and a purpose that was never a secret. Today 1/3 of us stand firm because we took the time to understand what it was we were supporting several years back.

If in 2003 over half the nation supported this war than over half of us believed Iraq was a valid concern in the war on terror obviously, what happened to that? People should have known this war was going to be longer and more difficult than Desert Storm given the objectives which were laid out. I have a hard time understanding why people say they support something, then they decide they dont, and quite conveniently they then decide they were somehow deceived into
believing what they did in order to take any degree of responsibility off themselves, and place it on their gouvernment, which is easy to demonize. Whats wrong with this picture?



I disagre, but good answer. However if we cant do the right things for reasons you say are wrong, then why is it that America knowingly supported doing right things for the wrong reasons? Now I know many people didn't support the war ever, you may not have yourself I dont know, but the majority of us did .



People talk under their own will, and you have to understand that speaking about the secrets of the Saddam regime is something that can get you killed in Iraq, even today. Im not even 100% sure that General Sada hasnt gotten those piolets that trasported those WMD to talk about it to others or not. It wouldn't be proof in any case. From everything Ive read on General Sada its clear to me that he has many confirmed testimonies to the things he says already. He sounds very honorable and believable, take a look at the videos of him I got links for in my original post, or better yet the long audio interview of him. Very interesting stuff, I tried to check out his book (Saddams Secrets) to read more about him and what he knows of Saddam, but unfortunately they don't carry that book at the local library.

Amusing that you point to this man (after the $400,000 payoff from Iraq). Try reading his testimony to Congress right after leaving Iraq in 1998. Try reading it and then lets discuss Mr. Ritter TedN5

1)
Ive heard the argument that some of the chemicals used by Saddam have relatively short shelf lives, but Ive yet to read specifics on that and he did use several different types of chemicals. Now I wanted to address this part of the above paragraph..... ((we gave them to him.)) This is not entirely accurate, Ive heard it before and looked it up on a number of sites and to be specific we never gave Saddam developed chemical warheads. If thats what you were implying, then its a misconception. Read this section of the opening post......

Its not a misconception. The US gave Iraq aide in the form of technology, intelligence, and weapons to fight Iran. If we gave them chemical weapons I can't be positvely 100 percent sure; but we did help to arm them.

2)
He has been a threat to many in the middle east outside Iraq, now we'll leave the Iran Iraq war out of this because Iran provokes negative attention, and we helped Saddam with that War anyway, but did he not also savagely attack Kuwait in 1991? Is it not a fact that he planned to send chemically armed jets into Israel? Has he not committed many violent acts that defy the Geneva convention, are cowardly, and completely unjustified in several instances in the 80's and early 90's?

I just have to strongly disagre with the idea that he was not a threat to anyone but his own, Ive read all I need to on him to know thats the truth. Although some of my links are going dead in the original post, there is still a lot of information their in links, even if you do your own research the more you read about him the less he will sound like a misunderstood dictator. He starts to sound and the more like someone following in Hitlers footsteps. The differences between him and Hitler is that Hitler had more military power, and the politics are obviously different. However as far as their characters go and the fashion they waged war, there are some striking similarities.


Sadam was far from Hitler. He was an evil man for sure. He moved against the Kurds and his own people; but he wasn't moving against others in the region nor was he acting in ways that threatened others. He hated America; but he was content to stay in his own box and play king. If you have information to the opposite I'd honestly like to see it.

3)

Yes but I believe the two are linked, a war on terror is just that, ((a war on terror)). Saddam may not have been a member of the same terrorist element responsible for attacking us on our soil, and I don't even believe that Al Qaeda and Saddam worked together to plan 9/11 like some, but Saddam spread terror among 100's of thousands of people, as a Muslim living in the same region of the world as Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iran, all of whom are concerns for us. George Bushes axis of evil speech summed up his position on why the middle east is a problem that cant be looked at one dimensionally. Its an area of the world that has enemies of different faces, and which all have slightly different motives, but if one thing was ever pulled out of context, its the idea that the Bush Administration was unclear about why they wanted to go into Iraq. In 2003 over half the nation gathered in support of a war which had objectives which were never a secret, and a purpose that was never a secret. Today 1/3 of us stand firm because we took the time to understand what it was we were supporting several years back.

If in 2003 over half the nation supported this war than over half of us believed Iraq was a valid concern in the war on terror obviously, what happened to that? People should have known this war was going to be longer and more difficult than Desert Storm given the objectives which were laid out. I have a hard time understanding why people say they support something, then they decide they dont, and quite conveniently they then decide they were somehow deceived into
believing what they did in order to take any degree of responsibility off themselves, and place it on their gouvernment, which is easy to demonize. Whats wrong with this picture?

I for one was never for the war. It is the sentiment here that poses the biggest threat to America above all. but Saddam spread terror among 100's of thousands of people, as a Muslim living in the same region of the world as Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iran, all of whom are concerns for us. Would it have been ok if Sadam was a Christian or Budhist? In no way was Sadam a threat to the US. He wasn't a terrorist he was a dictator. He didn't aide the terrorist that we are fighting against now. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq till we got there. He was not a valid concern in the war on terror because he didn't aide this Extremism we are now fighting. I don't understand how being a Muslim we don't like in the middle east is enough to make you a concern on the war on terror. Furthermore was Sadam a greater aide to terrorism than the Saudis? The Saudis were found to pay families of suicide bombers. 15 of the 19 Hijackers were Saudi.

4)
I disagre, but good answer. However if we cant do the right things for reasons you say are wrong, then why is it that America knowingly supported doing right things for the wrong reasons? Now I know many people didn't support the war ever, you may not have yourself I dont know, but the majority of us did .

If America supported doing the right things for the wrong reasons its still wrong. You don't lie about going to war just so you can get the support of the people. America supported this war on the basis of a lie. If the truth was so hollow or weak that it would not have swayed American opinion then it was not worth it. It is a personal belief of mine that you can't do the right thing for the wrong reasons becuase it invalidates the actions and is dangerous to the public at large. It sets a precedent that it is ok for the president to go to war becuase he personally believes its the right thing to do. Thats not Democracy thats Fascism.

5) You need more proof then someone thats says I have sources that I can't reveal and won't come forward. In our Judicial system that would be considered here say evidence and as such not creditable. If you can't use it to convict people then you shouldn't use it to wage war.

TinFoilLiberal


I said that, I said we helped aid them militarily, as did about a dozen other nations, but we didn't give them the weapons we went in Iraq to find. Like many other things people assume about this war, that is a stretch of the truth. The links I showed in the prior post show more specificaly exactly what we did, and didn't do.

When we were allies with Saddam's Iraq, we gave him samples of nerve agents to use for what he called vaccine development against a biological weapon attack from Iran. Turns out he didn't only make vaccine, he made weapons with it. We also gave them tons of money and other supplies, however not developed biological weapons. At least not from what Ive read, if you have something to show then show it, I didn't see anything like that at the link you provided.




I said the primary differences between Hitler and Saddam were the amount of power each had, and the politics they lived by. While their personalities were almost identical. Do you know why he didn't spead out further and cause more damage? Because he couldnt, we didnt let him develop his military the way he wanted after we parted ways with him. Get it? Difference in power? He didn't have ICBM's that could reach here, he didn't have a developed navy with ships, submarines, and aircraft carriers, therefore the air force he had suffered from limited range. I said exactly what I meant.



Well, he might as well have been a terrorist, the only difference is he ruled a country and had a military which made him worse than a terrorist. By the way there was no AQI in Iraq, but Al Qaeda had some presence their before our arrival.

Listen, I've explain my position on Saddam many times. I think he was dangerous, and this war was less about national security and more about bringing that man to justice because he was a murderer and needed to be stopped. Now you can agree with this or disagre with it, but one thing is for darn sure in 2003 when we went to war, we went to war with our eyes open, not shut. This is not George Bushes war, and anyone who supported it in 2003 is a part of this weather they like it or not. Apparently not you so at least your consistent.



Lol, Well nobody here can show me he lied about anything! Don't you get it? Do you know how many times I've heard this bid? I'm going to take a modest guess and say 5000 times. Yet Ive yet to see anything but people showing that the Bush administration was overconfident, and they somehow stretch that to he lied? Well because the word lie sounds better, who cares about specifics. Yet start talking about Clinton believing the same darn thing and thats when the conversation slows. Bush in the eyes of some is a liar simply because he went to war, where Bill who believed the same thing under his own intelligence is telling the truth because he didn't initiate a war that some people don't agree with? I mean give me a break. Can I see something please, that makes sense of the Bush/War = Liar Liar Lair. Anyone?

Frontline: Bush's War

Frontline: The Dark Side

I know you aren't going to watch the shows, Net. I don't know why I still bother trying to save your soul from your Republican overlords.

1)
I said that, I said we helped aid them militarily, as did about a dozen other nations, but we didn't give them the weapons we went in Iraq to find. Like many other things people assume about this war, that is a stretch of the truth. The links I showed in the prior post show more specificaly exactly what we did, and didn't do.

When we were allies with Saddam's Iraq, we gave him samples of nerve agents to use for what he called vaccine development against a biological weapon attack from Iran. Turns out he didn't only make vaccine, he made weapons with it. We also gave them tons of money and other supplies, however not developed biological weapons. At least not from what Ive read, if you have something to show then show it, I didn't see anything like that at the link you provided.

We gave Sadam dual tecnhology we knew full well that those technologies were not for defensive protection. Did we go to Iraq looking for the weapons we gave him? No of course not that's ludicrous. But when people say we gave him weapons they mean (at least I do) that we gave him the ability to make them. During the Iraq-Iran war we gave him fish and taught him how to fish.

2)
I said the primary differences between Hitler and Saddam were the amount of power each had, and the politics they lived by. While their personalities were almost identical. Do you know why he didn't spead out further and cause more damage? Because he couldnt, we didnt let him develop his military the way he wanted after we parted ways with him. Get it? Difference in power? He didn't have ICBM's that could reach here, he didn't have a developed navy with ships, submarines, and aircraft carriers, therefore the air force he had suffered from limited range. I said exactly what I meant.

A quick statement about Hitler and Sadam. Hitler's power came from the people. Hitler rose to power as a direct result of the oppression Germany suffered after World War 1. Germans were so punished for starting the war that they harbored a great resentment towards the rest of the world. Hitler came at a time when Germans needed a strong leader to show them they were a strong people. In order to hold on to power he needed a scapegoat; that he found in Judaism. Sadam on the other hand was a strong man dictator. He didn't use powerful moving speeches to get support of his people. He used fear and power. Hitler needed the people in his rise to power, Sadam needed military might. That wasn't a quick statement; but the differences are important to note.

You just proved my argument about him as a threat. He couldn't spread. We didn't let him develop his military. He didn't have ICBM's with range to threaten us. He didn't have a strong navy or air force. So please tell me how again was he a threat to us? Because he existed is that it? Rehtoric? Because he said mean things about us?

3)
Well, he might as well have been a terrorist, the only difference is he ruled a country and had a military which made him worse than a terrorist. By the way there was no AQI in Iraq, but Al Qaeda had some presence their before our arrival.

Listen, I've explain my position on Saddam many times. I think he was dangerous, and this war was less about national security and more about bringing that man to justice because he was a murderer and needed to be stopped. Now you can agree with this or disagre with it, but one thing is for darn sure in 2003 when we went to war, we went to war with our eyes open, not shut. This is not George Bushes war, and anyone who supported it in 2003 is a part of this weather they like it or not. Apparently not you so at least your consistent.

Well, he might as well have been? He wasn't spreading or aiding the spread of terror; but he was a Muslim we didn't like so he might as well have been? So any Muslim we don't like in the middle east is a terrorist? Being a "danger" to the US doesn't make you a terrorist. Being a Muslim we don't like in the middle east doesn't make you a terrorist. It is this we are the good guys you are the bad guys attitude that is the biggest threat to America and our security (and I can't stress that enough). This attitude allows us to wage war, circumvent treaties, and work unilaterally against other countries. And it is these actions that much of the world holds against us. It is these actions that create more terrorists that will only threaten our security.

4) If you don't think he lied about the war about the WMD's then the only explanation is that Bush is the most incompetent president in modern history. France and Germany had the foresight to see what a mess an Iraqi invasion would be. They knew the intelligence was weak. Call it a conspiracy theory if you want ; but there is evidence from multiple sources that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11. We went in becuase we needed to disarm Sadam of WMD's. What WMD's did we find? We went in to stop him from aiding terrorism. What aide? The final goal was to free the Iraqi's and give them democracy . Do they really have democracy? Are they really free? If so give me fascist oppression please. At least I'll have electricity, running water, and won't risk my life going down the street for a burger.

How do you know their personalities were almost identical? Where on earth would you come up with that knowledge? To say that the only reason someone doesn't act is because they cannot act is, outside of some very narrow parameters, total supposition. You tend to post in a verbose format and your constant companion is this idea that people are making unfounded guesses or assumptions, and yet you do the same thing in almost every post. You remind me of the group within Reagan's administration, led by Donald Rumsfeld (and consisting of many of the key neoconservative operatives who are largely responsible for our current policies), who looked at the CIA's data on the USSR and concluded that because there was no evidence of the Soviets developing new nuclear submarine technology, that was in fact evidence that they had developed technology that was so advanced it was undetectable to us.



The foreign policy of many governments is often terrorism writ large. The idea of "Al Qaida" as some smooth network of international terrorist cells is pretty much a myth, and the idea that they had tentacles in Iraq is ridiculous. The fundamentalists who cycled through the Afghan training camps were primarily concerned with the struggle against what they perceived as corruption of Islam in their own countries. That some of these same people spent some time in Iraq is practically certain. There is no evidence that a group called Al Qaida exists as anything nearly as lucid as the Muslim Brotherhood, say.



You really think this war was about stopping some two-bit dictator from being a mean guy? Look, this administration threw as many tomatoes against the wall as they could; they hoped some would stick. We were told over and over again about WMD. We were told over and over again about fighting terrorists over there instead of over here. We were told all about Saddam's acts of genocide. We weren't told that the neoconservatives saw the potentially huge oil reserves in Iraq as a way of breaking the back of OPEC. It wasn't a secret really, but they never advertised it. And while Bush never actually said that Saddam was involved in the 2001 attacks, he mentioned Hussein and the attacks over and over in the same speeches, often within a paragraph or two. People aren't total idiots - there's a reason why so many people believed he was behind the attacks or aided them in some way. It's because their government was constantly placing the two side by side. If I say, "After the 9/11 attacks on our nation, we decided to take the fight to the terrorists who planned and aided in this vicious, cowardly act. Saddam Hussein represents a powder keg in the Middle East; and he is dedicated to producing and using weapons of mass destruction." I haven't said that Hussein was connected, but I have certainly implied it. And that's what we were sold in 2002 and early 2003.

You're right about one thing: this isn't George Bush's war. This is the neoconservatives' war. In a way, this is Leo Strauss's war.



I'd like to know who these hypothetical people are who believe that Bush lied but the "conversation slows" when it comes to Clinton. I'm pretty familiar with the anti-war movements in this country, and I know you would be hard pressed to find many active anti-war folks who would slow down at all when it comes to Clinton. What you're doing is creating some duality that doesn't exist in order to "prove" your point. In addition you characterize the arguments against Bush in such a ridiculous way that they sound ridiculous. But your imagination is, sadly for for you, far from reality. Really, you're using simply horrible logic here. when you invent the opposing argument, it's always really easy to counter.

JohnfrmCleveland


John I'm looking at the first Frontline special despite the fact it looks to be 2 hours long, and I've heard all this already thus far. So far I've watched the first half of (Bushes War) I'll get back with you when I have time to finish watching it ok? I'm already seeing things that are backing many of my own arguments in their and I'll be more specific soon. Oh yea that republican overlord comment was cute, as if I am registered republican for any other reason than having politics that are more in line with them. I don't stand by a party on issues I disagree with them on simply because I'm registered to vote republican. In fact the truth is just the opposite, I am only registered republican so I can vote for the ones who I agree with the most. There are certain issues I agree with other parties on more than Republicans, so I don't need to be saved from anything. You think I support this war because George Bush is a Republican? Lol
If anything that makes it harder.


TinFoilLiberal


I'm supposed to believe you over those in the U.N. such as weapons inspector Jonathan Tucker, who says just the opposite about why we gave them samples? By the way when you say........

Did we go to Iraq looking for the weapons we gave him? No of course not that's ludicrous.

Then stop over simplifying your comments, say what you mean and mean what you say. When you say we gave him the weapons, like Ive heard many times before, thats a stretch of the truth. You are basically saying something that is half true, by putting it into words that help you undermine this Country in any way possible regarding Iraq. Tragic thing is most people don't research this stuff, so when people like you run around saying we gave Saddam WMD, half of them like my younger sister will believe these things, and assume you know what your talking about.





Well one thing you've never heard me say was that I believe that Saddam was an imminent threat to this country. Thats not my primary motivation in supporting this war, its a secondary afterthought that I do consider as possible had we left Saddam alone long enough. The Bush administration over emphasized the importance of going after Saddam as a national security threat, however he never lied by saying that the primary objective wasn't to bring democracy to Iraq , after all the war was titled (Operation Iraqi Freedom) so if anyone was confused about what our primary objective was then they need to fix their glasses. He's a poor communicator, who I believe is borderline incompetent, and to me thats the simplest explanation. He runs his Administration about as well as a manager of Burger King would.



You seem not to understand the definition of the word Terrorist. A Terrorist is someone who spreads terror, yet has no country to defend, and in most cases no political motive either. Usually the motives are to push forward some kind of message, in many cases religious in nature.

A powerful corrupt dictator like Saddam on the other hand as I said (might as well be a Terrorist) because they spread the same amount of terror, if not more so, yet they have a county with a military that is capable of far more damage than a terrorist group. Thats what I was saying, he spreads terror, like Al Qaeda never could in the terms of how much damage he caused and how much life he took, making him in my eyes more dangerous to the world. I wasn't suggesting that the two were linked, although it was a possibility.



Bush is indeed one of the most incompetent presidents in modern history. Here you are making the argument that this was all about WMD which you assume Saddam didn't have. Yet again and again in documentation, and in public appearances leading up to the war in Iraq. You hear bush saying things like.... ((This is going to be a long war, or bringing democracy to Iraq wont be easy.)) Its in documents that Ive already presented numerous times here, as well as in video form that this war was primarily about bringing democracy to Iraq, so WMD was a part of it, National Security was a part of it, but most of all I believe ending genocide was the most important thing.

I don't want to hear comparisons between Saddam's Iraq, to the situation now which I would expect you to do, (well as you did I should say.) The country is at war now, the objectives are incomplete, and therefore that comparison is misleading. I gave this comparison to Cruisingram once................

Could you imagine taking apart an old broken car to fix it, then having everything disassembled and ready to reconstruct with new parts only to have some yoyo tell you that the car looked better before you took it apart? lol, well no kidding Einstein, but you finish the job or else all that time and effort was wasted to accomplish nothing but a mess. Same thing applies to the war, I don't know why people don't understand that.

Net you keep contrsadicting your own argument. You say the war wasn't about spreading democracy then in the same post quote Bush as saying This is going to be a long war, or bringing democracy to Iraq wont be easy. Its not an over simplification to say we gave him the weapons we were looking for. We gave him the technology. We knew how he intended to use it. So when we went looking for it we knew what we might find. When they said he had them its becuase they knew what we made him capable of making. And once again what terror was he promoting that made him a threat to America imminent or otherwise?

TinFoilLiberal



What are you talking about, where am I contradicting myself. Ive said consistently that this war is and always has been primarily about bringing democracy to Iraq. Show me where I say otherwise.

Also what you said was indeed an over simplification, Saying we gave him WMD, is a far stretch from saying the U.S. as well as about a dozen other nations, funded and aided Saddam's military in the 80's. If you look at Saddam's Air Force for example you see more Soviet technology than you see U.S. technology. I'm talking MiG-21's and MiG-25's, a lot of nations funded his military. Ive already said we are partially responsible for over trusting this man, but I also already gave you quotation from a UN weapons inspector showing we never gave him developed chemical weapons at all. Saddam betrayed many of his allies including us, he lied about what he intended to do with nerve agent samples. So the truth is we messed up in over trusting him when there were already signs he was a screw ball, however when people run around saying we flat out gave him the WMD we went to find, Ive just never read anything like that, and Ive yet to see anyone present anything specific I can read, although Ive offered them to in the very first post.

So I'm starting to believe that yet again people don't know what they are talking about, and they have subconscious tendencies to blurt out whatever is most damaging to this war effort, or this presidency and spread it like its the truth. More often than not its a half truth or something pulled completely out of context. Now maybe someone does have something specific I can read, I'm open minded, but of all the times Ive heard that not one person has backed it, and Ive never read anything like that myself as I've said.

The problem with your analogy- again- is that instead of "putting the car back together"- you just leave it in the yard to rust, and kick the tires anyway everyonce in a while. IN fact, you bought a new steering wheel- but that is about all that is nice about it. IN fact, at this point, it is degraded beyond repair, to the point that you need to just get out from under neath it in any way you can, even if you lose money.

Let me tell you net- more restorations are "started" by human beings, by a magnitude of at LEAST 1000, than those that are finished.

So, though your "dream" of a hot rod was nice- the hot rod never happened, and it usually ends up in someone elses position- maybe someone you even despise.

I get more free "projects" in my lifetime than I can count- and they are usually grateful to give them to me- because it is just a deep dark pit of nothing until you give it to someone that knows what they are doing.

American foreign policy in general has been a failure post WW2, nation building and all that- is the equivilent of a spoiled rich kid that is given a nice car, then promptly trashes it, then blames all the problems on someone else. They they tear it apart, leave it in the yard for a long time, until someone, probably not so rich or spoiled, someone that has some real knowledge and feel for that particular project- comes along and does a much better job than the spoiled rich bully with more money than sense.

GW nor anyone on this page has really proven that Saddam had WMD as a pretext for this war, nor was he a real threat to anyone but insurgents that we fight now.

Need to deal with that at some point.

quarkhead


How do I know their personalities were strikingly similar without knowing them? Because I can read man . Beyond what Ive read in my own time, and learned in school alone, I also have seen many documentaries and educational programs on both men, by way of the National Geographic, and History channels. Most convincing of all was to listen to the testimonies of people who knew dictators like Saddam. How he sentenced people to death and even carried out murdering people himself for disagreeing with him, and his overall abuse of the power he had, All of this cries "HITLER"! The devil is in the details, and you should know that there are many similarities in the personalties of both men, thats not a guess, its a fact.



Their presence in Iraq while lower than it is today, it did exist. A connection between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda well thats not so easy to prove, and I'm not convinced of it myself, and never was.


Lol, A mean guy? Did you just call Saddam a mean guy? Perhaps comparable to a naughty dog that craps on the living room carpet? ((No Saddam!!! Bad Saddam, Go sit on the time out stool for being mean!!)) sorry, but the context was amusing. Saddam was beyond mean, mean doesn't even begin to describe the extent of who he was and what he had done. I'm not talking about what he could do like Kim Jong-il, I'm talking about what he had already done, past tense. He was nothing short of a murderer who had the privilege of running a country with military, and took the Gueneva Convention about as seriously as a Dr. Seus Book. So lets rephrase what you wrote and put it into perspective......

You wrote......

You really think this war was about stopping some two-bit dictator from being a mean guy?

More accurate context.......

You really think this war was about stopping some two-bit dictator from being a mass murdering dictator in control of a country with a military?

I can answer the second one, the first one was composed in a manner which softened the sound of the man we were out to stop, in order to make the question difficult to answer as presented. However considering who Saddam really was, yes I think this war was primarily about stopping him and stabilizing Iraq as a nation, just like GW said 5 years ago, and just like he says today.




Well they slow down there (criticisms) in defense of Clinton is what I meant. He believed the same thing under his own intelligence that Bush did, as did countless people under the Clinton administration, pure and simple, yet Bush is the liar because he went to war? What the heck is that? Perhaps there was much more reason to believe that Saddam had WMD than some are willing to consider, even with the conflicting evidence the CIA presented.

You know why when I talk about some Bush criticisms they sound ridiculous? Well because many of them are ridiculous. Whats this about me inventing arguments to counter? Everything Ive said Ive heard people suggest I have heard, in most cases multiple times, and in many cases here on this site that I could point out, and have. Sorry if some of the arguments people make sound so ridiculous to you, perhaps you shouldn't defend every criticism of Bush simply because Bush is who he is. Ive never liked Bush, Ive pointed out exactly why many times. However what I don't do, and refuse to do is exploit someone in a manner that disregards what can be proved. I don't need to compare Bush to Hitler to know he's a bad president, I can gather that much through making substantive arguments.

Thats what I'll stick to, even with liberals who I disagre with. If there is a liberal in the presidents seat come this time next year, your not going to hear me pulling some of the stuff I've heard in recent years on Bush, even if they mess up royally, I'll criticize them on the issues and facts. If that makes me old fashion, and naive to some, then so be it.

When I said you contradicted yourself about the bringing Freedom to Iraq it was because you said:
Bush administration over emphasized the importance of going after Saddam as a national security threat, however he never lied by saying that the primary objective wasn't to bring democracy to Iraq
I misunderstood. Weird negatives going on there I thought you meant it wasn't about freedom. But you did contradict yourself earlier when you said: He didn't have ICBM's that could reach here, he didn't have a developed navy with ships, submarines, and aircraft carriers, therefore the air force he had suffered from limited range. I said exactly what I meant. If this statement is what you believe then how was he a threat? You have yet to show how he was a threat. Saying it doesn't make it so. You say our folly was trusting Sadam. You act like we gave him that technology with innocent intent. We gave him dual technology so he could use it to defeat Iran. We knew full well how he was going to use it and to think otherwise is downright naive. We knew how he would use it and at the time our only concern was the defeat of Iran. Did we give him the fish? No but we made sure he knew how to fish. So it is naive to say we didn't arm him. And just becuase everyone else was doing it doesn't mean it was right or that we are innocent. Like always all we were concerned with was our immediate goals and we didn't consider or weigh the long term. This is the common theme in our Post World War II foreign policy. We do what is good for us now and we don't look at what will happen later. Its why we support Musharaf. Its why we defeated the Taliban only to leave and turn over power to warlord.

Strange isn't it? I've actually lost count of what the 'primary' reason for invading and occupying Iraq was supposed to be in the first place. The propaganda emphasis definetely has shifted over time, even if the initial reasons have not. Since Iraqi's generally view their world through an Islamic prism, I would say that their definition of freedom would be a nation without infidel occupiers. But the administration hasn't taken cultural aspects into account the entire time, so don't expect any change now.

I was referring to the grammar lol. I read what he said as a double negative. It was my mistake. But you make a good point as well.

He was a threat because he had WMD and was working with terrorist groups – and imo would have been only too happy to pass them some materials if he thought he could get away with it.

He was a danger to the entire regions as well (obviously) and to our vital interests there.

This debate is starting to become redundant. You are just repeating the unfounded Bush talking points with no real proof whatsoever. He had WMD's? Did you mean those one we found in the secret bunkers? Or maybe you mean the ones we found under his many palaces. Oh wait you must be referring to the ones riding around in the Trucks made to be mobile chemical plants. The hunt for WMD's is over yet you insist he still had them. Hate to tell you; but the Iraq Survey Group begs to differ.
Saddam talking to terrorists? Would these be the ones he feared would destabilize his own country? You say he was working with terrorists groups. Funny the 9/11 Commission and the 2006 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Phase II report said there was no evidence of ties between Saddam and Al-Qeda. The myth of Saddam working with terrorists has been debunked. So once again how was he a threat? God help us if all it takes to become a threat to the US is the president saying it is so.

No actually I was speaking of the ones the UN was looking for – the ones the ISG said he was desperate to have, the ones they said he would be replenishing as soon as the Sanctions ended – the ones we never found – nor did we find proof he destroyed them – although if you ever read the UN reports we have lots of proof he MADE them – Those are the ones – and the fact that we did not find them does not mean they never existed – does it.

.


Funny the analysis of the documents seems to say otherwise although you will not hear it from the NYT or ABC

“ trove of newly-declassified documents, mostly from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq Intelligence Service, reveal that he and his henchmen were up to their eyebrows in supporting terrorist organizations.
The Institute for Defense Analysis, which has been analyzing national security issues that require specialized scientific and technical knowledge since 1947, was under contract to analyze the Iraqi documents captured after Saddam’s regime fell in spring 2003.
The IIS or “Mukhabarat” showed ample evidence of support for terrorist groups over several decades. One such group was Egyptian Islamic Jihad, founded and led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who merged it in 1998 with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. al-Zawahiri has been bin Laden’s right-hand man ever since.

A 2002 annual report of the IIS’s M8 division spelled out the provision of money and arms to Palestinian terror groups. It also trained Palestinians in Iraqi camps. The IDA report also shows that Saddam gave considerable aid to Hamas, the Iran-sponsored radical group that today controls the Gaza Strip.
In one published statement in the late Nineties, Osama bin Laden made it clear that while he thought Saddam Hussein was apostate, he would nevertheless make common cause with him against the “Crusader-Zionist” forces (as he styles the Unites States and its allies). “
http://eurekareporter.com/article/080329-s...rrorist-support

I showed in the very first post with probably 20 links exactly why Saddam was a threat, thats why the post was so long. What does Saddam's ability to attack the United States have to do with me saying he was a threat? I have clarified my position on Saddam many times, the problem is that it appears many people have preconceived notions on war supporters. Just because I believe Saddam needed to be taken care of, and that he was dangerous that doesn't mean I believe he would have bombed Washington with WMD by now, if we hadn't.

An attack from him was possible if we ignored him long enough to regroup however, thankfully we never Ignored him after 1991. That whole event (Desert Storm) is what would have given him motive to attack us. The Saddam regime was linked to a plot to assassinate George Bush SR, during the Clinton Administration, with no doubt. This is from the first post.......


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl...line/062793.htm


If you think this man wasn't at least potentially dangerous to us after reading stuff like this than I'm at a loss for words. His military did take a near fatal blow in Desert Storm, and campaigns run under the Clinton Administration prevented him from regrouping after that, although if you read up you quickly learn he never lost the desire to develop his military, or WMD. Thats undeniable and its talked about in the first post as well. Biggest problem for us was his regime was clouded in secrecy.

However as I've said many times, Saddam as a national security threat to the United States was not the primary reason for going in, however it was a secondary motivator, just like WMD. If we leaved him alone, and things snowballed out of control then it was possible down the road that he could have threatened us on our soil, and you often hear the Bush administration say it was in our best interest to take Saddam out, yet that being said it wasn't the primary reason for going to Iraq and its not the primary reason I think Saddam needed to be taken seriously either.

I'm a bit dumbfounded at how the hell anyone was confused about what our primary mission was, I joked to Dontredonme about this a couple times. The name of the war itself was ((Operation Iraqi Freedom)) Get it? To free Iraq? It wasn't called ((Operation Lets find a Bomb, if not come Home)). When I say he was a treat, I meant he was a potential threat to us, but primarily he was a definite continued threat to the Middle east.
Before the war ever even began George Bush is quoted saying ((this is going to be a long war)) or ((bringing democracy to Iraq wont be easy)). Yet this guy I'm about to reply to down here, as well as others, are supposedly confused about this? Dontredonme as a soldier in the U.S. Military? I don't buy it, not at all. Even for a civilian that sounds more like an excuse than anything.

Dontredonme


I should expect this kind of thing from anti war propagandist, or someone who is blind and deaf. However you are in a privileged position to get information regarding this war, you attempt to buff up your arguments with that fact all the time. Let me ask you something, why is it that when I heard the president say several times (years ago) that this is primarily about bringing democracy to Iraq, and this would be a long war that I remember it but you don't?
Why is it that both of us know that the war itself is titled (Operation Iraqi Freedom) and has been since the beginning, yet those 3 words confuse you, but I understand them just fine? Hrm

You want to know what I think? I think You know just as I do that the primary reason for invading Iraq was to remove Saddam and stabilize Iraq, and things like finding WMD was simply one part of that much larger objective. I don't buy for a second that you simply don't get that, however you constantly suggest that you were somehow deceived, why do you do this? Probably so that you can take any degree of responsibility off yourself for having supported this war, and place that blame on someone else. Who better than the president right? I mean its impossible for the average Joe to know whats true of him at this point anyway with all the nonsense people spread around. If I didn't research this war, I just might believe some of the things you say. There is NOTHING that this administration is saying today about what our objectives are, that they weren't saying 5 years ago, and you darn well know it.

Anyways I'm going to finish watching (Bushes War) so I can reply to JohnfrmCleveland about it tomorrow. There are even some pre-war quotes in that show proving Bush said this was going to be a long war, among other things. I may even youtube some old video quotes of Bush to prove the objectives never changed in this war. Well not that I haven't already with links like this dated March of 2003.......... http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR303A.html

From the link above........


So what was our primary goal in Operation Iraqi Freedom? The world may never know, but maybe the Tootsie Pop Owl could tell us, after all he knew how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, just imagine the possibilities, lol JK I don't think we need Mr Owl.

1. How long after Desert Storm do you believe Saddam had WMD, and why?

Looks like not long. By my research, two terrible WMDs were used in Iraq. The first was used twice. The US bombing campaign in the First Gulf War, and the "Shock and Awe" bombing of this latest fiasco constitute surely weapons of mass destruction. They each unleashed more explosive power than all wars had, collectively, until then. Particularly in the first war, the so-called "smart" bombs they kept showing us on TV were largely a myth. There were few of them, relative to the whole, and not many of them struck their intended targets. In both wars thousands of innocent civilians were slaughtered from the comfort of buttons. The second WMD is more controversial, but there is evidence that the use of depleted uranium has had a lasting and devastating health effect.

2. Do you believe Saddam was a threat to the middle east?

After being crushed by the mother of all bombing campaigns, his army in tatters, and under the yoke of sanctions? No, not really. Considering our own strength and sad lust for Empire culture, the US is a bigger threat to Middle East peace than Iraq ever was.

3. If so, do you believe this means that he was a valid concern for the United States in regards to the War On Terror?

What War on Terror? Al Qaida the way they sold it to us was a myth. Osama the way they sold him to us is a myth. There is no War on Terror. There's a Straussian neoconservative ideal that requires a myth of evil. The same people who brought us the "Evil Empire" are now peddling the "Axis of Evil" and the "War on Terror." Strauss himself admitted that the myth did not have to be true for it to work.
Even granting a conditional war on actual terrorism - if such a war existed - Saddam's Iraq would not be a part of it in any reasonable way.

4. Do you believe Saddam's genocide alone was reason enough to remove him from power?

Theoretically, yes. In reality, there are better ways to effect change than war. Recently the last surviving French WWI vet died. Before his death he said that war is men killing men who are fathers; that all war is stupid. I agree. Think about it. Saddam committed genocide, so we should... what, bomb the daylights out of his country? Send in the military? We have killed more innocent Iraqis in the past 18 years than Saddam could have ever dreamed of killing.

5. Do you trust the testimony of former Iraqi general Georges Sada in regards to Saddam having shipped his WMD to Syria in late 2002? Why or why not?

No. There is no corroborating evidence; there is little reason to believe Sada was doing anything more than selling the US information they wanted to hear.



And I must confess I am a bit dumbfounded at how anyone could do as much research as you and yet refuse to go any levels deeper than you have. What was guarded after the invasion and what was not? What was expressly talked about as a goal by neoconservatives for years? How did controlling Iraq's reserves aid their plan to break the Saudi's - and thus OPEC's - back? Because net, you being such a research heavy guy, you know this stuff isn't hidden away in some secret conspiracy vault. Go look it up. After reading so much about war and policies and goals and tactics, how can anyone be so naive as to believe whatever propaganda a politician spouts? Can it really be that you would use the gung-ho name of the military operation to prove the true goal of the invasion? As if propaganda experts didn't come up with that stuff?

Net I implore you to do some more research. Propaganda was not an invention of the Nazis. It was ours; we invented it and perfected it. Our government has people who are very, very skilled at creating it. And it waits at that perfect level for the dupe who decides to wade in but only so deep and no deeper. Post after post, you are showing not that you've done loads of independent research; it's clearer by the post that you're only revealing more obtusely the incredible way you've been sold on a particular line of bunk. Hoodwinked and bamboozled, net; we've all been to a degree. Let's together climb out of that dark pit and into the light of truth. And we can start with a simple truth, undeniable through any propaganda effort - the effect of war on a people. The torn bodies of sons and daughters, mothers and fathers. When we weigh the 'worth' of war, we must weigh the worth of the lives of every man, woman, and child that dies as a result of our choices. We should have to read a bio of every soldier who dies, every Iraqi schoolgirl, every Afghan father, every single one. More, we have to put ourselves in their shoes. If this were my child, would the war be worthwhile? If this were my mother, my father?

JohnfrmCleveland



Ok John I just gave you over 2 hours of my time watching that entire special to perhaps reassure you that I don't ignore the opinion of the critic. It wasn't bad, and most of this stuff I knew already but I did learn a couple things. It was kind of a look at Bush and Iraq from more of the critics perspective, and due to a few fixations and key phrases in this special I'm willing to bet the ones responsible for producing it do not support the war and therefore were prone to gathering generally unsympathetic news bits in Regards to the Bush Administration and this war, however there were just enough exceptions to that to keep me just interested enough to watch that all the way through. Not to mention many of the criticisms made in this special I actually agree with.

Basically all this did was help reinforce my previous position on Bush. That guy runs his administration like he's the monkey in the middle, and the way he dealt with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, juggling his opinion with that of Donald Rumsfeld, ect ect. This all points to his general lack of leadership as Ive believed for the last 3 years. Here are some points from some of the sections of the special that Id like to bring up.....

Part 1:

Section 5: At the very beginning of section 5 (before we went into Iraq) this quote is pretty consistent with other comments made by GW............



Now to break down his reply, he refers to the war on terror, with Iraq considered, as a long war. Ive heard people say they were under the impression this was going to be an in and out deal like Desert Storm, and had they known this would have lasted this long they wouldn't have supported it. This comment from bush himself is a clear indicator of how hard this would be and that his position has remained pretty consistent.

Also in that same quote you hear him say (he gassed his own people, and we know he's been developing WMD.) Now some look at that and almost like a knee jerk reaction they immediately assume thats a lie on his part because we never found WMD. For starters just because we didn't find them doesn't mean he didn't have them leading up to the war, and that is consistent with comments coming from the former head of the ISG David Kay.

Secondly since he said that he (knew Saddam's been developing WMD), right after he said (Saddam gassed his own people), he very well could have been speaking in past tense. People don't consider these things, I'm sure Bush and the entire administration was highly confident they would find WMD and that Saddam was still developing them, but there is no doubt he was developing them in large numbers in the past when he gassed his own people. Sometimes people seem to assume whatever context best fits their view.

Anyway, You had the CIA saying one thing, the Pentagon and Chaney saying another thing, and Bush was like the monkey in the middle, but when it all comes down to it nobody could be 100% certain unless we went in to find those weapons by force, because having the ten thousandth resolution on Iraq sure as hell wasn't going to do it. My criticism is that some in his administration were over confident, and cocky. Rumsfeld and Chaney pressured Bush to go to war prematurely in my opinion, and with a down right pitiful plan. While I agree with the decision to take out Saddam, I don't agree with the timing, and I don't agree with the methods Rumsfeld was fixated on.

I'll go over a few more of the sections I found interesting, much more briefly.......

Section 9:

This section Explains the incompetence of Rumsfeld along with a later section, and I agree with almost every criticism made on Former S.O.D. Rumsfeld based on what Ive researched myself.

Section 10:

Colin Powell refers to Iraq like a crystal that will shatter, showing perhaps a bit of a catch 22 in regards to the decisions the President is required to make. For example does Bush listen to Powell and avoid a potential backlash, yet risk having that decision cost lives at the hands of Saddam down the road? Or does he go to war to take that threat out, and risk failing? In my opinion he made the right choice, but as I said before he had poor timing, and poor planing. So He went about doing the right thing the wrong way.

Section 15:

In this section Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki, says we need several 100 thousand troops to invade Iraq, this is consistent with other quotes Ive gathered myself. Ive always been a strong advocate for using our own troops, and using the proper amount. In Desert Storm we had over 400,000 Americans in Iraq, yet we went into Iraq in 2003 with about 1/3 of that, due largely to the approach Rumsfeld pushed forward.

Later in the special oddly enough Rumsfeld says in a public statement that a tactic known as (clear hold build) that has proved successful, will not work in Iraq as a whole with only 160,000 troops their. He said...... (to think that would be far from reality.) Lol, how ironic.

part 2:

Section 5:

Former head of the ISG David Kay says, regarding his intelligence, in reference to the Bush administration the following....



This, along with other quotes I've collected from both David Kay and Charles Duelfer, show that the intelligence they gathered was if anything INCONCLUSIVE, although people in forums say Saddam had no WMD all the time. The intelligence in other words neither proved he had WMD recently, nor did it disprove it.

Section 9:

This I found rather interesting, regarding the clear, hold and build policy. This is Col. H.R. McMaster ..............

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/en...s/mcmaster.html


This was a rarity in that special to hear optimistic comments like this, but there was just enough of them to prevent me from calling it an all out grill, which is pretty much what the people want and expect from the media these days. Thats why not many war critics believe or even care that the news is reporting that things have dramatically improved in Iraq, which is tragic.

You probably went into watching (Bushes War) looking for reasons to say Bush lied regarding WMD, or that he mislead this nation to go to war. Personally I didn't see a thing that shows that Bush is anything more than incompetent, because he had different people telling him different things, but he chose to speak confidently based on years of intelligence gathered on Iraq throughout the 90's which mind you lead Bill Clinton and most people under him to believe the same darn thing. So you tell me why he lied, did everyone lie who believed that? I watched that whole special and got no closer to believing bush deceived this nation to go to war, because beyond WMD bringing democracy to Iraq is and always has been the main objective, Bush was saying that before the war began and its getting tiring hearing millions of people pretending they didn't know what this war was about, or that they had been deceived by the big bad bush. If not pretending then we have some folks in this nation with rather short memories.

C'mon, Net, it's PBS. How slanted do you really think it is? I mean, you know how bad this administration has been - if the show was 50% positive and 50% negative, that would be a big slant in favor of Bush.

Anyway, thanks for watching. Now that you have watched "Bush's War," you should watch "The Dark Side" to see how the intelligence was colored, mostly by Cheney.



BINGO! Now do you see why I took such issue with the language Bush and his mouthpieces were using leading up to the war? When I complained that they spoke in absolutes, when the intelligence did not support that kind of strong assertion? THAT is misleading, and THAT played a big part in revving up Americans to get behind an invasion of Iraq.

I don't really care what people in forums had to say about WMDs. They don't run the Army.



It is not the job of the journalist to be "optimistic." That is the job of the Ministry of Propoganda, and they do a great job of it.
And again, I'll remind you that this was PBS. They are generally not known for their "grill jobs."



I went into watching "Bush's War" looking to learn the details of what happened. No agenda, although I will admit that I didn't expect him to be exonerated, and I was not disappointed in that regard.

The big lie, as I have always maintained, was the general deception surrounding the buildup to war, and the downplay (complete ignoring, really) of the intelligence that went against them. I won't rehash it here, I'm sure you know it by now.

I appreciate that you watched the show. Those were the best sources you are likely to hear from on the subject, unless there are some deathbed confessions from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Libby, and that bunch. I'm not surprised that it didn't change your mind, but baby steps are better than nothing.

JohnfrmCleveland