Michele 1 #76 September 18, 2004 QuoteBut, what does that have to do with Iraq? Last I checked that threat is still sitting in a mountain in Afghanastan or Pakastan. Actually, CBS, the WTC 93 has a connection to Iraq. While it is tenuous, it is also there... Now, as to Bush Sr. not going in...I wished he had at the time, and I understood (although didn't agree with) the decision not to. Had he, then we would have handled SH a looooooong time ago, and this war likely wouldn't have happened. I think going in to contain SH now was the right thing to do, regardless of whether the intel was right or wrong, good or bad. We've known for years that SH is capable of developing WMD, and of using them to the great detriment of the Kurds. Knowing that was enough for me, especially after 9/11. I didn't want (and don't want) to wait around for the "smoking gun," because that means more dead people and more attacks on my home. I see nothing wrong with handling a problem that had been festering for many, many years...and wasn't handled correctly the first time 'round. Does that make me intolerant, or stupid, or any of the other names on this thread? No. It makes me honest for saying the truth as I see it. Do I wish my armed forces hadn't died and been wounded in such numbers? OF COURSE. That is not the issue. The issues is simply that I believed in taking out SH since 91....and am pleased it's been accomplished. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #77 September 18, 2004 Quoteand those on the other side (read Iraq and France)*** What movie are you watching? The one where the audience has a brain and uses it. The US (read Bush if you prefer) was not going to mobilize the bulk of its assault forces halfway around the world just for a pleasure cruise. It picked the window between the religious holidays in January and the oppressive heat of summer. Waiting would have resulted in the choice of pulling out for a year, or suffering greater losses. Saddam thought that he could stall on the deadline. For a guy that usually knew the line and when to step back, he misread badly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #78 September 18, 2004 I totally agree on the strategic timing of the assault. But I thought you had mentioned France as being on the same side as iraq. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #79 September 18, 2004 Quote Actually, CBS, the WTC 93 has a connection to Iraq. While it is tenuous, it is also there... Tenuous? IIRC we are going off of what the GW admin has claimed - that there was a connection, without any real proof. It is easier to connect GW to SBVFT than it is to connect Iraq to Osama...or to connect Sadam to either of the WTC attacks. As we have found out with the Kevin Bacon 6-degree game, you can almost connect anyone to anyone else. The Admin has made promises of proof for many things in this war on terrorism and we continue to get nothing but rhetoric and a serious lack of proof. Bush is learning international politics at the cost of many lives. He has run this country into the ground and now we expect him to be able to run another country as well?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbarry 0 #80 September 18, 2004 QuoteIt's what happens when the detectives are never allowed to look in the shed outback or under the pool. AND we should all recall that it wasn't the job of the UN inspectors to do an easter egg hunt for wmd anyway. such a hunt could (and was) easily made impossible. it was the inspectors' job to verify the destruction of wmd SH had. SH brought this war on himself. only he could have chosen peace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #81 September 18, 2004 QuoteI totally agree on the strategic timing of the assault. But I thought you had mentioned France as being on the same side as iraq. More a personal opinion than something I'd declare as fact - I felt that France was playing an obstructionist at the UN with the intent of preventing the war. Depending on your politics, that is either good or evil. I wouldn't say that France was on the same side, but that in this regard their interests were aligned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #82 September 18, 2004 Quote Bush is learning international politics at the cost of many lives. He has run this country into the ground and now we expect him to be able to run another country as well? This may be the biggest flaw in how we elect our executive branch leaders in the US. Clinton was bright, but totally disinterested in foreign affairs and did too little. We're paying for that as well. Shrub is perhaps a bit too rash biting off more than we can chew. Bush Sr. was clearly better suited than most Presidents in recent history. But I think we generally elect our leader on the domestic issues, and of course after 8 years replace the person, so this is the end result. What can we expect from the governor of Texas/Arkansas/California/Georgia? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #83 September 18, 2004 QuoteSH brought this war on himself. only he could have chosen peace. Correct. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #84 September 18, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SH brought this war on himself. only he could have chosen peace. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Correct. Bullshit. Nobody FORCED the US to invade Iraq, the US, CHOSE to invade Iraq. The Iraqis told you guys time and time again that they didn't have WMD. But your government CHOSE not to believe them because they wanted regime change. And now, after 1,000 US deaths, more than 10,000 US casualties & 10,000+ Iraqi deaths, all totals increasing daily, with no end to the chaos in sight, your government acknowledges that, DUH!, they didn't have any after all. What a total fuckup. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #85 September 18, 2004 QuoteBullshit. Nobody FORCED the US to invade Iraq, the US, CHOSE to invade Iraq. The Iraqis told you guys time and time again that they didn't have WMD. But your government CHOSE not to believe them because they wanted regime change. I don't know how any logical person could deny that they had WMD when they used them on their own people. We might have not found stockpiles, but we’ve certainly found leftovers of WMD. Do you also think that, since then and over the years, they really did comply with the demands of the world to completely get rid of them? How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? Also, I seem to remember your country knee deep in it with us on the decision to go in. I’d say to your first comment above, “So did the UK” (and others). Let’s not be naïve or petty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #86 September 18, 2004 How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? Exactly. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbarry 0 #87 September 18, 2004 QuoteQuote In Reply To SH brought this war on himself. only he could have chosen peace. Correct. Quote Bullshit. Fact. What, SH never violated UN resolutions to disarm and allow verification? Where you been boah? Quote Nobody FORCED the US to invade Iraq, the US, CHOSE to invade Iraq. Some choices are unnecessary, some choices are optional, some are strategically smart, and some are simply suicide not to choose. Your comment treats all choices as possibly unnecessary. Too simplistic a view on things. Quote The Iraqis told you guys time and time again that they didn't have WMD. But your government CHOSE not to believe them because they wanted regime change. Now there's a wacky alternate universe... a. Of course they're going to "tell" us they don't have them. b. They spent 12 years doing everything possible to thwart the inspection process. c. (we could spin our wheels all day on this...) Quote DUH!, they didn't have any after all. The primary purpose of the invasion was due to SH being in material breach of many UN resolutions and the clock ran out. SH hoped his bribes to the UN and business deals with Security Council member countries would keep the world off his back. His risk failed. Whether or not SH actually had wmd in 2003 is secondary to that fact. But that's exactly the point. If we had known SH didn't have wmd in 2003, there would have been no justification for war. And that supports my comment that "only SH could have chosen peace." Excepting unless you are John Kerry, in which case the invasion was justified even if we knew going in there were no wmd. And THAT my friends is really scary. Quote What a total fuckup. My bet is that if you acknowledged more facts, rather than just selecting the few the media are drumming into us, you wouldn't feel that way. imofwiw. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #88 September 18, 2004 QuoteNope - haven't forgotten that at all. But, what does that have to do with Iraq? Last I checked that threat is still sitting in a mountain in Afghanastan or Pakastan. Reread my prior posts...You are either ignoring them on purpose, or just to argue."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #89 September 18, 2004 QuoteBullshit. Nobody FORCED the US to invade Iraq, the US, CHOSE to invade Iraq. SH could have played along with the resolutions at anytime...he decided not to. QuoteThe Iraqis told you guys time and time again that they didn't have WMD thats like listening to a guy in jail claim he never commited the crime? You believe everyone in prison is innocent? You tend to believe criminals when they say they didn't do something?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #90 September 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteNope - haven't forgotten that at all. But, what does that have to do with Iraq? Last I checked that threat is still sitting in a mountain in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Reread my prior posts...You are either ignoring them on purpose, or just to argue. Come on, you think there are people on here that don't listen to others or argue gratuitously???? Nah, after reading all the thousands of posts on here? How could one come to that conclusion. In the end, it doesn't matter, you will vote Bush and I will vote Kerry simply because he isn't Bush and a vote for any other party is a vote for Bush. We see the country through different eyes. The funny thing - the people that argue the most are the ones that will never sway, its those on the fence that never say anything that are the ones that will choose the course our country takes over the next four years._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #91 September 18, 2004 Quoteyou will vote Bush and I will vote Kerry simply because he isn't Bush That is so sad that the best you can do is to vote for someone because of who they are not. Really sad."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #92 September 18, 2004 QuoteDo you also think that, since then and over the years, they really did comply with the demands of the world to completely get rid of them? From the news article: QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) - Drafts of a report from the top U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no weapons stockpiles, but say there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to people familiar with the findings. Quote How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? It isn't. Thats what the UN weapons inspectors were for. The US chose to interpret their lack of findings as a failure on their part. According to the US Weapons Inspectors sent in to replace them there weren't any WMD. Quote I’d say to your first comment above, “So did the UK” (and others). Yes. Bush was going in whatever the UN or security council decided. Blair had to make a political decision knowing this. Did he stand with Bush, or stand with Europe knowing that Bush would go in anyway. He chose the cowardly, and as it turns out, wrong option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #93 September 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteyou will vote Bush and I will vote Kerry simply because he isn't Bush That is so sad that the best you can do is to vote for someone because of who they are not. Really sad. Why? I did my part. I never voted for Bush, and I didn't vote for Kerry in the primary. I did my part as a responsible citizen. What is sad is the current President and how much damage he has done to the world overall. The lesser of two evils. The Dems do not have the candidate selected that I voted for - and there is no way in hell I would ever let Bush think he could get a vote from me. What is really sad is the state of politics in this country and the horrible men we select to run this country._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jimbarry 0 #94 September 18, 2004 QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) - Drafts of a report from the top U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no weapons stockpiles, but say there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to people familiar with the findings. Too bad SH didn't give the UN access to make this conclusion in the 12 years leading up to March 2003. Quote Quote How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? It isn't. It's isn't?? But just a half a scroll up this page you said it "is". You said: "The Iraqis told you guys time and time again that they didn't have WMD. But your government CHOSE not to believe them..." Quote Thats what the UN weapons inspectors were for. wrong again. the un inspectors weren't there on a hunt for weapons. they were there to verify their destruction. and SH spent 12 years impeding their work. Quote The US chose to interpret their lack of findings as a failure on their part. Wait, wait, wait... I thought the lib story was that Bush didn't give the inspectors enough time to finish? So did you mean "lack of findings" period? Or "lack of findings" yet (ie. as of 2003)? Quote According to the US Weapons Inspectors sent in to replace them there weren't any WMD. Again, if only SH had allowed verification when he agreed to, he could have avoided this whole war and all of its horrible waste of lives and resources. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #95 September 18, 2004 QuoteYes. Bush was going in whatever the UN or security council decided. Blair had to make a political decision knowing this. Did he stand with Bush, or stand with Europe knowing that Bush would go in anyway. He chose the cowardly, and as it turns out, wrong option. or maybe the right thing to do. Seems like the SH with the aid of the UN might have been funding Al Qaeda http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #96 September 18, 2004 QuoteIt's isn't?? But just a half a scroll up this page you said it "is". You said: "The Iraqis told you guys time and time again that they didn't have WMD. But your government CHOSE not to believe them..." Bush had already decided to go to war. He was deaf to anything the Iraqis said. They produced thousands of pages of documents on the subject. They eventually got so desperate to avoid war they offered increasing cooperation with the UN inspectors. But none of it was enough and it never was going to be. QuoteWait, wait, wait... I thought the lib story was that Bush didn't give the inspectors enough time to finish? So did you mean "lack of findings" period? Or "lack of findings" yet (ie. as of 2003)? I'm not a liberal. It wasn't in Bush's interests to give the UN weapons more time. His invasion timetable would get messed up by doing that. His public reason for not giving them more time was that they had not found anything so far, (and of course the damn WMD were there!?!) so they were not working out and there was no point in keeping them there. The invasion was done on the pretext of danger from WMD, then on saving the Iraqi people from Saddams brutality. Neither of those reasons are the true primary reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jimbarry 0 #97 September 18, 2004 QuoteBush had already decided to go to war. He was deaf to anything the Iraqis said. If SH has just abided by the UN resolutions, Bush would not have had the justification to invade. And i'd be 100% against it if he had. But then you've climbed inside Bush's head to conclude that he was going to war no matter what. I offer facts of actions, you offer biased guesses. It's you sir who are going to keep your unsupported views no matter what. Hey, why let a few facts get in the way? QuoteThey eventually got so desperate to avoid war they offered increasing cooperation with the UN inspectors. How nice of them. Too bad they didn't do this in 1992 when they agreed to. Quote But none of it was enough and it never was going to be. When in actuality, if they had lived up to their agreements, that would have been good enough to avoid war. He's still be in power and his murderous spawn would still be alive. Quote It wasn't in Bush's interests to give the UN weapons more time. But it's you who's saying that it took less than two years for US inspectors to conclude there were no wmd. But now you're saying that Bush should have given SH more than 12 years to prove this? And yes, it was up to SH to prove he didn't have them, not up to the world to prove he still did. QuoteHis invasion timetable would get messed up by doing that. Your opinion or fact? Bush hellbent on invading Iraq no matter what? Yeah, Michael Moore says this too, but doesn't have any proof either. Quote The invasion was done on the pretext of danger from WMD, then on saving the Iraqi people from Saddams brutality. Neither of those reasons are the true primary reason. Since SH did not allow the verification of wmd destruction, then there was a pretext of danger from wmd. Saving the Iraqi people was important yet secondary to this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #98 September 20, 2004 QuoteQuote Now in hindsight everyone jumps on the "It was a bad move bandwaggon"...Including people like Kerry who voted FOR it. Not me, buddy. I cautioned against it from the very beginning - link available on request. PS the DCI reports to Bush, not Kerry. Congress only got to hear what the lying administration wanted them hear.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,989 #99 September 20, 2004 >Since SH did not allow the verification of wmd destruction, then there >was a pretext of danger from wmd. From Blix's final report before we invaded: ------------- To date, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including four training missiles, two combat warheads, one launcher and five engines have been destroyed under Unmovic supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 programme. Two "reconstituted" casting chambers used in the production of solid propellant missiles have been destroyed and the remnants melted or encased in concrete. . . . While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. -------------- The UN was observing and documenting the destruction of his proscribed weapons, and would have concluded their inspections within a few months. We simply did not want to wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ahegeman 0 #100 September 21, 2004 Are you sure it would have been done in a few months? After 12+ years of fooling around with desert hide-and-go-seek for weapons? What makes you so sure that it was near any sort of conclusion? Quote>Since SH did not allow the verification of wmd destruction, then there >was a pretext of danger from wmd. From Blix's final report before we invaded: ... The UN was observing and documenting the destruction of his proscribed weapons, and would have concluded their inspections within a few months. We simply did not want to wait.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 4 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Ron 10 #88 September 18, 2004 QuoteNope - haven't forgotten that at all. But, what does that have to do with Iraq? Last I checked that threat is still sitting in a mountain in Afghanastan or Pakastan. Reread my prior posts...You are either ignoring them on purpose, or just to argue."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #89 September 18, 2004 QuoteBullshit. Nobody FORCED the US to invade Iraq, the US, CHOSE to invade Iraq. SH could have played along with the resolutions at anytime...he decided not to. QuoteThe Iraqis told you guys time and time again that they didn't have WMD thats like listening to a guy in jail claim he never commited the crime? You believe everyone in prison is innocent? You tend to believe criminals when they say they didn't do something?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #90 September 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteNope - haven't forgotten that at all. But, what does that have to do with Iraq? Last I checked that threat is still sitting in a mountain in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Reread my prior posts...You are either ignoring them on purpose, or just to argue. Come on, you think there are people on here that don't listen to others or argue gratuitously???? Nah, after reading all the thousands of posts on here? How could one come to that conclusion. In the end, it doesn't matter, you will vote Bush and I will vote Kerry simply because he isn't Bush and a vote for any other party is a vote for Bush. We see the country through different eyes. The funny thing - the people that argue the most are the ones that will never sway, its those on the fence that never say anything that are the ones that will choose the course our country takes over the next four years._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #91 September 18, 2004 Quoteyou will vote Bush and I will vote Kerry simply because he isn't Bush That is so sad that the best you can do is to vote for someone because of who they are not. Really sad."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #92 September 18, 2004 QuoteDo you also think that, since then and over the years, they really did comply with the demands of the world to completely get rid of them? From the news article: QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) - Drafts of a report from the top U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no weapons stockpiles, but say there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to people familiar with the findings. Quote How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? It isn't. Thats what the UN weapons inspectors were for. The US chose to interpret their lack of findings as a failure on their part. According to the US Weapons Inspectors sent in to replace them there weren't any WMD. Quote I’d say to your first comment above, “So did the UK” (and others). Yes. Bush was going in whatever the UN or security council decided. Blair had to make a political decision knowing this. Did he stand with Bush, or stand with Europe knowing that Bush would go in anyway. He chose the cowardly, and as it turns out, wrong option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #93 September 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteyou will vote Bush and I will vote Kerry simply because he isn't Bush That is so sad that the best you can do is to vote for someone because of who they are not. Really sad. Why? I did my part. I never voted for Bush, and I didn't vote for Kerry in the primary. I did my part as a responsible citizen. What is sad is the current President and how much damage he has done to the world overall. The lesser of two evils. The Dems do not have the candidate selected that I voted for - and there is no way in hell I would ever let Bush think he could get a vote from me. What is really sad is the state of politics in this country and the horrible men we select to run this country._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbarry 0 #94 September 18, 2004 QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) - Drafts of a report from the top U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no weapons stockpiles, but say there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to people familiar with the findings. Too bad SH didn't give the UN access to make this conclusion in the 12 years leading up to March 2003. Quote Quote How logical is it to take their word on that given their obvious defiance? It isn't. It's isn't?? But just a half a scroll up this page you said it "is". You said: "The Iraqis told you guys time and time again that they didn't have WMD. But your government CHOSE not to believe them..." Quote Thats what the UN weapons inspectors were for. wrong again. the un inspectors weren't there on a hunt for weapons. they were there to verify their destruction. and SH spent 12 years impeding their work. Quote The US chose to interpret their lack of findings as a failure on their part. Wait, wait, wait... I thought the lib story was that Bush didn't give the inspectors enough time to finish? So did you mean "lack of findings" period? Or "lack of findings" yet (ie. as of 2003)? Quote According to the US Weapons Inspectors sent in to replace them there weren't any WMD. Again, if only SH had allowed verification when he agreed to, he could have avoided this whole war and all of its horrible waste of lives and resources. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #95 September 18, 2004 QuoteYes. Bush was going in whatever the UN or security council decided. Blair had to make a political decision knowing this. Did he stand with Bush, or stand with Europe knowing that Bush would go in anyway. He chose the cowardly, and as it turns out, wrong option. or maybe the right thing to do. Seems like the SH with the aid of the UN might have been funding Al Qaeda http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #96 September 18, 2004 QuoteIt's isn't?? But just a half a scroll up this page you said it "is". You said: "The Iraqis told you guys time and time again that they didn't have WMD. But your government CHOSE not to believe them..." Bush had already decided to go to war. He was deaf to anything the Iraqis said. They produced thousands of pages of documents on the subject. They eventually got so desperate to avoid war they offered increasing cooperation with the UN inspectors. But none of it was enough and it never was going to be. QuoteWait, wait, wait... I thought the lib story was that Bush didn't give the inspectors enough time to finish? So did you mean "lack of findings" period? Or "lack of findings" yet (ie. as of 2003)? I'm not a liberal. It wasn't in Bush's interests to give the UN weapons more time. His invasion timetable would get messed up by doing that. His public reason for not giving them more time was that they had not found anything so far, (and of course the damn WMD were there!?!) so they were not working out and there was no point in keeping them there. The invasion was done on the pretext of danger from WMD, then on saving the Iraqi people from Saddams brutality. Neither of those reasons are the true primary reason. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbarry 0 #97 September 18, 2004 QuoteBush had already decided to go to war. He was deaf to anything the Iraqis said. If SH has just abided by the UN resolutions, Bush would not have had the justification to invade. And i'd be 100% against it if he had. But then you've climbed inside Bush's head to conclude that he was going to war no matter what. I offer facts of actions, you offer biased guesses. It's you sir who are going to keep your unsupported views no matter what. Hey, why let a few facts get in the way? QuoteThey eventually got so desperate to avoid war they offered increasing cooperation with the UN inspectors. How nice of them. Too bad they didn't do this in 1992 when they agreed to. Quote But none of it was enough and it never was going to be. When in actuality, if they had lived up to their agreements, that would have been good enough to avoid war. He's still be in power and his murderous spawn would still be alive. Quote It wasn't in Bush's interests to give the UN weapons more time. But it's you who's saying that it took less than two years for US inspectors to conclude there were no wmd. But now you're saying that Bush should have given SH more than 12 years to prove this? And yes, it was up to SH to prove he didn't have them, not up to the world to prove he still did. QuoteHis invasion timetable would get messed up by doing that. Your opinion or fact? Bush hellbent on invading Iraq no matter what? Yeah, Michael Moore says this too, but doesn't have any proof either. Quote The invasion was done on the pretext of danger from WMD, then on saving the Iraqi people from Saddams brutality. Neither of those reasons are the true primary reason. Since SH did not allow the verification of wmd destruction, then there was a pretext of danger from wmd. Saving the Iraqi people was important yet secondary to this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #98 September 20, 2004 QuoteQuote Now in hindsight everyone jumps on the "It was a bad move bandwaggon"...Including people like Kerry who voted FOR it. Not me, buddy. I cautioned against it from the very beginning - link available on request. PS the DCI reports to Bush, not Kerry. Congress only got to hear what the lying administration wanted them hear.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,989 #99 September 20, 2004 >Since SH did not allow the verification of wmd destruction, then there >was a pretext of danger from wmd. From Blix's final report before we invaded: ------------- To date, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including four training missiles, two combat warheads, one launcher and five engines have been destroyed under Unmovic supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 programme. Two "reconstituted" casting chambers used in the production of solid propellant missiles have been destroyed and the remnants melted or encased in concrete. . . . While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. -------------- The UN was observing and documenting the destruction of his proscribed weapons, and would have concluded their inspections within a few months. We simply did not want to wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ahegeman 0 #100 September 21, 2004 Are you sure it would have been done in a few months? After 12+ years of fooling around with desert hide-and-go-seek for weapons? What makes you so sure that it was near any sort of conclusion? Quote>Since SH did not allow the verification of wmd destruction, then there >was a pretext of danger from wmd. From Blix's final report before we invaded: ... The UN was observing and documenting the destruction of his proscribed weapons, and would have concluded their inspections within a few months. We simply did not want to wait.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 4 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,989 #99 September 20, 2004 >Since SH did not allow the verification of wmd destruction, then there >was a pretext of danger from wmd. From Blix's final report before we invaded: ------------- To date, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including four training missiles, two combat warheads, one launcher and five engines have been destroyed under Unmovic supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 programme. Two "reconstituted" casting chambers used in the production of solid propellant missiles have been destroyed and the remnants melted or encased in concrete. . . . While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. -------------- The UN was observing and documenting the destruction of his proscribed weapons, and would have concluded their inspections within a few months. We simply did not want to wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #100 September 21, 2004 Are you sure it would have been done in a few months? After 12+ years of fooling around with desert hide-and-go-seek for weapons? What makes you so sure that it was near any sort of conclusion? Quote>Since SH did not allow the verification of wmd destruction, then there >was a pretext of danger from wmd. From Blix's final report before we invaded: ... The UN was observing and documenting the destruction of his proscribed weapons, and would have concluded their inspections within a few months. We simply did not want to wait.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
