Moderator: This topic is a continuation from here.
No need for anyone to be lying at all Spook:
You have basically outlined a very typical reaction to any business or office environment. The boss has one goal, the sales manager another and they see things from very different perspectives.
Regardless of what happened during the weapons inspection process, I believe that you must look at Saddam’s record. You cannot split his past actions off to focus on how he was behaving two months prior to the invasion. Typically, in the past when the heat was on, he was very cooperative as well. Once the threat was gone, bam, back to his old self.
Perhaps, you too, are engaging in a bit of selective examination of facts to fit your agenda which is to paint Bush as doing the very same? No?
Bush says they didn’t let the inspectors in. Blix said they did.
Only one can be right. Both were there at the time. Comes out of the mouth of a Republican, smells nasty… must be Bushit.
What was the time frame of Bush’s statement? Was he referring to specific sites? the country? previously? Now? It is not clear from the quoted statement. Regardless, Saddam was on probation and was given more than enough chances. He gambled and finally lost. End of story.
The real story now is not whether we were justified to go in or not but how we are going to keep the fire under the Islamofascists’ feet. Given that Pakistan and London have recently netted a number of high-profile al Qaeda and given that 70 Taliban were just demolished trying to enter Afghanistan, I would argue that despite the claims of some, we can juggle both Iraq and Afghanistan and our fight against al Qaeda. We would be able to do much more if we carried this fight into Syria and Lebanon and Iran to clean up these terrorist rat’s nests once and for all. OR if Iran is too big, let’s take out their nuclear sites and encourage the population to rise up. Let’s take the fight to them rather than allow them to continually harry and harrass us in Afghanistan and Iraq. I wonder where these Uzbek terrorists got their arms and support for the recent bombings of the Israeli and American embassies? Given the large number of al Qaeda still being “detained” in Iran (400 to 500), I think that we should give them an ultimatum and press the trigger if they do not comply.
[quote=“mofangongren”]Bush says they didn’t let the inspectors in. Blix said they did.
Only one can be right. Both were there at the time. Comes out of the mouth of a Republican, smells nasty… must be Bushit.[/quote]
1441 demanded absolute and immediate compliance. Blix said that Saddam failed to comply with 1441.
End of story. 
Lyin’man, did the U.S. troops find any more WMDs than Blix’s guys? Nope. Months of scouring the country later, the U.S. still came up empty handed. Looks pretty clear that Blix found all there was to find.
Now, if inspectors were admitted into Iraq, Bush is basically caught in a blatant lie… yet again.
In all seriousness, I wouldn’t be suprised if the Uzbek government had a hand in it. Some of the central asian republics are using the war on terror as a blatant excuse for keeping their regimes (some as nasty as Saddam) in power. God forbid, but there have even been reports of concern in Washington about the behaviour of some of the US’s new found allies. I don’t remember which one, but one of the new allies was recently found to have boiled a political pisoner alive.
Tough neighborhood but would you rather see these nations move toward becoming a Turkey under the aegis of the US or more like Iran or what Iraq used to be like? Not a perfect world, but what direction do you want to see these states and statelets take?
nytimes.com/2004/08/04/inter … gh.html?hp
“The prisoner, who gave his name as Muhammad Sohail, is a 17-year-old from the Pakistani port city of Karachi, held by the Afghan authorities in Kabul. In an interview in late July, in front of several prison guards, he said Pakistan was allowing militant groups to train and organize insurgents to fight in Afghanistan. Mr. Sohail said he hoped that granting the interview would increase his chances of being freed.”
More likely, Mr. Sohail will find himself on the receiving end of a lead enema from Lynndie England’s replacement.
I think they are moving more towards the Iraq under Saddam model at the moment. There is some serious question marks over the level islamic fundamentalism in these countries. Now anything that happens is blamed on ‘Islamic extremists’ so that they can claim to be acting in the war on terror and get the west to look the other way, and even provide military aid. Look at Saddam and his fight with Iran in the 80s. The west supported him, ignored his own actions and look where that got us. I suspect there are people in Washington who are more than a little worried about how those states are going.
Now doesn’t this sound exactly like Broon Ale. Anyone?
Um don’t you mean that France, Germany and Russia armed him? Leave the “West” out of this.
And who in the West finally took care of this problem? Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Norway, UK, Croatia, Slovenia, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and also countries like Ukraine.
Don’t you mean that France and Germany and Russia as usual armed him while we clean up the mess? But let’s talk about US involvement in Vietnam and Chile while France and Germany and Russia continue to sell weapons and systems to Iran while having “dialogue” about their nuclear efforts. Any progress so far? And watch while they try to sell the same weapons and systems to China.
So yes, let’s talk about who is responsible for Saddam and ask why there are not more protests about their involvement with new troublemakers.
Fred, are you still running with the Republiconman math that 60% of 0 is greater than 0? No WMDs were found, none will be found. Let’s ask Rumsfeld if he bothered to say anything to Saddam Hussein about WMDs when they were gladhanding each other back in the 1980s…
Um don’t you mean that France, Germany and Russia armed him? Leave the “West” out of this.
[/quote]
No I mean the west, as in the UK, France, Germany, the US, et al. You admit that the US supplied some arms and support, and certainly turned a blind eye because Saddam was percieved as the lesser of two evils. You may not want to learn the lessons of the pst in case they do our nations reputaions a little harm. I think it wise to learn from past policies and outcomes.
PS who would you term ‘the West’?
Leave the US and UK out of that one. Our support for Saddam was neglible and specifically time to 1982-3.
Blame France, Germany and Russia.
Er MFGR:
I know that this is difficult for you to understand but these nations admit and we have proof that they armed Saddam in the period up to the First Gulf War. I know that this might be difficult for you to understand but no one is talking about the lead up to the second Gulf War in 2002. Therefore 60% of 0 is only 0 if you do not understand the time frame we are discussing. This is documented. It includes the period 1979-1991. Got it?
Fred, then let’s talk about U.S. historical attitudes toward the Iraqi use of WMDs during that period. In particular, I’d like to hear all about what sort of action the U.S. took to steer Iraq away from WMDs.
Did we sell the weapons? Did we have any influence in Iraq? Our greatest period of influence was when saddam was desperately facing the Iranian onslaught of 1982-3. After that was over, just what kind of influence did we have? Much better to go and ask those that sold him his weapons and armed him to the hilt. That would be Germany, France and Russia. Why didn’t they try to stop him from using the wmds that they sold him. While we may have sold bioweapons agents to Saddam, none were ever used. These were chemical weapons and they can be laid primarily at Germany’s feet which is certainly where the Iranian government and Kurdish leadership is putting them. Why don’t you ask the Germans? Why ask the US? We are the ones who only put an end to Saddam once and for all? Why not ask why the Germans and Russians and French so coincidentally were so against the invasion of Iraq? Why not ask why they did nothing? and opposed the US efforts? Now, that Iraq is liberated, why aren’t any of them doing anything about helping the Iraqi people? Hmmmm? Why do you think that is?
And why is it that as soon as one of your outrageous charges is met, you jump on another and let’s talk about the US and its hypocritical attitude. Why is it that you are the one that gets to say what charges are laid and where? Given that these three nations were primarily responsible for arming and supporting Saddam and coincidentally for opposing US efforts to get rid of him, if you want to target hypocrisy, why aren’t you starting a thread to scream about the hypocrisy and abuses of these three nations?
Fred, just curious… what did Rumsfeld say to Saddam when they were such buddies?? You can at least stick up for the Republiconmen a little bit.
What difference does it make what kind of public relations speech Rumsfeld made when he went to Iraq when the proof is in the pudding. Yes, we all know that the US wanted improved relations with Saddam when we were most afraid of Iran. Should Roosevelt not have worked with Stalin, but the real focus should not be on the US or its officials but on those countries that actually did arm and support him. Those countries are Germany, France and Russia. So rather than figuring out elaborate conspiracy theories linking Bush to bin Laden and Rumsfeld to Saddam, why not ask why these three have escaped international censure for their role in arming and supporting Saddam and why more people were not very critical of their opposition to the US efforts to finally get rid of Saddam once and for all.
I mean seriously can anyone imagine the hew and cry that would have gone out if the US had been opposed to taking out Saddam because we had been the primary force in arming him like Germany, France or Russia did? Really!
Fred, were we really afraid of Iran?? Wittle, itty, bitty Iwan… so much so that Rumsfeld had to suck up to a man that you apparently think is as bad as Hitler? Looks like the Republicans are the party who has most closely imitated World War II’s Chamberlain.