What is an American?

[USMC the Almighty]

So you acknowledge that he had at least some form of weapons of mass destruction?

And whether you like it or not, the U.S. had more than actionable intelligence pre-2003 to warrant pre-emptive strikes. Now, the case can be made today that most of these intelligence has been proven wrong but I tend to agree with palerider and believe the Iraqi generals when they say that Saddam had them moved to Syria before the U.S. invasion.

Popeye, you have to come to terms with the fact that wars never go according to plan. Following your logic, President Lincoln also went to war under false pretenses. Did he lie as well?

 

[Popeye]

By 9/11, there is no doubt that it was well known that france, germany, and russia were supporting saddam for oil, and equally clear, that they were not willing to hold him to the terms of his surrender. Someone was going to have to do it unless, of course, you really did prefer to have saddam in charge. Is that it? Did you really prefer to have him in charge?

They were a sovereign nation, it was none of our business who was in charge.

And of course I believe he had wmd's.

Why am I not surprised?

My money is on them helping saddam move his stockpiles to syria.

Sure he did, considering the tons of stockpiles the Bush administration claimed he had, why no evidence, of any weapons? It wasn't for lack of trying. The US and Britain searched all over the country-nothing. You're just not ready to give up on a lie. After all, it makes you and other war supporters, look naive and foolish.

We know he had them, and we know that he was a fiend for keeping records, and we know he had no record of destroying them. Where do you suppose they are?

It's reasonable to assume they were destroyed during the nineties. UN weapons inspectors, such as Scott Ritter, made it plain there were no longer any WMDs. Saddam just kept up the pretense. The only WMDs were the 'words of mass deception' the Bush administration kept putting out. It's amazing that you refuse to admit your mistake. Even some of the most ardent war supporters now admit there no WMDs, blaming it on the "faulty intelligence".

 

[vyo476]

They were a sovereign nation, it was none of our business who was in charge.

Once upon a time people said the same thing about Hitler. Look how that turned out.

I find myself in a curious predicament. I think we ought to have oustered Saddam Hussein but I disagree with our lasting occupation of Iraq. Still, there's really no way to remove a dictator and then just leave; we'd have turned Iraq into Somalia if we'd done that.

 

[palerider]

It's reasonable to assume they were destroyed during the nineties. UN weapons inspectors, such as Scott Ritter, made it plain there were no longer any WMDs. Saddam just kept up the pretense. The only WMDs were the 'words of mass deception' the Bush administration kept putting out. It's amazing that you refuse to admit your mistake. Even some of the most ardent war supporters now admit there no WMDs, blaming it on the "faulty intelligence".

Actually, knowing what we know about saddam, it is not reasonable to "assume" that he destroyed them. We know beyond any doubt that he was a fiend for keeping records. Had he destroyed them, there would be records because he had to know how important such records would be.

Knowing the sort of man he was, if you are going to assume anything, a thinking person assumes that he did not destroy them. It is interesting, and telling that you take the word of a murdering dictator with blood of his own people dripping from his hands over the word of your own nation and choose to believe him in the face of plenty of evidence to the contrary. Why would that be?

 

[Popeye]

Actually, knowing what we know about saddam, it is not reasonable to "assume" that he destroyed them. We know beyond any doubt that he was a fiend for keeping records. Had he destroyed them, there would be records because he had to know how important such records would be.

Knowing the sort of man he was, if you are going to assume anything, a thinking person assumes that he did not destroy them. It is interesting, and telling that you take the word of a murdering dictator with blood of his own people dripping from his hands over the word of your own nation and choose to believe him in the face of plenty of evidence to the contrary. Why would that be?

I am not taking the word of Saddam. I am however listening to the Iraq Survey Group report (CIA) which said Hussein did not possess WMDs at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them. The report also states Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and that Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the Gulf War. Are they wrong?

I'm also listening to a UN weapons inspectors report released in 2004 that says there were no WMDs of any significance after 1994. Wrong also?

Then there's David Kay, former US chief inspector, who concluded Saddam had no WMDs prior to the US invasion. They're all wrong, right palerider?

 

[palerider]

Not wrong. Deliberate liars.

 

[Popeye]

Not wrong. Deliberate liars.

The Iraq Survey Group was organized by the CIA and the Pentagon. Yet they are "deliberate liars". According to you, they're all "deliberate liars". In this last post you've clearly demonstrated the strength of your argument. Maybe, sometime in the future, you can enlighten me further.

 

[palerider]

The Iraq Survey Group was organized by the CIA and the Pentagon. Yet they are "deliberate liars". According to you, they're all "deliberate liars". In this last post you've clearly demonstrated the strength of your argument. Maybe, sometime in the future, you can enlighten me further.

Yes. Deliberate liars. Take david kay for instance. You seem to place a good deal of faith in him. At least when he says that saddam had no wmd prior to the invasion. Do you also take him at his word when he says saddam's wmd were moved to syria before the invasion? If he reports that there are no weapons in iraq but omits information that said weapons exist, but have been moved outside of iraq that is a deliberate lie. The same can be said for the CIA and the survey group. The iraq survey group specifically said that they could not rule out the transfer of wmd to syria.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2004/01/25/324358.html

This amounts to just one more thing that remains to be seen.

 

[Hard Driver]

Strange

And with regard to those whith whom America has supposedly lost its credibility...would they be those who were doing billions of dollars of "oil for food" business under the table with saddam when they should have been about the business of making sure that he lived up the terms of his surrender so that this war might never have been necessary?

Are those the people who you fear WE have lost credibility with?

So then, the war would not have been neccessary if Saddam lived up to the terms of the UN resolutions...

So if UN inspectors were on the ground in Iraq, with proactive co-operation from Iraq, even if coerced, and unfettered access to the entire country with no notice inspections anywhere at any time then we would not have needed to go to war?

Then war was not neccessary. Because AFTER the resolution authorizing force, Sadam did capitulate and allow inspector in, and co-operated with their requests, even pro-actively. This should have been enough to determine the WMD threat was not real. At least having UN inspectors on the ground should have been enough to delay the war until their work was done in a few months. But Bush RUSHED to get a war started in order to deliberately not allow the UN inspectors to finish their work.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

 

[palerider]

So then, the war would not have been neccessary if Saddam lived up to the terms of the UN resolutions...

So if UN inspectors were on the ground in Iraq, with proactive co-operation from Iraq, even if coerced, and unfettered access to the entire country with no notice inspections anywhere at any time then we would not have needed to go to war?

Then war was not neccessary. Because AFTER the resolution authorizing force, Sadam did capitulate and allow inspector in, and co-operated with their requests, even pro-actively. This should have been enough to determine the WMD threat was not real. At least having UN inspectors on the ground should have been enough to delay the war until their work was done in a few months. But Bush RUSHED to get a war started in order to deliberately not allow the UN inspectors to finish their work.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Having un inspectors on the ground who were chasing shadows was pointless. Saddam didn't feel the need to cooperate because he accurately percieved that france, germany, and russia were on his side and would support him against us. The work of the un inspectors would never have been done because germany, france, and russia were tipping him off with regard to the inspection schedule. The inspectors had been chasing their tails for over a decade, and there was no indication that the situation was going to change considering that our "allies" were doing billions of dollars of business with him under the table arming him and opposing us for him at the un.

 

[dahermit]

Question. When we are fighting an enemy that does not wear a uniform, and hides among the general population, exactly how do you determine whether a civillian has been killed or a combattant? For that matter, how does anyone make the determination?

Answer: It would seem safe to assume that the hundreds of babies, children, and women who have been killed were likely civilians.
Anticipated responding question: What about all of those that Saddam killed? Answer: Saddam had to go...however, it would seem that there could have been alternative methodsavailable other than a war just to remove one man.

 

[Popeye]

Yes. Deliberate liars. Take david kay for instance. You seem to place a good deal of faith in him. At least when he says that saddam had no wmd prior to the invasion. Do you also take him at his word when he says saddam's wmd were moved to syria before the invasion? If he reports that there are no weapons in iraq but omits information that said weapons exist, but have been moved outside of iraq that is a deliberate lie. The same can be said for the CIA and the survey group. The iraq survey group specifically said that they could not rule out the transfer of wmd to syria.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2004/01/25/324358.html

This amounts to just one more thing that remains to be seen.

Sure Palerider, WMDs were moved and hidden, amid lying and coverups. Vince Fostered was murdered, more lying and more coverups. Have you been taking your medication? Interesting excerpt released from ex press secretary Scott McClellan's new book, he is referring to the CIA leak scandal (Valerie Plame), but notice how he brings up the failure to find WMDs and the resulting loss of credibility.

The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

There was one problem. It was not true.

I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/?pid=253417

 

[palerider]

So are you saying that kay lied when he said that he had found evidence that saddam's wmd had been moved to syria? If so, on what grounds do you believe him when he says anything else?

 

[Popeye]

So are you saying that kay lied when he said that he had found evidence that saddam's wmd had been moved to syria? If so, on what grounds do you believe him when he says anything else?

Boy, you really had to search for that. The Winnipeg Sun?

This is what he said, quote, "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons,"
Sounds to me like that can hardly account for the major stockpiles the Bush administration claimed were in Iraq. You're grabbing at straws, why not just admit, along with everyone else, that intelligence was faulty?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml​

 

[Cookie Parker]

Typical liberal response. I am sure that you would prefer that those "brown people" still be living under the thumb of your good buddy saddam but you just can't always have your way.

And with regard to those whith whom America has supposedly lost its credibility...would they be those who were doing billions of dollars of "oil for food" business under the table with saddam when they should have been about the business of making sure that he lived up the terms of his surrender so that this war might never have been necessary?

Are those the people who you fear WE have lost credibility with?

Like dick Cheney and Halliburton? Or Germany, England, Australia, Italy, China, Japan, India, Pakistan...the list goes on....their people hate us..and in order to stay in power, their government must distance itself from us...Why? Because we're mean and arrogant...