Well you were but you only heard WMD apparently...
this was a fairly quick search, I know I can find hundreds more, if you like?
Tell you what: go back through each of those speeches you referenced and see how many sentences Bush devoted to WMD versus sentences devoted to SH is a "bad, bad man."
Talk about cherry-picking evidence. Did Bush talk about multiple reasons to get rid of Hussein? Of course. Did he consistently emphasize WMD as the primary reason? Yes. Did he consistently suggest a terrorism connection with SH? Yes. Did he suggest an al Qaeda connection? Yes. Would the public have supported the war without the WMD claims? Probably not. Would the public have supported the war without the al Qaeda links? Did SH have WMD? Apparently not. Did Bush lie to us? Apparently. Is he trying to pawn it off on intelligence failures? Yes.
If you will look back you will see that I am only railing against intellectually dishonesty. I will comment if the other side is doing the same thing. However, there is really not a shortage of people criticizing Bush here, is there?
Well, you're not criticizing him yet so I say there's at LEAST a shortage of one.
Also, criticizing Bush isn't intellectually dishonest. You're crossing two ideas.
Tell you what: go back through each of those speeches you referenced and see how many sentences Bush devoted to WMD versus sentences devoted to SH is a "bad, bad man."
Talk about cherry-picking evidence. Did Bush talk about multiple reasons to get rid of Hussein? Of course. Did he consistently emphasize WMD as the primary reason? Yes. Did he consistently suggest a terrorism connection with SH? Yes. Did he suggest an al Qaeda connection? Yes. Would the public have supported the war without the WMD claims? Probably not. Would the public have supported the war without the al Qaeda links? Did SH have WMD? Apparently not. Did Bush lie to us? Apparently. Is he trying to pawn it off on intelligence failures? Yes.
All of you guys keep saying that WMD was only reason for going to war, I can show you hundreds of times SH atrocities were mentioned, along with other things of course, but now I am cherry picking?
This is what wrong robot wrote:
"now, I agree that saddam was pretty heinous of a dude, no one that kills so people should be left to their devices to kill more. But, maybe if we had been told that from the start things'd be different eh?"
We were told this from the start. Thus my list of quotes.
You guys say that WMD was the main reason for going to war right? Ok, I'll bite, but that was the thing that the UN has sanctions against Iraq for. They didn't care about the needless deaths or the rape rooms, or the acid dippings, or the starvation. It now looks like the whole Oil-for-food programs was a giant racket, with Cofi getting his hands in the pot. They looked the other way and took the money. And you guys wanted bush to go through that corrupt low life organisation? He may have done the US a favor by bypassing the UN. Where is the outcry over that. Oh I forgot this is the daily "Bush Lied" thread.
Your question:
"Would the public have supported the war without the WMD claims? Probably not."
Last I looked the majority of the public is still behind bush on this one. I think you mean to say would the "radical left wing" be behind him if it was just those pesky human rights violations?
What a disgrace. Keep harping on the WMD thing and you align yourself right there with the crooked UN and France, Germany, and Russia.
If you read his speeches carefully (I know that is a lot to ask) you will see that the overall reason was that we can't trust rogue nations with the peace and security of this or any other nation. SH had not accounted for his WMD programs and supplies, and do we want to take the chance of another 9/11 type of attack?
Apparently you do, and wish SH was never taken care of. The left, the party that claims to care about people, doesn't. All they care about now is ABB.
Well, you're not criticizing him yet so I say there's at LEAST a shortage of one.
Also, criticizing Bush isn't intellectually dishonest. You're crossing two ideas.
Criticizing Bush or anyone based on lies and spin is intellectually dishonest.
Holding Bush to certain standards and not applying those same standards to yourself and those that influence your opinions is intellectually dishonest.
Parsing quoted words and taking quotes completely out of context is intellectually dishonest.
Ignoring what Bush has said because it does not support your view is intellectually dishonest.
Assuming that anyone that does not agree with you is misinformed or uneducated is intellectually dishonest.
Doing the above mentioned and then trying to turn the tables and accusing those you don't agree with with doing the same thing is also intellectually dishonest.
You know, I know, and Bush knows that this was the only reason this war got off the ground.
Nice back peddling however.
Nice try. I've said that the Bush Admin. focused too heavily on WMD pretty much from the beginning. I know you'd like it if that wasn't true, but it is.
Naples:
Quote:
Criticizing Bush or anyone based on lies and spin is intellectually dishonest.
Holding Bush to certain standards and not applying those same standards to yourself and those that influence your opinions is intellectually dishonest.
Parsing quoted words and taking quotes completely out of context is intellectually dishonest.
Ignoring what Bush has said because it does not support your view is intellectually dishonest.
Assuming that anyone that does not agree with you is misinformed or uneducated is intellectually dishonest.
Doing the above mentioned and then trying to turn the tables and accusing those you don't agree with with doing the same thing is also intellectually dishonest.
Well said.
There were many reasons to go to war. Would people have supported it without the WMD claims? Who knows. That's not a question that can be answered. One can't look at today's polling data on the subject and come to a conclusion.
The fact is that Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat. In fact, he argued that we couldn't let him *become* an imminent threat. Bush often spoke of material Saddam had not accounted for, rather than concretely state Saddam had the actual weapons.
I would like to know what the hell went wrong as much as all of you would. To accuse of Bush of lying, though, is totally unsupported. What we have is a lot of unanswered questions. Two of these questions are 1) If Bush was lying, then wasn't Bill Clinton lying too about the very same issue? Go back and look at Clinton's statements...you'll see they are remarkably similiar to Bush's. 2) Was Tony Blair lying as well? (and come to think of it, was John Kerry lying? Was every Democrat who voted for war lying?)
SDW2001, why didn't we let the inspector's work then? What was the rush, if what we were worrying about was some missing material and not actual weapons? If Bush thought the weapon's claim was shaky because he, according to you, didn't mention any weapons, then the inspections had no reason to be halted. Saddam wasn't known to have had weapons... Bush strongly overstated the threat Saddam posed and in this way lied about his knowledge to get a war. He may not have lied about specific material, but he certainly halted a working UN process to bomb the country back to the stone age and on what justification?
SDW2001, why didn't we let the inspector's work then? What was the rush, if what we were worrying about was some missing material and not actual weapons? If Bush thought the weapon's claim was shaky because he, according to you, didn't mention any weapons, then the inspections had no reason to be halted. Saddam wasn't known to have had weapons... Bush strongly overstated the threat Saddam posed and in this way lied about his knowledge to get a war. He may not have lied about specific material, but he certainly halted a working UN process to bomb the country back to the stone age and on what justification?
Twelve years of inspection did not work. What was to be the ever allusive line in the sand? Come on, someone had to do it. SH had no intention of cooperating with anything that had even a hint of the US.
Forget about WMD for a second, why wasn't just the atrocities committed by SH and sons enough of a reason for you guys. Where is your compassion for the poor souls in his grip of death?
You seem to be more interested in tearing down your own government than interested in the people of Iraq. I really feel nauseous now.
Nice try. I've said that the Bush Admin. focused too heavily on WMD pretty much from the beginning. I know you'd like it if that wasn't true, but it is.
The sad thing is that the administration felt that the atrocities would get no traction in the world community.
They were right because even now the only thing that matters in certain circles is WMD. The disgusting things that the Iraqi people endured for so long are not even mentioned.
Almost every speech that GWB gave mentioned the brutal nature of the regime, yet even now that reason is passed over like that doesn't matter.
Not to seem jaded, but 600 lives have been lost in this effort. I wonder how many Iraqi lives were saved by this action. I would venture to say 10 to 100 times that. That fact totally escapes the "Bush Lied" crowd. It is as if they do not care about Iraqi civilians. I mean the more I think about it, the more I really feel sorry for these heartless people.
It does appear that bush was right about the atrocities that were going on and that life for the Iraqi people is better now. It appears that he was right about democracy taking hold. He was right about removing a destabilizing influence in the MI. He seems to be right that showing force will influence other nations to fall in line. It appears he was right about the UN being unable to make the situation go away, in fact he may have been more right then he knew. He also appears to have been right not to cow-tow to the French and Germans and Russians, being that they were being corrupted by the UN.
Despite all of this, the one thing that gets a held on to is the WMD thing. This goes in the face of just about every intelligence agency in the world believing he had WMD's or at least programs and plans for them.
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Here you go, again parroting about the WMDs. I have a DVD FULL of Bush's, Powell's, Cheney's, Rice's claims, imminent threats, mushroom clouds over NY/US, blah blah blah, "solid intelligence", "best intelligence in the world", "we know where they are","saddam and Al qaeda" and on and on and on. I guess if I was a Bush FANATIC like everyone can see you are, the lack of WMD wouldn't mean anything to me either.
The Washington Times doesn't agree that there was no link with Al-Qeada:
SDW2001, why didn't we let the inspector's work then? What was the rush, if what we were worrying about was some missing material and not actual weapons? If Bush thought the weapon's claim was shaky because he, according to you, didn't mention any weapons, then the inspections had no reason to be halted. Saddam wasn't known to have had weapons... Bush strongly overstated the threat Saddam posed and in this way lied about his knowledge to get a war. He may not have lied about specific material, but he certainly halted a working UN process to bomb the country back to the stone age and on what justification?
As Naples said, we had inspections for twelve years. Inspections don't work unless a nation completely cooperates. Inspections are not supposed to be a game of cat and mouse. A working UN process? That's a contradiction of terms. The UN is a joke at everything except distributing international food and medical aid. The process failed for 12 years. More time? Why? For what purpose? Further, for all those "we acted without authorization" folks, let me ask: Why did the UN refuse to back up resolution 1441? It was quite clear. Are you honestly telling me Saddam cooperated?
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
If you're referencing 1991...you're right. And that's why Bush 41 was right not to keep going. Though, the term "UN Mandate" makes me laugh.
OF COURSE the Washington Times argues there's a link. It's the WASHINGTON TIMES.
It's every bit as reputable as the LA TImes, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. It's just that it's not ridiculously biased like those three. Read the NYT website every day like I do and tell me it's not slanted. Please.
As Naples said, we had inspections for twelve years. Inspections don't work unless a nation completely cooperates. Inspections are not supposed to be a game of cat and mouse. A working UN process? That's a contradiction of terms. The UN is a joke at everything except distributing international food and medical aid. The process failed for 12 years. More time? Why? For what purpose? Further, for all those "we acted without authorization" folks, let me ask: Why did the UN refuse to back up resolution 1441? It was quite clear. Are you honestly telling me Saddam cooperated?
SDW there are no WOMD! Give it up!
Trying justify or rationalize this is making you look foolish and I wouldn't even wish that on you.
Twelve years of inspection did not work. What was to be the ever allusive line in the sand? Come on, someone had to do it. SH had no intention of cooperating with anything that had even a hint of the US.
Did not work to do what? The evidence now in indicates that they worked quite well.
Did not work to do what? The evidence now in indicates that they worked quite well.
Wow. Did they? In the very least, we have hard evidence of intent to deceive inspectors. We have NSA intercepts on the topic. Do you not remember? They didn't work. They didn't work from the beginning.
Did not work to do what? The evidence now in indicates that they worked quite well.
Iraq had an obligation to show proof of disarmament. Total and full disclosure. Inspections did not accomplish that. This was made evident every time they found something that was banned by the UN resolutions.
As Naples said, we had inspections for twelve years. Inspections don't work unless a nation completely cooperates. Inspections are not supposed to be a game of cat and mouse. A working UN process? That's a contradiction of terms. The UN is a joke at everything except distributing international food and medical aid. The process failed for 12 years. More time? Why? For what purpose? Further, for all those "we acted without authorization" folks, let me ask: Why did the UN refuse to back up resolution 1441? It was quite clear. Are you honestly telling me Saddam cooperated?
Two final questions: Did Iraq have WMD's? How do you suppose that came about if it weren't for even the "failed" UN inspections?
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well you were but you only heard WMD apparently...
this was a fairly quick search, I know I can find hundreds more, if you like?
Tell you what: go back through each of those speeches you referenced and see how many sentences Bush devoted to WMD versus sentences devoted to SH is a "bad, bad man."
Talk about cherry-picking evidence. Did Bush talk about multiple reasons to get rid of Hussein? Of course. Did he consistently emphasize WMD as the primary reason? Yes. Did he consistently suggest a terrorism connection with SH? Yes. Did he suggest an al Qaeda connection? Yes. Would the public have supported the war without the WMD claims? Probably not. Would the public have supported the war without the al Qaeda links? Did SH have WMD? Apparently not. Did Bush lie to us? Apparently. Is he trying to pawn it off on intelligence failures? Yes.
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you will look back you will see that I am only railing against intellectually dishonesty. I will comment if the other side is doing the same thing. However, there is really not a shortage of people criticizing Bush here, is there?
Well, you're not criticizing him yet so I say there's at LEAST a shortage of one.
Also, criticizing Bush isn't intellectually dishonest. You're crossing two ideas.
Originally posted by midwinter
Tell you what: go back through each of those speeches you referenced and see how many sentences Bush devoted to WMD versus sentences devoted to SH is a "bad, bad man."
Talk about cherry-picking evidence. Did Bush talk about multiple reasons to get rid of Hussein? Of course. Did he consistently emphasize WMD as the primary reason? Yes. Did he consistently suggest a terrorism connection with SH? Yes. Did he suggest an al Qaeda connection? Yes. Would the public have supported the war without the WMD claims? Probably not. Would the public have supported the war without the al Qaeda links? Did SH have WMD? Apparently not. Did Bush lie to us? Apparently. Is he trying to pawn it off on intelligence failures? Yes.
All of you guys keep saying that WMD was only reason for going to war, I can show you hundreds of times SH atrocities were mentioned, along with other things of course, but now I am cherry picking?
This is what wrong robot wrote:
"now, I agree that saddam was pretty heinous of a dude, no one that kills so people should be left to their devices to kill more. But, maybe if we had been told that from the start things'd be different eh?"
We were told this from the start. Thus my list of quotes.
You guys say that WMD was the main reason for going to war right? Ok, I'll bite, but that was the thing that the UN has sanctions against Iraq for. They didn't care about the needless deaths or the rape rooms, or the acid dippings, or the starvation. It now looks like the whole Oil-for-food programs was a giant racket, with Cofi getting his hands in the pot. They looked the other way and took the money. And you guys wanted bush to go through that corrupt low life organisation? He may have done the US a favor by bypassing the UN. Where is the outcry over that. Oh I forgot this is the daily "Bush Lied" thread.
Your question:
"Would the public have supported the war without the WMD claims? Probably not."
Last I looked the majority of the public is still behind bush on this one. I think you mean to say would the "radical left wing" be behind him if it was just those pesky human rights violations?
What a disgrace. Keep harping on the WMD thing and you align yourself right there with the crooked UN and France, Germany, and Russia.
If you read his speeches carefully (I know that is a lot to ask) you will see that the overall reason was that we can't trust rogue nations with the peace and security of this or any other nation. SH had not accounted for his WMD programs and supplies, and do we want to take the chance of another 9/11 type of attack?
Apparently you do, and wish SH was never taken care of. The left, the party that claims to care about people, doesn't. All they care about now is ABB.
ABB.
Originally posted by bunge
Well, you're not criticizing him yet so I say there's at LEAST a shortage of one.
Also, criticizing Bush isn't intellectually dishonest. You're crossing two ideas.
Criticizing Bush or anyone based on lies and spin is intellectually dishonest.
Holding Bush to certain standards and not applying those same standards to yourself and those that influence your opinions is intellectually dishonest.
Parsing quoted words and taking quotes completely out of context is intellectually dishonest.
Ignoring what Bush has said because it does not support your view is intellectually dishonest.
Assuming that anyone that does not agree with you is misinformed or uneducated is intellectually dishonest.
Doing the above mentioned and then trying to turn the tables and accusing those you don't agree with with doing the same thing is also intellectually dishonest.
Originally posted by jimmac
You know, I know, and Bush knows that this was the only reason this war got off the ground.
Nice back peddling however.
Nice try. I've said that the Bush Admin. focused too heavily on WMD pretty much from the beginning. I know you'd like it if that wasn't true, but it is.
Naples:
Criticizing Bush or anyone based on lies and spin is intellectually dishonest.
Holding Bush to certain standards and not applying those same standards to yourself and those that influence your opinions is intellectually dishonest.
Parsing quoted words and taking quotes completely out of context is intellectually dishonest.
Ignoring what Bush has said because it does not support your view is intellectually dishonest.
Assuming that anyone that does not agree with you is misinformed or uneducated is intellectually dishonest.
Doing the above mentioned and then trying to turn the tables and accusing those you don't agree with with doing the same thing is also intellectually dishonest.
Well said.
There were many reasons to go to war. Would people have supported it without the WMD claims? Who knows. That's not a question that can be answered. One can't look at today's polling data on the subject and come to a conclusion.
The fact is that Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat. In fact, he argued that we couldn't let him *become* an imminent threat. Bush often spoke of material Saddam had not accounted for, rather than concretely state Saddam had the actual weapons.
I would like to know what the hell went wrong as much as all of you would. To accuse of Bush of lying, though, is totally unsupported. What we have is a lot of unanswered questions. Two of these questions are 1) If Bush was lying, then wasn't Bill Clinton lying too about the very same issue? Go back and look at Clinton's statements...you'll see they are remarkably similiar to Bush's. 2) Was Tony Blair lying as well? (and come to think of it, was John Kerry lying? Was every Democrat who voted for war lying?)
Originally posted by billybobsky
SDW2001, why didn't we let the inspector's work then? What was the rush, if what we were worrying about was some missing material and not actual weapons? If Bush thought the weapon's claim was shaky because he, according to you, didn't mention any weapons, then the inspections had no reason to be halted. Saddam wasn't known to have had weapons... Bush strongly overstated the threat Saddam posed and in this way lied about his knowledge to get a war. He may not have lied about specific material, but he certainly halted a working UN process to bomb the country back to the stone age and on what justification?
Twelve years of inspection did not work. What was to be the ever allusive line in the sand? Come on, someone had to do it. SH had no intention of cooperating with anything that had even a hint of the US.
Forget about WMD for a second, why wasn't just the atrocities committed by SH and sons enough of a reason for you guys. Where is your compassion for the poor souls in his grip of death?
You seem to be more interested in tearing down your own government than interested in the people of Iraq. I really feel nauseous now.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nice try. I've said that the Bush Admin. focused too heavily on WMD pretty much from the beginning. I know you'd like it if that wasn't true, but it is.
The sad thing is that the administration felt that the atrocities would get no traction in the world community.
They were right because even now the only thing that matters in certain circles is WMD. The disgusting things that the Iraqi people endured for so long are not even mentioned.
Almost every speech that GWB gave mentioned the brutal nature of the regime, yet even now that reason is passed over like that doesn't matter.
Not to seem jaded, but 600 lives have been lost in this effort. I wonder how many Iraqi lives were saved by this action. I would venture to say 10 to 100 times that. That fact totally escapes the "Bush Lied" crowd. It is as if they do not care about Iraqi civilians. I mean the more I think about it, the more I really feel sorry for these heartless people.
It does appear that bush was right about the atrocities that were going on and that life for the Iraqi people is better now. It appears that he was right about democracy taking hold. He was right about removing a destabilizing influence in the MI. He seems to be right that showing force will influence other nations to fall in line. It appears he was right about the UN being unable to make the situation go away, in fact he may have been more right then he knew. He also appears to have been right not to cow-tow to the French and Germans and Russians, being that they were being corrupted by the UN.
Despite all of this, the one thing that gets a held on to is the WMD thing. This goes in the face of just about every intelligence agency in the world believing he had WMD's or at least programs and plans for them.
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Here you go, again parroting about the WMDs. I have a DVD FULL of Bush's, Powell's, Cheney's, Rice's claims, imminent threats, mushroom clouds over NY/US, blah blah blah, "solid intelligence", "best intelligence in the world", "we know where they are","saddam and Al qaeda" and on and on and on. I guess if I was a Bush FANATIC like everyone can see you are, the lack of WMD wouldn't mean anything to me either.
The Washington Times doesn't agree that there was no link with Al-Qeada:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3723-4738r.htm
apparently there is a reasonable link and pretty substantial too.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The Washington Times doesn't agree that there was no link with Al-Qeada:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3723-4738r.htm
apparently there is a reasonable link and pretty substantial too.
OF COURSE the Washington Times argues there's a link. It's the WASHINGTON TIMES.
Originally posted by billybobsky
SDW2001, why didn't we let the inspector's work then? What was the rush, if what we were worrying about was some missing material and not actual weapons? If Bush thought the weapon's claim was shaky because he, according to you, didn't mention any weapons, then the inspections had no reason to be halted. Saddam wasn't known to have had weapons... Bush strongly overstated the threat Saddam posed and in this way lied about his knowledge to get a war. He may not have lied about specific material, but he certainly halted a working UN process to bomb the country back to the stone age and on what justification?
As Naples said, we had inspections for twelve years. Inspections don't work unless a nation completely cooperates. Inspections are not supposed to be a game of cat and mouse. A working UN process? That's a contradiction of terms. The UN is a joke at everything except distributing international food and medical aid. The process failed for 12 years. More time? Why? For what purpose? Further, for all those "we acted without authorization" folks, let me ask: Why did the UN refuse to back up resolution 1441? It was quite clear. Are you honestly telling me Saddam cooperated?
Originally posted by midwinter
Why did we not go in earlier? Simple:
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
If you're referencing 1991...you're right. And that's why Bush 41 was right not to keep going. Though, the term "UN Mandate" makes me laugh.
Originally posted by midwinter
OF COURSE the Washington Times argues there's a link. It's the WASHINGTON TIMES.
It's every bit as reputable as the LA TImes, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. It's just that it's not ridiculously biased like those three. Read the NYT website every day like I do and tell me it's not slanted. Please.
Originally posted by SDW2001
As Naples said, we had inspections for twelve years. Inspections don't work unless a nation completely cooperates. Inspections are not supposed to be a game of cat and mouse. A working UN process? That's a contradiction of terms. The UN is a joke at everything except distributing international food and medical aid. The process failed for 12 years. More time? Why? For what purpose? Further, for all those "we acted without authorization" folks, let me ask: Why did the UN refuse to back up resolution 1441? It was quite clear. Are you honestly telling me Saddam cooperated?
SDW there are no WOMD! Give it up!
Trying justify or rationalize this is making you look foolish and I wouldn't even wish that on you.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Twelve years of inspection did not work. What was to be the ever allusive line in the sand? Come on, someone had to do it. SH had no intention of cooperating with anything that had even a hint of the US.
Did not work to do what? The evidence now in indicates that they worked quite well.
Originally posted by midwinter
OF COURSE the Washington Times argues there's a link. It's the WASHINGTON TIMES.
ok then:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AB0894DC404482
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/132000.shtml
http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/j...eda_link.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2730253.stm
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://www.janes.com/security/intern...0308_1_n.shtml
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../67731/1/.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.html
http://www.meta-religion.com/Hate_Gr...r_al-islam.htm
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm
Originally posted by Chinney
Did not work to do what? The evidence now in indicates that they worked quite well.
Wow. Did they? In the very least, we have hard evidence of intent to deceive inspectors. We have NSA intercepts on the topic. Do you not remember? They didn't work. They didn't work from the beginning.
Originally posted by Chinney
Did not work to do what? The evidence now in indicates that they worked quite well.
Iraq had an obligation to show proof of disarmament. Total and full disclosure. Inspections did not accomplish that. This was made evident every time they found something that was banned by the UN resolutions.
They worked in what way exactly?
Originally posted by SDW2001
As Naples said, we had inspections for twelve years. Inspections don't work unless a nation completely cooperates. Inspections are not supposed to be a game of cat and mouse. A working UN process? That's a contradiction of terms. The UN is a joke at everything except distributing international food and medical aid. The process failed for 12 years. More time? Why? For what purpose? Further, for all those "we acted without authorization" folks, let me ask: Why did the UN refuse to back up resolution 1441? It was quite clear. Are you honestly telling me Saddam cooperated?
Two final questions: Did Iraq have WMD's? How do you suppose that came about if it weren't for even the "failed" UN inspections?