Why Bush and Cheney are lying idiots.

[freeandfun1]

We were not appeasing Saddam

You're right. WE weren't appeasing him. But the rest of the world was. The containment you speak of, was put only on the shoulders of American and Great Britain. If the other nations that were appeasing him would have helped out, then yeah, maybe we wouldn't have had to do anything.

As for him WMD programs, I am not going to debate this with you because it is obvious you are going to ignore every report that clearly shows he had a program and that it is HIGHLY likely (probable and now that we can't find any, I would say fact) that the weapons were moved before we arrived.

 

[MissileMan]

If we were to invade every country that harbors or supports terrorists, we would have to wage war against the entire Middle East.

Perhaps by going in and removing Saddam, we will get it through to the rest of the middle east that we are through screwing around. A lot of the forces needed to carry out the removal were already in place due to sanction enforcement and maintaining the no-fly zone. Logistically, it made sense to start in Iraq. The regime change in Iraq may actually prevent armed conflict with some of the other countries in the area as they will give a bit more thought before thumbing their nose(s) at diplomacy.

 

[oxbow3]

You're right. WE weren't appeasing him. But the rest of the world was. The containment you speak of, was put only on the shoulders of American and Great Britain. If the other nations that were appeasing him would have helped out, then yeah, maybe we wouldn't have had to do anything.

Agreed. France and Germany in particular had a responsibility to help, as they gave him many of the weapons used in Iran and the Gulf War. The UN security council is made up of many nations though, GB and the US being the most powerful. They had to act in unison to effect any sanctions or no fly zones, so I doubt it was only US.

As for him WMD programs, I am not going to debate this with you because it is obvious you are going to ignore every report that clearly shows he had a program and that it is HIGHLY likely (probable and now that we can't find any, I would say fact) that the weapons were moved before we arrived.

Like I said, most experts think that by 1998, 90-95% of his weapons capabilities had been destroyed. The biological weapons we gave him died long before then. Most of the chemical weapons were also inactive by then. It is very probable that he had a small number of chemical weapons left over. However, most nations do then, especially in that area. Again, nothing here makes Iraq stand out as worth the cost in blood and credibility.

Concerning Iraq's nuclear capabilities: As far as I have read, all the supplies we know of him possessing or buying from others was the wrong kind for nuclear weapons production. Perhaps if you tell me what evidence you're referring to, I can comment further on this?

I know that the 500 tons of enriched Uranium he was supposed to have bought from Niger (according to the 2003 State of the Union Address) is based on fake documents (according to the IAEA and our own intel.). The fakes were so crude that the CIA knew they weren't legit in 2001. Congressman Waxman (D-CA), who voted for war, later wrote the White House expressing concern about the use of these documents as evidence for WMD's. He noted that the CIA had proved these documents were fakes, yet the administration relied on them in making their case to us and the world knowing full well that they were. This episode cannot be blamed on the intelligence community; the buck stops in the White House as far as I can see.


It is possible that there were other weapons there that were either well hidden or destroyed when we attacked Iraq. As there is no evidence one way or the other, I have to withhold comment here.

 

[Annie]

I have to agree with you Oxbow. The UN led the way:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050112/pl_afp/usiraqunscandal_050112004718

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_13-1-2005_pg4_2

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006145

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...11.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/01/11/ixnewstop.html

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Agreed. France and Germany in particular had a responsibility to help, as they gave him many of the weapons used in Iran and the Gulf War. The UN security council is made up of many nations though, GB and the US being the most powerful. They had to act in unison to effect any sanctions or no fly zones, so I doubt it was only US.



Like I said, most experts think that by 1998, 90-95% of his weapons capabilities had been destroyed. The biological weapons we gave him died long before then. Most of the chemical weapons were also inactive by then. It is very probable that he had a small number of chemical weapons left over. However, most nations do then, especially in that area. Again, nothing here makes Iraq stand out as worth the cost in blood in credibility.

Concerning Iraq's nuclear capabilities: As far as I have read, all the supplies we know of him possessing or buying from others was the wrong kind for nuclear weapons production. Perhaps if you tell me what evidence you're referring to, I can comment further on this?

I know that the 500 tons of enriched Uranium he was supposed to have bought from Niger (according to the 2003 State of the Union Address) is based on fake documents (according to the IAEA and our own intel.). The fakes were so crude that the CIA knew they weren't legit in 2001. Congressman Waxman (D-CA), who voted for war, later wrote the White House expressing concern about the use of these documents as evidence for WMD's. He noted that the CIA had proved these documents were fakes, yet the administration relied on them in making their case to us and the world knowing full well that they were. This episode cannot be blamed on the intelligence community; the buck stops in the White House as far as I can see.


It is possible that there were other weapons there that were either well hidden or destroyed when we attacked Iraq. As there is no evidence one way or the other, I have to withhold comment here.

The brits stand behind the niger story, DESPITE fake documents. Evidently they were never the main proof in the matter.

 

[oxbow3]

Perhaps by going in and removing Saddam, we will get it through to the rest of the middle east that we are through screwing around. A lot of the forces needed to carry out the removal were already in place due to sanction enforcement and maintaining the no-fly zone. Logistically, it made sense to start in Iraq. The regime change in Iraq may actually prevent armed conflict with some of the other countries in the area as they will give a bit more thought before thumbing their nose(s) at diplomacy.

That's true. I really hope we succeed. We have to be there for atleast 5 more years, at the most decades, according to most experts.

I think the main problem is the hypocrisy that the people there see in our present efforts. We have a history of supporting anti-democratic regimes like Iraq and Saudi Arabia. We even played a part in the coup of Iran's democratically elected president Mossadegh in 1953. A CIA-backed coup overthrew him and helped install the US-friendly Shah in his place. This happenned mostly because Mossadegh nationalized Iranian oil. The US admitted its part in this coup in 2000.

http://www.socialconscience.com/articles/iran.htm


Basically, the problem as I see it is that they want us to stop meddling in their affairs, while we are told that this is necessary for economic, political and military reasons.

 

[dilloduck]

Too bad that just saying that Iraq was a country full of people bent on harming Americans wasn't a good enough reason to go in.

 

[oxbow3]

The brits stand behind the niger story, DESPITE fake documents. Evidently they were never the main proof in the matter.

What is the proof they stand behind though? Simply standing behind something does not make it true, its stupid more than anything. And I believe PM Blair is up for re-election this year, so there is the political fall-out in both of our countries to consider if he admits incompetency now. I doubt the public in Britian will be as forgiving as they were in the states, since a majority of Brits were against the war from the get-go

I have to agree with you Oxbow. The UN led the way:

Led the way in what? I think your sarcasm a bit above me. Please expand.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What is the proof they stand behind though? Simply standing behind something does not make it true, its stupid more than anything. And I believe PM Blair is up for re-election this year, so there is the political fall-out in both of our countries to consider if he admits incompetency now. I doubt the public in Britian will be as forgiving as they were in the states, since a majority of Brits were against the war from the get-go

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion ...nnection, Peter Beaumont & Edward Helmore.htm

"For Britain vehemently rejects American claims that the Niger link was based solely on the forged documents or that it supplied any intelligence on the Niger connection to the CIA. “The information in the British government’s September dossier regarding Niger categorically did not come from the forged Italian documents; it came from our own source. That information was not passed on to the US,” said an intelligence source last week. “It was an entirely separate and credible source.”

 

[Annie]

Sarcasm? Me?

Oxbow, "Led the way in what? I think your sarcasm a bit above me. Please expand."

I already did.

 

[oxbow3]

We've talked in another thread about the oil for food scandal and the problems that led to this gross opportunity for corruption. I just wanted to know if you have anything new to add to the debate.

 

[Annie]

We've talked in another thread about the oil for food scandal and the problems that led to this gross opportunity for corruption. I just wanted to know if you have anything new to add to the debate.

And the thesis on that thread, by others escaped you?

 

[oxbow3]

“The information in the British government’s September dossier regarding Niger categorically did not come from the forged Italian documents; it came from our own source. That information was not passed on to the US,” said an intelligence source last week. “It was an entirely separate and credible source.”

Do they say who it was though? The sources whose testimony we used as evidence for war were proven to be untrustworthy or even criminals after Congress made the White House give their identities. I think at this point, when there is no evidence of any WMD's to be found, the British gov. should come forward with the identity of this guy. The security concerns far outweigh the credibility problems that our two countries will deal with in the decades to come. The fact that they haven't this far into the game, along with the forged documents and other questionable behavior by them, makes me suspicious as to the credibility of their source.

For me, its just a case of the boy crying wolf. When my kid lies to me, I don't believe him right away again without evidence. He has to earn my trust first. Why should we treat our governments any differently?

 

[freeandfun1]

Ox, as the US and GB were the only two countries enforcing the No Fly Zone, the burden rested solely upon us. The French, Germans, et al love to say that "containment was working", yet ignore the fact that they were not helping out. Sure, the UN Security Council mandated the NFZ, but did any other nations, or the UN even, pony up any money or material to enforce it? No, they did not.

 

[dilloduck]

Do they say who it was though? The sources whose testimony we used as evidence for war were proven to be untrustworthy or even criminals after Congress made the White House give their identities. I think at this point, when there is no evidence of any WMD's to be found, the British gov. should come forward with the identity of this guy. The security concerns far outweigh the credibility problems that our two countries will deal with in the decades to come. The fact that they haven't this far into the game, along with the forged documents and other questionable behavior by them, makes me suspicious as to the credibility of their source.

For me, its just a case of the boy crying wolf. When my kid lies to me, I don't believe him right away again without evidence. He has to earn my trust first. Why should we treat our governments any differently?

If they were to come totally clean in your mind, what is it that they would have to say?

 

[oxbow3]

And the thesis on that thread, by others escaped you?

No, As I said there, the situation in the oil for food scandal was unique. Nothing like it had ever been done before, and as a result there were many loopholes for Saddam and unethical members of the UN to exploit. I am a big proponent of changing the UN from the inside out, too. I just don't see the relevance of that to this thread.

 

[oxbow3]

Ox, as the US and GB were the only two countries enforcing the No Fly Zone, the burden rested solely upon us. The French, Germans, et al love to say that "containment was working", yet ignore the fact that they were not helping out. Sure, the UN Security Council mandated the NFZ, but did any other nations, or the UN even, pony up any money or material to enforce it? No, they did not.

Can I have some sources for this, please? I don't care too much about bias, as long as the information is solid.

 

[oxbow3]

If they were to come totally clean in your mind, what is it that they would have to say?

I just want them to name their sources, so we can check their credibility publicly.

The completely inept way in which the British Goc. handled the forged documents already says to me that they knew they were fakes. I think they owe both our countries an apology for that.

Greater transparency is needed in the intelligence gathering capabilities of both nations. Too often, they hide behind their security shield in order to protect their own butts, and not the country as they say in public.

I hope I've understood your question correctly.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Do they say who it was though? The sources whose testimony we used as evidence for war were proven to be untrustworthy or even criminals after Congress made the White House give their identities. I think at this point, when there is no evidence of any WMD's to be found, the British gov. should come forward with the identity of this guy. The security concerns far outweigh the credibility problems that our two countries will deal with in the decades to come. The fact that they haven't this far into the game, along with the forged documents and other questionable behavior by them, makes me suspicious as to the credibility of their source.

For me, its just a case of the boy crying wolf. When my kid lies to me, I don't believe him right away again without evidence. He has to earn my trust first. Why should we treat our governments any differently?

Not in that article. The sixteen words remain true and the British stand behind them TO THIS DAY. Go jump in a lake.

 

[freeandfun1]

Can I have some sources for this, please? I don't care too much about bias, as long as the information is solid.

Dude, do a google search and type in "cost of containing Iraq" and you will find numerous articles over the years that discuss the cost to US taxpayers.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=171438

Even American Progress (left leaning) says that over 12 years it cost more than $30 billion. That doesn't even count the cost to our military in terms of diminished capabilities, etc.

Sure, this war cost more, but in the long run, how much would the cost of containing Saddam added up to if we had just kept following that policy?"