It's about time it was said

[Samson]

Considering that we know Saddam had invaded Kuwait and we know he used chemical weapons on the Kurds, it's a rational prediction that he would continue to be violently aggressive.

Just sayin'.

Will you please not interject any historical context into the discussion.

Its confusing.......

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!


BUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuSSSSH!!!!CHENEYHALLIBURTON.......BAD!!!

Democrats......Good!!!

Ok, my world has returned to normal

 

[MikeK]

Considering that we know Saddam had invaded Kuwait and we know he used chemical weapons on the Kurds, it's a rational prediction that he would continue to be violently aggressive.

You should know that Hussein had good reason to invade Kuwait, which he revealed to our Ambassador, April Glaspie, whom he told about his with to invade and asked if the U.S. had any objection. In effect he asked for our permission. After conferring with State Glaspie advised Hussein that the U.S. was not concerned with his actions against any Arab nation. Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?

H.W. Bush then waited until Hussein had already launched his attack on Kuwait before issuing the famous, "This aggression will not stand," and betrayed Hussein for politically expedient (corporate oil access) reasons.

You should also know that the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds were purchased from the United States -- with advice on their use from Donald Rumsfeld. The U.S. was on very good terms with Iraq back then. In fact we were military allies.

 

[DiveCon]

Considering that we know Saddam had invaded Kuwait and we know he used chemical weapons on the Kurds, it's a rational prediction that he would continue to be violently aggressive.

You should know that Hussein had good reason to invade Kuwait, which he revealed to our Ambassador, April Glaspie, whom he told about his with to invade and asked if the U.S. had any objection. In effect he asked for our permission. After conferring with State Glaspie advised Hussein that the U.S. was not concerned with his actions against any Arab nation. Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?

H.W. Bush then waited until Hussein had already launched his attack on Kuwait before issuing the famous, "This aggression will not stand," and betrayed Hussein for politically expedient (corporate oil access) reasons.

You should also know that the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds were purchased from the United States -- with advice on their use from Donald Rumsfeld. The U.S. was on very good terms with Iraq back then. In fact we were military allies.

so another one that thinks saying "we do not have a position on your border dispute" means "yes, you may invade your neighbor"

 

[maineman]

"rush to war?"

Rather than go through each point, I hope you forgive me for wondering if you and I haven't already settled many of these points.

Justification for invading Iraq is based on much more than a simple question of WMD's presence or absence. I've listed the historical context, and my allusion to the historical precedent for ignoring dangers of dictators willing to kill their own citizens seems to have gone over the many pointed heads. Do I need to spell it out for those that don't know who Neville Chamberlain was?

Furthermore you have NO IDEA was Saddam might have done with nerve gas. You can PRETEND to have known now, only through the luxury of the fact that Saddam no longer exists.

The invasion of Iraq was made possible BY 9/11... and, the invasion of Iraq was something that 9/11 should have made a non-priority. Bush sold us on the invasion of Iraq as somehow being an appropriate response to 9/11. We had been attacked. Our attackers had not been defeated or brought to justice. America was scared and angry, and Bush sold us on invading Iraq as the PERFECT and most pressing response to that attack. Bush sold us on invading Iraq because Saddam had WMD's and he was gonna give them to AQ who was gonna use them on us TOMORROW!!!!!! We couldn't wait for Blix's team to tell us what we now know... we had to invade RIGHT THIS MINUTE!!!! It was hyped bullshit.

And I ain't buyin' this, Neville Chamberlain/Saddam was a modern day Hitler which we could not ignore bullshit. We have been perfectly willing to ignore all sorts of modern day Hitlers who slaughtered WAY more of their own people than Saddam EVER did. Cambodia, Rwanda come to mind... and I don't recall ANYBODY bringing up Chamberlain when THOSE killing fields were ankle deep in blood.

We had been ATTACKED. Our president told us he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive... and then he ******* FORGOT about him. Just imagine for a moment how debilitated Al Qaeda would be today... just imagine how many AQ leaders - probably OBL himself - would be behind bars or achieving ambient temperature in some unmarked grave somewhere after being executed for their crimes....just imagine how much good will from the rest of the world we would have been able to hold onto and perhaps translate into all sorts of other positive outcomes IF WE HAD USED OUR TRILLION DOLLARS AND 50K dead and wounded American lives in fighting our REAL enemy instead of doing EXACTLY what Osama predicted that we would do: invade and occupy an oil rich arab country.... that had nothing to do with the attack on us. Invading Iraq is the single most counterproductive foreign policy decision that our country has made in the last century.

 

[Samson]

"rush to war?"

Rather than go through each point, I hope you forgive me for wondering if you and I haven't already settled many of these points.

Justification for invading Iraq is based on much more than a simple question of WMD's presence or absence. I've listed the historical context, and my allusion to the historical precedent for ignoring dangers of dictators willing to kill their own citizens seems to have gone over the many pointed heads. Do I need to spell it out for those that don't know who Neville Chamberlain was?

Furthermore you have NO IDEA was Saddam might have done with nerve gas. You can PRETEND to have known now, only through the luxury of the fact that Saddam no longer exists.

The invasion of Iraq was made possible BY 9/11... and, the invasion of Iraq was something that 9/11 should have made a non-priority. Bush sold us on the invasion of Iraq as somehow being an appropriate response to 9/11. We had been attacked. Our attackers had not been defeated or brought to justice. America was scared and angry, and Bush sold us on invading Iraq as the PERFECT and most pressing response to that attack. Bush sold us on invading Iraq because Saddam had WMD's and he was gonna give them to AQ who was gonna use them on us TOMORROW!!!!!! We couldn't wait for Blix's team to tell us what we now know... we had to invade RIGHT THIS MINUTE!!!! It was hyped bullshit.

And I ain't buyin' this, Neville Chamberlain/Saddam was a modern day Hitler which we could not ignore bullshit. We have been perfectly willing to ignore all sorts of modern day Hitlers who slaughtered WAY more of their own people than Saddam EVER did. Cambodia, Rwanda come to mind... and I don't recall ANYBODY bringing up Chamberlain when THOSE killing fields were ankle deep in blood.

We had been ATTACKED. Our president told us he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive... and then he ******* FORGOT about him. Just imagine for a moment how debilitated Al Qaeda would be today... just imagine how many AQ leaders - probably OBL himself - would be behind bars or achieving ambient temperature in some unmarked grave somewhere after being executed for their crimes....just imagine how much good will from the rest of the world we would have been able to hold onto and perhaps translate into all sorts of other positive outcomes IF WE HAD USED OUR TRILLION DOLLARS AND 50K dead and wounded American lives in fighting our REAL enemy instead of doing EXACTLY what Osama predicted that we would do: invade and occupy an oil rich arab country.... that had nothing to do with the attack on us. Invading Iraq is the single most counterproductive foreign policy decision that our country has made in the last century.

Again, you deliberately choose to ignore context when you choose to compare dictatorial Iraq with Cambodia, or Rowanda (neither used gas, niether invaded a neighboring country, neither had SCUD missiles.....I could go on, but I doubt it matters to you).

Anyway, as you know, I agree that remaining in Iraq for 7-8 years was a terrible mistake. But disposing of Saddam certainly wasn't done in a "rush" and with no warning. And it is only with 20/20 hindsight that we KNOW that Iraq had destroyed their WMD. Niether of us KNOW what Saddam might have done during the past 7 years had he been given the opportunity.

However, I'm positive he won't be trying anything soon.

 

[maineman]

"rush to war?"

Rather than go through each point, I hope you forgive me for wondering if you and I haven't already settled many of these points.

Justification for invading Iraq is based on much more than a simple question of WMD's presence or absence. I've listed the historical context, and my allusion to the historical precedent for ignoring dangers of dictators willing to kill their own citizens seems to have gone over the many pointed heads. Do I need to spell it out for those that don't know who Neville Chamberlain was?

Furthermore you have NO IDEA was Saddam might have done with nerve gas. You can PRETEND to have known now, only through the luxury of the fact that Saddam no longer exists.

The invasion of Iraq was made possible BY 9/11... and, the invasion of Iraq was something that 9/11 should have made a non-priority. Bush sold us on the invasion of Iraq as somehow being an appropriate response to 9/11. We had been attacked. Our attackers had not been defeated or brought to justice. America was scared and angry, and Bush sold us on invading Iraq as the PERFECT and most pressing response to that attack. Bush sold us on invading Iraq because Saddam had WMD's and he was gonna give them to AQ who was gonna use them on us TOMORROW!!!!!! We couldn't wait for Blix's team to tell us what we now know... we had to invade RIGHT THIS MINUTE!!!! It was hyped bullshit.

And I ain't buyin' this, Neville Chamberlain/Saddam was a modern day Hitler which we could not ignore bullshit. We have been perfectly willing to ignore all sorts of modern day Hitlers who slaughtered WAY more of their own people than Saddam EVER did. Cambodia, Rwanda come to mind... and I don't recall ANYBODY bringing up Chamberlain when THOSE killing fields were ankle deep in blood.

We had been ATTACKED. Our president told us he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive... and then he ******* FORGOT about him. Just imagine for a moment how debilitated Al Qaeda would be today... just imagine how many AQ leaders - probably OBL himself - would be behind bars or achieving ambient temperature in some unmarked grave somewhere after being executed for their crimes....just imagine how much good will from the rest of the world we would have been able to hold onto and perhaps translate into all sorts of other positive outcomes IF WE HAD USED OUR TRILLION DOLLARS AND 50K dead and wounded American lives in fighting our REAL enemy instead of doing EXACTLY what Osama predicted that we would do: invade and occupy an oil rich arab country.... that had nothing to do with the attack on us. Invading Iraq is the single most counterproductive foreign policy decision that our country has made in the last century.

Again, you deliberately choose to ignore context when you choose to compare dictatorial Iraq with Cambodia, or Rowanda (neither used gas, niether invaded a neighboring country, neither had SCUD missiles.....I could go on, but I doubt it matters to you).

Anyway, as you know, I agree that remaining in Iraq for 7-8 years was a terrible mistake. But disposing of Saddam certainly wasn't done in a "rush" and with no warning. And it is only with 20/20 hindsight that we KNOW that Iraq had destroyed their WMD. Niether of us KNOW what Saddam might have done during the past 7 years had he been given the opportunity.

However, I'm positive he won't be trying anything soon.

you are right. It doesn't matter to me. murderous dictators are murderous dictators regardless of whether they murder in their own country or go next door, and regardless of whether they slaughter people with gas or with machetes. THis isn't about containing murderous dictators., it's about ******* oil.

I don't care how important you might think that disposing of Saddam was... after 9/11, it was nowhere NEAR as important as finding and disposing of OBL and of grinding AQ into powder, and if we had done that, and if we had allowed the UN inspectors to do their job, we would have been WAY better off.

 

[elvis]

The invasion of Iraq was made possible BY 9/11... and, the invasion of Iraq was something that 9/11 should have made a non-priority. Bush sold us on the invasion of Iraq as somehow being an appropriate response to 9/11. We had been attacked. Our attackers had not been defeated or brought to justice. America was scared and angry, and Bush sold us on invading Iraq as the PERFECT and most pressing response to that attack. Bush sold us on invading Iraq because Saddam had WMD's and he was gonna give them to AQ who was gonna use them on us TOMORROW!!!!!! We couldn't wait for Blix's team to tell us what we now know... we had to invade RIGHT THIS MINUTE!!!! It was hyped bullshit.

And I ain't buyin' this, Neville Chamberlain/Saddam was a modern day Hitler which we could not ignore bullshit. We have been perfectly willing to ignore all sorts of modern day Hitlers who slaughtered WAY more of their own people than Saddam EVER did. Cambodia, Rwanda come to mind... and I don't recall ANYBODY bringing up Chamberlain when THOSE killing fields were ankle deep in blood.

We had been ATTACKED. Our president told us he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive... and then he ******* FORGOT about him. Just imagine for a moment how debilitated Al Qaeda would be today... just imagine how many AQ leaders - probably OBL himself - would be behind bars or achieving ambient temperature in some unmarked grave somewhere after being executed for their crimes....just imagine how much good will from the rest of the world we would have been able to hold onto and perhaps translate into all sorts of other positive outcomes IF WE HAD USED OUR TRILLION DOLLARS AND 50K dead and wounded American lives in fighting our REAL enemy instead of doing EXACTLY what Osama predicted that we would do: invade and occupy an oil rich arab country.... that had nothing to do with the attack on us. Invading Iraq is the single most counterproductive foreign policy decision that our country has made in the last century.

Again, you deliberately choose to ignore context when you choose to compare dictatorial Iraq with Cambodia, or Rowanda (neither used gas, niether invaded a neighboring country, neither had SCUD missiles.....I could go on, but I doubt it matters to you).

Anyway, as you know, I agree that remaining in Iraq for 7-8 years was a terrible mistake. But disposing of Saddam certainly wasn't done in a "rush" and with no warning. And it is only with 20/20 hindsight that we KNOW that Iraq had destroyed their WMD. Niether of us KNOW what Saddam might have done during the past 7 years had he been given the opportunity.

However, I'm positive he won't be trying anything soon.

you are right. It doesn't matter to me. murderous dictators are murderous dictators regardless of whether they murder in their own country or go next door, and regardless of whether they slaughter people with gas or with machetes. THis isn't about containing murderous dictators., it's about ******* oil.

I don't care how important you might think that disposing of Saddam was... after 9/11, it was nowhere NEAR as important as finding and disposing of OBL and of grinding AQ into powder, and if we had done that, and if we had allowed the UN inspectors to do their job, we would have been WAY better off.

I agree bin laden was more dangerous than saddam and should have been a bigger priority. But on the subject of the UN inspectors, Saddam wasn't letting them do their jobs.

 

[Samson]

The invasion of Iraq was made possible BY 9/11... and, the invasion of Iraq was something that 9/11 should have made a non-priority. Bush sold us on the invasion of Iraq as somehow being an appropriate response to 9/11. We had been attacked. Our attackers had not been defeated or brought to justice. America was scared and angry, and Bush sold us on invading Iraq as the PERFECT and most pressing response to that attack. Bush sold us on invading Iraq because Saddam had WMD's and he was gonna give them to AQ who was gonna use them on us TOMORROW!!!!!! We couldn't wait for Blix's team to tell us what we now know... we had to invade RIGHT THIS MINUTE!!!! It was hyped bullshit.

And I ain't buyin' this, Neville Chamberlain/Saddam was a modern day Hitler which we could not ignore bullshit. We have been perfectly willing to ignore all sorts of modern day Hitlers who slaughtered WAY more of their own people than Saddam EVER did. Cambodia, Rwanda come to mind... and I don't recall ANYBODY bringing up Chamberlain when THOSE killing fields were ankle deep in blood.

We had been ATTACKED. Our president told us he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive... and then he ******* FORGOT about him. Just imagine for a moment how debilitated Al Qaeda would be today... just imagine how many AQ leaders - probably OBL himself - would be behind bars or achieving ambient temperature in some unmarked grave somewhere after being executed for their crimes....just imagine how much good will from the rest of the world we would have been able to hold onto and perhaps translate into all sorts of other positive outcomes IF WE HAD USED OUR TRILLION DOLLARS AND 50K dead and wounded American lives in fighting our REAL enemy instead of doing EXACTLY what Osama predicted that we would do: invade and occupy an oil rich arab country.... that had nothing to do with the attack on us. Invading Iraq is the single most counterproductive foreign policy decision that our country has made in the last century.

Again, you deliberately choose to ignore context when you choose to compare dictatorial Iraq with Cambodia, or Rowanda (neither used gas, niether invaded a neighboring country, neither had SCUD missiles.....I could go on, but I doubt it matters to you).

Anyway, as you know, I agree that remaining in Iraq for 7-8 years was a terrible mistake. But disposing of Saddam certainly wasn't done in a "rush" and with no warning. And it is only with 20/20 hindsight that we KNOW that Iraq had destroyed their WMD. Niether of us KNOW what Saddam might have done during the past 7 years had he been given the opportunity.

However, I'm positive he won't be trying anything soon.

you are right. It doesn't matter to me. murderous dictators are murderous dictators regardless of whether they murder in their own country or go next door, and regardless of whether they slaughter people with gas or with machetes. THis isn't about containing murderous dictators., it's about ******* oil.

I don't care how important you might think that disposing of Saddam was... after 9/11, it was nowhere NEAR as important as finding and disposing of OBL and of grinding AQ into powder, and if we had done that, and if we had allowed the UN inspectors to do their job, we would have been WAY better off.

Again, you're able to speculate what may have been with startling clarity.

Hey, I wanna retire in Mexico Next Year.......what are your market tips so I can start making the necessary investments?

 

[asterism]

"rush to war?"

Rather than go through each point, I hope you forgive me for wondering if you and I haven't already settled many of these points.

Justification for invading Iraq is based on much more than a simple question of WMD's presence or absence. I've listed the historical context, and my allusion to the historical precedent for ignoring dangers of dictators willing to kill their own citizens seems to have gone over the many pointed heads. Do I need to spell it out for those that don't know who Neville Chamberlain was?

Furthermore you have NO IDEA was Saddam might have done with nerve gas. You can PRETEND to have known now, only through the luxury of the fact that Saddam no longer exists.

The invasion of Iraq was made possible BY 9/11... and, the invasion of Iraq was something that 9/11 should have made a non-priority. Bush sold us on the invasion of Iraq as somehow being an appropriate response to 9/11. We had been attacked. Our attackers had not been defeated or brought to justice. America was scared and angry, and Bush sold us on invading Iraq as the PERFECT and most pressing response to that attack. Bush sold us on invading Iraq because Saddam had WMD's and he was gonna give them to AQ who was gonna use them on us TOMORROW!!!!!! We couldn't wait for Blix's team to tell us what we now know... we had to invade RIGHT THIS MINUTE!!!! It was hyped bullshit.

And I ain't buyin' this, Neville Chamberlain/Saddam was a modern day Hitler which we could not ignore bullshit. We have been perfectly willing to ignore all sorts of modern day Hitlers who slaughtered WAY more of their own people than Saddam EVER did. Cambodia, Rwanda come to mind... and I don't recall ANYBODY bringing up Chamberlain when THOSE killing fields were ankle deep in blood.

We had been ATTACKED. Our president told us he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive... and then he ******* FORGOT about him. Just imagine for a moment how debilitated Al Qaeda would be today... just imagine how many AQ leaders - probably OBL himself - would be behind bars or achieving ambient temperature in some unmarked grave somewhere after being executed for their crimes....just imagine how much good will from the rest of the world we would have been able to hold onto and perhaps translate into all sorts of other positive outcomes IF WE HAD USED OUR TRILLION DOLLARS AND 50K dead and wounded American lives in fighting our REAL enemy instead of doing EXACTLY what Osama predicted that we would do: invade and occupy an oil rich arab country.... that had nothing to do with the attack on us. Invading Iraq is the single most counterproductive foreign policy decision that our country has made in the last century.

How could Al Qaeda be defeated if we never invaded Iraq? Do you think they all stayed in Afghanistan?

 

[maineman]

I agree bin laden was more dangerous than saddam and should have been a bigger priority. But on the subject of the UN inspectors, Saddam wasn't letting them do their jobs.

CNN.com - Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say - Mar 21, 2004

"Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say"

"Iraq had been shown to have biological and chemical weapons before, "and there was no record of either destruction or production; there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?" ElBaradei said.

Blix said he had not been able to say definitively that Iraq had no such weapons, but added that he felt history has shown he was not wrong.

"At least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed," he said.

ElBaradei faulted Iraq for "the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime."

"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."

ElBaradei said he hoped the past year's events have taught world leaders a valuable lesson.

"We learned from Iraq that an inspection takes time, that we should be patient, that an inspection can, in fact, work."

 

[maineman]

"rush to war?"

Rather than go through each point, I hope you forgive me for wondering if you and I haven't already settled many of these points.

Justification for invading Iraq is based on much more than a simple question of WMD's presence or absence. I've listed the historical context, and my allusion to the historical precedent for ignoring dangers of dictators willing to kill their own citizens seems to have gone over the many pointed heads. Do I need to spell it out for those that don't know who Neville Chamberlain was?

Furthermore you have NO IDEA was Saddam might have done with nerve gas. You can PRETEND to have known now, only through the luxury of the fact that Saddam no longer exists.

The invasion of Iraq was made possible BY 9/11... and, the invasion of Iraq was something that 9/11 should have made a non-priority. Bush sold us on the invasion of Iraq as somehow being an appropriate response to 9/11. We had been attacked. Our attackers had not been defeated or brought to justice. America was scared and angry, and Bush sold us on invading Iraq as the PERFECT and most pressing response to that attack. Bush sold us on invading Iraq because Saddam had WMD's and he was gonna give them to AQ who was gonna use them on us TOMORROW!!!!!! We couldn't wait for Blix's team to tell us what we now know... we had to invade RIGHT THIS MINUTE!!!! It was hyped bullshit.

And I ain't buyin' this, Neville Chamberlain/Saddam was a modern day Hitler which we could not ignore bullshit. We have been perfectly willing to ignore all sorts of modern day Hitlers who slaughtered WAY more of their own people than Saddam EVER did. Cambodia, Rwanda come to mind... and I don't recall ANYBODY bringing up Chamberlain when THOSE killing fields were ankle deep in blood.

We had been ATTACKED. Our president told us he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive... and then he ******* FORGOT about him. Just imagine for a moment how debilitated Al Qaeda would be today... just imagine how many AQ leaders - probably OBL himself - would be behind bars or achieving ambient temperature in some unmarked grave somewhere after being executed for their crimes....just imagine how much good will from the rest of the world we would have been able to hold onto and perhaps translate into all sorts of other positive outcomes IF WE HAD USED OUR TRILLION DOLLARS AND 50K dead and wounded American lives in fighting our REAL enemy instead of doing EXACTLY what Osama predicted that we would do: invade and occupy an oil rich arab country.... that had nothing to do with the attack on us. Invading Iraq is the single most counterproductive foreign policy decision that our country has made in the last century.

How could Al Qaeda be defeated if we never invaded Iraq? Do you think they all stayed in Afghanistan?

THEY sure didn't GO into Iraq, that is for damned sure. The "AQ in Iraq" group was just an offshoot franchise operation that only came about AFTER we invaded.

 

[MikeK]

All I ask is that if you or any one else is going to call the President of the United States a Liar, then please have some actual proof of such a claim.

And the fact that you can make such a pathetic request plainly reveals the level of your indoctrination as an authoritarian submissive.

Not only do I have ample cause to believe George W. Bush is a liar, it is plainly obvious to me and many other good Americans that he is a criminal sonofabitch who deserves to spend the rest of his life in Leavenworth or to be executed by order of the World Court.

As of yet there is no such proof.

"It often takes a great deal of intelligence to see that which is right before our eyes." [ Edmond Duranty ]

And your rantings about the Hague mean nothing.

Of course it means nothing to you, which is not surprising. But to those who are capable of understanding the significance and importance of the fact that a charge has been filed with and accepted by the World Court against a former U.S. President, it means a great deal. This isn't something that happens very often.

But it means nothing to you.

And by the way, your little hidden dig that I don't read is very infantile. If you want to insult me, please just come out and say it. Your impressions mean nothing.....

No need. You do a good enough job of insulting yourself. Too bad you don't know it.

 

[skookerasbil]

we borrowed the money to run bush's pretend war of choice...

which led to our economic meltdown...

i think the president was more than nice to his predecessor.

lol..........first of all asshole, nobody cares about George Bush anymore except the internet k00ks.

And how funny is it that none of the k00ks have any problems with Barak Obama funding the Chinese military with hundreds of billions of dollars ( see "stimulus" ). Thats ok to the k00ks.............

 

[skookerasbil]

Thought this gay MS Paint Photobucket Classic is appropo for this thread.................

Remember when every single liberal on this forum was gauranteeing jail time for Bush and Cheney??!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Samson]

I agree bin laden was more dangerous than saddam and should have been a bigger priority. But on the subject of the UN inspectors, Saddam wasn't letting them do their jobs.

CNN.com - Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N.*weapons experts say - Mar 21, 2004

"Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say"

"Iraq had been shown to have biological and chemical weapons before, "and there was no record of either destruction or production; there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?" ElBaradei said.

Blix said he had not been able to say definitively that Iraq had no such weapons, but added that he felt history has shown he was not wrong.

"At least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed," he said.

ElBaradei faulted Iraq for "the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime."

"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."

ElBaradei said he hoped the past year's events have taught world leaders a valuable lesson.

"We learned from Iraq that an inspection takes time, that we should be patient, that an inspection can, in fact, work."

Huh?

Did you read your post?

"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."

Apparently "whatever reason" could have been "ammassing vast stock piles of tabun , sarin , soman , and VX ."

Unhappily, No one flew a 737 into the U.N. building: Then perhaps, and I still realise it would be unlikely, the U.N. would grow balls. As it is, and has always been, the U.N. will NEVER make the mistake of EVER being proactive!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Quick snapshot into history.............circa 2007!!!

 

[asterism]

The invasion of Iraq was made possible BY 9/11... and, the invasion of Iraq was something that 9/11 should have made a non-priority. Bush sold us on the invasion of Iraq as somehow being an appropriate response to 9/11. We had been attacked. Our attackers had not been defeated or brought to justice. America was scared and angry, and Bush sold us on invading Iraq as the PERFECT and most pressing response to that attack. Bush sold us on invading Iraq because Saddam had WMD's and he was gonna give them to AQ who was gonna use them on us TOMORROW!!!!!! We couldn't wait for Blix's team to tell us what we now know... we had to invade RIGHT THIS MINUTE!!!! It was hyped bullshit.

And I ain't buyin' this, Neville Chamberlain/Saddam was a modern day Hitler which we could not ignore bullshit. We have been perfectly willing to ignore all sorts of modern day Hitlers who slaughtered WAY more of their own people than Saddam EVER did. Cambodia, Rwanda come to mind... and I don't recall ANYBODY bringing up Chamberlain when THOSE killing fields were ankle deep in blood.

We had been ATTACKED. Our president told us he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive... and then he ******* FORGOT about him. Just imagine for a moment how debilitated Al Qaeda would be today... just imagine how many AQ leaders - probably OBL himself - would be behind bars or achieving ambient temperature in some unmarked grave somewhere after being executed for their crimes....just imagine how much good will from the rest of the world we would have been able to hold onto and perhaps translate into all sorts of other positive outcomes IF WE HAD USED OUR TRILLION DOLLARS AND 50K dead and wounded American lives in fighting our REAL enemy instead of doing EXACTLY what Osama predicted that we would do: invade and occupy an oil rich arab country.... that had nothing to do with the attack on us. Invading Iraq is the single most counterproductive foreign policy decision that our country has made in the last century.

How could Al Qaeda be defeated if we never invaded Iraq? Do you think they all stayed in Afghanistan?

THEY sure didn't GO into Iraq, that is for damned sure. The "AQ in Iraq" group was just an offshoot franchise operation that only came about AFTER we invaded.

That's not true. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi relocated to Iraq after US forces routed his camp in Afghanistan before the invasion of Iraq. He joined other elements of Afghanistan militants there. We all know how that worked out.

 

[MikeK]

so another one that thinks saying "we do not have a position on your border dispute" means "yes, you may invade your neighbor"

Hussein told the U.S. government, via its ambassador, that he wanted to invade Kuwait, and he explained why, and he asked if the U.S. was concerned. In diplomatic language, which doesn't take great wisdom to understand, he was asking permission.

So I wonder what you think "We do not have a position on your border dispute" means after being clearly informed of aggressive military intention. The response to Hussein's question was, essentially, We don't give a damn what you do.

But you think it means something else. So go ahead and re-write it to say what you think it means -- or what you'd like me to think it means. Does it make sense that if the State Department was opposed to Hussein's expressed intention the reply would have made that very clear? Such as, We oppose any use of military force against Kuwait?" Doesn't that make more sense than what you're suggesting?

 

[asterism]

so another one that thinks saying "we do not have a position on your border dispute" means "yes, you may invade your neighbor"

Hussein told the U.S. government, via its ambassador, that he wanted to invade Kuwait, and he explained why, and he asked if the U.S. was concerned. In diplomatic language, which doesn't take great wisdom to understand, he was asking permission.

Let's see some documentation of that "diplomatic language" which was in effect Hussein "asking permission." The ones I've read say no such thing. Perhaps I'm mistaken or more information has been released.

 

[DiveCon]

so another one that thinks saying "we do not have a position on your border dispute" means "yes, you may invade your neighbor"

Hussein told the U.S. government, via its ambassador, that he wanted to invade Kuwait, and he explained why, and he asked if the U.S. was concerned. In diplomatic language, which doesn't take great wisdom to understand, he was asking permission.

Let's see some documentation of that "diplomatic language" which was in effect Hussein "asking permission." The ones I've read say no such thing. Perhaps I'm mistaken or more information has been released.

same for me, i have seen NOTHING that supports that idiotic position at all