Question for Iraq war supporters

[maineman]

Why does any country need anthrax? Completely irrelevant to the discussion. It is provided for research purposes and Iraq met the requirements to buy it.

And we didn't supply any weapons because, once again, he wasn't using anything we could supply him WITH.

answer your own question. research purposes! HAH! Why WOULD Saddam need anthrax and why in the world would we sell it to him. Do we think he was using it to make a new formula for diet free cola?

 

[Gunny]

answer your own question. research purposes! HAH! Why WOULD Saddam need anthrax and why in the world would we sell it to him. Do we think he was using it to make a new formula for diet free cola?

The legitimate reason to sell it would be for medical reasons. To produce the same antitoxins we were shot full of starting in 98 as a safeguard against contracting anthrax.

The fact is, everything we overtly provided Saddam with was dual-use. Did we unofficially know what he was going to do with it? I'd say it's highly likely. At the same time, the technical legal deniability is there.

 

[Dr Grump]

Now back to the point--we supported Saddam for a reason: he was against the Ayatollah. That is called "real politic" and the way states stay in power and their people get what they want.

The minute he crossed the border into Kuwait and pissed off the other Gulf states, the Gulf states and the Western powers asked if Saddam's hedge water against Iran was worth the destabilization within the gulf region. Over time the conclusion was made that Saddam had become an overall liability and from that point on, he was a dead man walking. So what? The situation changed and we changed with it. That's a good thing.

Depends if you want to be perceived as the good guy, which almost every American politician and person I know wants. Would have been better to either stay out of the ME altogether IMO..

 

[finebead]

Kathianne,
Thanks

Thanks to both of you; I enjoyed the read!

 

[finebead]

The discussion of the US having sold precursors of biological weapons to Iraq in the 80's is relevant the the discussion of whether Bush lied to the American people over why we invaded Iraq in the first place.

We were told:
1) Iraq has WMD, 2) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US, and 3) Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

1) From the Kaye and Dulfer reports we know Iraq had no WMD, and 2) therefore they posed no imminent threat to the US. 3) From the 9/11 Commission report we know "Iraq had no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda".

All of the assertions used to justify the invasion are false. The public has used this information to state "Bush lied to us about invading Iraq". The Bush apologists have stated that, "Well, Saddam was a bad guy, and the world is better off without him, and he killed his own people".

That does not hold water either. We knew Saddam was a bad guy in the 80's for many reasons, including knowing he used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds. If these events were worth an invasion, they were worth invading in the 80's, but there was nary a peep from us, rather Rumsfeld is pictured shaking his hand and smiling in Baghdad.

So, there is no reason that has been stated by our govt. for the invasion of Iraq that is a valid reason. Bush has lied to the nation.

So we are still left with the question of why we invaded Iraq. Greenspan has said in his book the reason is it was just about oil. Exxon and Texaco have signed 30 year oil purchase agreements with Iraq, very quietly. I doubt we'll see a wholesale pullout of our troops; we will have to enforce the contracts.

Americans wonder why so many in the world hate us, and this is the answer, pretty much. We talk about human rights and moral behavior, and lately we have done a poorer job of living up to the standards we talk about.

There are still several unmentioned possible reasons for the invasion. The need for a military base in the ME that is better situated than Afghanistan, or the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) CEOs just needing to grow their businesses in a post Cold War era.

 

[82Marine89]

The discussion of the US having sold precursors of biological weapons to Iraq in the 80's is relevant the the discussion of whether Bush lied to the American people over why we invaded Iraq in the first place.

We were told:
1) Iraq has WMD, 2) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US, and 3) Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

1) From the Kaye and Dulfer reports we know Iraq had no WMD, and 2) therefore they posed no imminent threat to the US. 3) From the 9/11 Commission report we know "Iraq had no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda".

All of the assertions used to justify the invasion are false. The public has used this information to state "Bush lied to us about invading Iraq". The Bush apologists have stated that, "Well, Saddam was a bad guy, and the world is better off without him, and he killed his own people".

That does not hold water either. We knew Saddam was a bad guy in the 80's for many reasons, including knowing he used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds. If these events were worth an invasion, they were worth invading in the 80's, but there was nary a peep from us, rather Rumsfeld is pictured shaking his hand and smiling in Baghdad.

So, there is no reason that has been stated by our govt. for the invasion of Iraq that is a valid reason. Bush has lied to the nation.

So we are still left with the question of why we invaded Iraq. Greenspan has said in his book the reason is it was just about oil. Exxon and Texaco have signed 30 year oil purchase agreements with Iraq, very quietly. I doubt we'll see a wholesale pullout of our troops; we will have to enforce the contracts.

Americans wonder why so many in the world hate us, and this is the answer, pretty much. We talk about human rights and moral behavior, and lately we have done a poorer job of living up to the standards we talk about.

There are still several unmentioned possible reasons for the invasion. The need for a military base in the ME that is better situated than Afghanistan, or the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) CEOs just needing to grow their businesses in a post Cold War era.

So I guess enforcing a UN resolution had nothing to do with it? Even if Saddam didn't have WMD's he bluffed and his bluff got called. Where Bush fucked up was declaring victory to early. He should never have said the mission was accomplished. It wasn't. Now we are paying for it.

If it was about oil, why don't we have any of it? Why don't we control their oil fields? That line is cheap liberal rhetoric.

 

[maineman]

So I guess enforcing a UN resolution had nothing to do with it? Even if Saddam didn't have WMD's he bluffed and his bluff got called. Where Bush fucked up was declaring victory to early. He should never have said the mission was accomplished. It wasn't. Now we are paying for it.

If it was about oil, why don't we have any of it? Why don't we control their oil fields? That line is cheap liberal rhetoric.

do you honestly think, with islamic extremists flying planes into our buildings, and remaining on the loose in Afghanistan, that switching targets and putting the vast majority of our ground war fighting assets into an invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq because they violated some UN resolutions was really the best way to prioritize the threats against us and deploy forces to deal with those priorities?

 

[82Marine89]

do you honestly think, with islamic extremists flying planes into our buildings, and remaining on the loose in Afghanistan, that switching targets and putting the vast majority of our ground war fighting assets into an invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq because they violated some UN resolutions was really the best way to prioritize the threats against us and deploy forces to deal with those priorities?

Nope, but it's too late to whine about it.

 

[maineman]

Nope, but it's too late to whine about it.

why would you bring up enforcing UN resolutions if it was a stupid boneheaded rationale to begin with?

 

[82Marine89]

why would you bring up enforcing UN resolutions if it was a stupid boneheaded rationale to begin with?

It was in response to finebeads comment. read what I responded to.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The discussion of the US having sold precursors of biological weapons to Iraq in the 80's is relevant the the discussion of whether Bush lied to the American people over why we invaded Iraq in the first place.

We were told:
1) Iraq has WMD, 2) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US, and 3) Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
One out of three, I guess yor doing good tonight. Be so kind as to post evidence he ever said imminent threat or that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I won't hold my breath.
1) From the Kaye and Dulfer reports we know Iraq had no WMD, and 2) therefore they posed no imminent threat to the US. 3) From the 9/11 Commission report we know "Iraq had no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda".
And you strike out on all 3 this time. Everyone INCLUDING the UN knew that Iraq had never verified what happened to TONS of chemical weapons and Biological as well. And of course we have the idiotic claim Bush ever said Saddam was an imminent threat again. And again the bogus claim we ever claimed Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

All of the assertions used to justify the invasion are false. The public has used this information to state "Bush lied to us about invading Iraq". The Bush apologists have stated that, "Well, Saddam was a bad guy, and the world is better off without him, and he killed his own people".

That does not hold water either. We knew Saddam was a bad guy in the 80's for many reasons, including knowing he used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds. If these events were worth an invasion, they were worth invading in the 80's, but there was nary a peep from us, rather Rumsfeld is pictured shaking his hand and smiling in Baghdad.

So, there is no reason that has been stated by our govt. for the invasion of Iraq that is a valid reason. Bush has lied to the nation.

So we are still left with the question of why we invaded Iraq. Greenspan has said in his book the reason is it was just about oil. Exxon and Texaco have signed 30 year oil purchase agreements with Iraq, very quietly. I doubt we'll see a wholesale pullout of our troops; we will have to enforce the contracts.

Americans wonder why so many in the world hate us, and this is the answer, pretty much. We talk about human rights and moral behavior, and lately we have done a poorer job of living up to the standards we talk about.

There are still several unmentioned possible reasons for the invasion. The need for a military base in the ME that is better situated than Afghanistan, or the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) CEOs just needing to grow their businesses in a post Cold War era.

Your moronic drivel has been shown for what it is every time it has been spouted by you idiots. You think if you repeat the same tired lies over enough times someone will start believing you.

 

[maineman]

Your moronic drivel has been shown for what it is every time it has been spouted by you idiots. You think if you repeat the same tired lies over enough times someone will start believing you.

no....we laugh when you suggest there is an expectation that politicians don't routinely use innuendo and suggestion to make points. Clearly, there is not transcript of Bush or Cheney saying that Saddam has planned 9/11...but there was plenty of innuendo.... CHeney's claims about the Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Praque....discredited, yet still repeated.... Rice's mushroom cloud comments.... you and I know the list of hints and allegations and innuendoes was massive...and while you can point to any one of them and claim that the words contained therein did not specifically tie Saddam to 9/11, the weight of the sum total of all of them is overwhelming - and clearly it was effective - demonstrably so. People in America who knew who OBL was and what he had done back in september of 01 somehow became convinced that Saddam was responsible for it a mere two years later.

And below it all runs the scummy little undercurrent where you call Kennedy a murderer or Clinton a perjurer...or you tell out and out lies about board members all the while not getting your petticoats dirty.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

no....we laugh when you suggest there is an expectation that politicians don't routinely use innuendo and suggestion to make points. Clearly, there is not transcript of Bush or Cheney saying that Saddam has planned 9/11...but there was plenty of innuendo.... CHeney's claims about the Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Praque....discredited, yet still repeated.... Rice's mushroom cloud comments.... you and I know the list of hints and allegations and innuendoes was massive...and while you can point to any one of them and claim that the words contained therein did not specifically tie Saddam to 9/11, the weight of the sum total of all of them is overwhelming - and clearly it was effective - demonstrably so. People in America who knew who OBL was and what he had done back in september of 01 somehow became convinced that Saddam was responsible for it a mere two years later.

And below it all runs the scummy little undercurrent where you call Kennedy a murderer or Clinton a perjurer...or you tell out and out lies about board members all the while not getting your petticoats dirty.

Sure thing, keep on peddling your " we all know it where I live" garbage, it doesn't sell. You have been shown the door on this issue a couple times already, you think if you just repeat it over and over suddenly it is true.

 

[Dr Grump]

So I guess enforcing a UN resolution had nothing to do with it? Even if Saddam didn't have WMD's he bluffed and his bluff got called. Where Bush fucked up was declaring victory to early. He should never have said the mission was accomplished. It wasn't. Now we are paying for it.

If it was about oil, why don't we have any of it? Why don't we control their oil fields? That line is cheap liberal rhetoric.

If the US gave a **** about UN resolutions they'd put a rocket up Israel's arse a couple of times every year. That is a red herring.

As for being about oil, it's not about the US GETTING the oil, it is having a stable supply and the affect it would have on world money/trading markets if the region became unstable. Note, in NZ and Australia we are paying record prices for oil at the moment due to the instability of the region (IMO). Kinda ironic in that IMO, that was the main reason for the invasion. But Bush and his cronies (Cheney especially) were so arrogant, and such schmucks to boot, thought they could install a Jeffersonian type democracy in a part of the world that has never known democracy, just makes me shake my head in wonder at the whole situation.

 

[Dr Grump]

Sure thing, keep on peddling your " we all know it where I live" garbage, it doesn't sell. You have been shown the door on this issue a couple times already, you think if you just repeat it over and over suddenly it is true.

What a crap, dumbarse argument. He points out candidly the lie of the land and you put your fingers in your ears and say "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah"...pathetic..

 

[maineman]

Sure thing, keep on peddling your " we all know it where I live" garbage, it doesn't sell. You have been shown the door on this issue a couple times already, you think if you just repeat it over and over suddenly it is true.

no. you are a hypocrite. On one hand you categorically refuse to acknowledge that innuendo and insinuation exist, existed, and were effective in changing public opinion about the immediacy of the threat posed by Saddam..... claiming that we cannot PROVE any direct lie and refusing to acknowledge that giving a deliberately false IMPRESSION is also a lie....yet on the other hand, you routinely suggest that Senator Kennedy is a murderer and that Bill Clinton is guilty of perjury. Double standard, hack, hypocrite.

The only door that's been shown anyone on this issue is the one that slapped you on the ass on your way out.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

no. you are a hypocrite. On one hand you categorically refuse to acknowledge that innuendo and insinuation exist, existed, and were effective in changing public opinion about the immediacy of the threat posed by Saddam..... claiming that we cannot PROVE any direct lie and refusing to acknowledge that giving a deliberately false IMPRESSION is also a lie....yet on the other hand, you routinely suggest that Senator Kennedy is a murderer and that Bill Clinton is guilty of perjury. Double standard, hack, hypocrite.

The only door that's been shown anyone on this issue is the one that slapped you on the ass on your way out.

Clinton is the easiest of the two, your claim he did not commit perjury is hilarious, he has admitted he did it, he has been punished for doing it.

As for Kennedy, only a retard believes he did not kill that girl by his actions. Are you a retard?

Do go on and make all the idiotic claims you want. They did not wash the first through 50th time and they do not wash now.

 

[mattskramer]

As for Kennedy, only a retard believes he did not kill that girl by his actions. Are you a retard?

Just a passing comment:

I think that the Kennedy family settled the issue with the Kopechne family and avoided the court/legal system in the process. The Kennedy family probably paid the Kopechne family millions in “hush money”. Otherwise, I don’t understand how Robert Kennedy did not go to trial and get convicted on negligent homicide at the very least.

The Chappaquiddick incident has often puzzled me.

 

[ReillyT]

Just a passing comment:

I think that the Kennedy family settled the issue with the Kopechne family and avoided the court/legal system in the process. The Kennedy family probably paid the Kopechne family millions in “hush money”. Otherwise, I don’t understand how Robert Kennedy did not go to trial and get convicted on negligent homicide at the very least.

The Chappaquiddick incident has often puzzled me.

Teddy, not Robert.

 

[mattskramer]

Teddy, not Robert.

Ooops. You are right. My mistake.