- Oct 26, 2000
- 4,749
- 1
- 0
Claim: U.S. Government Spurned Peace Talks Before the War With Iraq
- Thread starter ManSnake
- Start date
Why does it matter if Saddam was serious about a negotiated settlement . . . clearly Bush was not. Considering Bush/Blair were demanding a complete accounting of all WMD, WMD precursors, and WMD technology but have yet to produce any substantitive findings in the last six months . . . what hope did Saddam have for averting war? Well I guess he could have contracted with Halliburton to refurbish the Iraqi oil industry.
assinine. and to think that when i claim saddam apologists lurk here i'm the one who gets flak.
'clearly' you know something about saddam's good intentions, however murky they may be, that thousands of his victims buried in mass
graves did not. as for cladestine wmd labs, precusors, actual programs, and new wmd research (brucella and cc hemorrhagic fever) read
dr. david kay's preliminary findings - not that it will do you any good. but just to illustrate how deep the hole is from which you stand you
can also peruse the [L=]iraq-watch analysis]http://www.iraqwatch.org/updates/update.asp?id=wpn200209301639[/L].
What do we care about his thousands of victims in mass graves? It did not matter to us back in the 1980s, it didn't matter with the Nazis in the late 1930's, and it doesn't make a whit of difference except as a political tool now.
mastertech01
Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
- Nov 13, 1999
- 11,875
- 282
- 126
What do you suppose would have happened had Saddaam and his sons had left Iraq as given thier ultimatum just prior to the attack on Iraq? Would we have just gone in anyway and blasted them away? Would we have then added new ultimatums for those whom remained? Im curious just what the plan was had events been different in that respect.
What's assinine? That Bush was going to have this war no matter what?
Also, I see the term 'Saddam apologist' thrown about a lot. What's the definition of the term?
I think he is referring to a Saddam apologist as one who is willing to beleive anything Saddam said, even though history has proven him to be quite untrustworthy. Babydoc appears to be taking this report as truth and that saddam was in fact going to abide by some sort of peace deal.
eh, read the report. the dual-use programs, compartmentalization, clandestine wmd facilites, and continuing research
were all suspected before the campaign started. they have all been discovered by dr. kay in his preliminary searches.
period. undeniable.
as for the saddam apologist portion, anyone who equalizes a saddam hussein and a president bush or any unliked politician
for sheer partisan reason is engaged in far more than hyperbole. in fact, the statement aboce does more than equalize, while
he is unsure about saddam's sincerity, he/she is certain about bush's insincerity.
were all suspected before the campaign started. they have all been discovered by dr. kay in his preliminary searches.
period. undeniable.
as for the saddam apologist portion, anyone who equalizes a saddam hussein and a president bush or any unliked politician
for sheer partisan reason is engaged in far more than hyperbole. in fact, the statement aboce does more than equalize, while
he is unsure about saddam's sincerity, he/she is certain about bush's insincerity.
They didn't find a damn thing except buried old barrels of pesticides, weather balloon trucks, and crude recon drones that were not capable of carrying of WMDs. The activity the US claimed was renewed activity at old sites were junk men looking for scrap metal. Dual use what a load of bs, I can write with a pencil but it is possible to poke someone's eye out with, a factory that builds cars can build tanks etc. ... anything can be dual use. Quit the "Iraq has WMDs and is going to give it to Osama" claim, it was stupid to begin and with and has been now proven wrong.
I did. It is full of sorry excuses of why they can't find anything and suspicions of what be found but nothing more.
Oooo . . . asinine . . . 3 whole syllables. Although I was too young to shake Saddam's hand in 1983, I'm sure if I was given enough reading material . . . my pre-preteen mind would decide he was a bad man. Maybe if you study the history of Iraq (and Iran) you might have some concept of why our "problems" with Saddam (and Iran) are largely due to US duplicity and a general failure to practice the virtues we are allegedly exporting to the Middle East. In sum, Saddam has largely NEVER had good intentions . . . some notable exceptions:
1) Somewhat tolerant of religious diversity (except his tendency to restrict the influence of radical Islamic clerics . . . hmm I think Reagan liked him for that reason).
2) Arguably the most equitable society for women anywhere in the region.
3) Shi'ite dominance of Iraq had largely disenfranchised the minority Sunnis, although Saddam clearly swung the pendulum too far.
The clandestine WMD labs, precursors, research, etc (as noted by David Kay) is miniscule compared to the programs discovered and dismantled by UN inspectors from 1992-1998 . . . including the Clinton/Blair air assault. Maybe you missed the memo (and I'm sure Bush did as well), US/UK bombing was based on the espionage operation working within (and around) the inspection teams. Now that still leaves an opportunity (prospect) that Saddam retained some limited WMD capability.
Although anyone with two neurons would think nuclear capability was pure BS (well except for the Bush administration . . . and apparently some top secret source in the UK . . . to be named later). Kay's report has produced nothing to substantiate pre-war Bush administration claims.
Biological and chemical weapons programs could easily be hidden in a country with extensive petrochemical capabilities and decent university level research programs . . . assuming the program is designed to be hidden NOT active production or use. Kay's report (through the administration filter) essentially ignores contradictory evidence (conflict with Blix findings), while taking ambiguous findings as confirmatory. It's the most common flaw of human logic . . . the power of bias. It happens every time you start with a conclusion and then scour the Earth looking for supporting evidence but intentionally exclude information or factors (like a UN team) that might keep you honest.
Of course the hype has not matched reality with regards to what Iraq allegedly harbored but hey who cares about details . . . all that matters is that the world has one less bad man as head of state . . . while America continues to prop up bad men across the globe. It is good that Saddam is no longer running Iraq . . . well not running Iraq from Baghdad. IMHO, it's conceivable that Saddam could be running Iraq while America spent $200B making the world more peaceful and prosperous. In a perfect world, Saddam would be running a dog pound in Pakistan while America spent $200B making the world more peaceful and prosperous. Iraq has a brighter future b/c Saddam is out of power . . . but I sincerely believe Iraq has a compromised future b/c of the manner in which he was deposed.
As for you pricks that insist on calling anyone with an informed (and different) opinion apologist . . . consult a dictionary . . . maybe even try a Sylvan Learning Center. Contrary to popular belief at the shallow end of the gene pool, you don't really have to be "with us or with them".
I'm sorry but isn't it problematic to say . . . we are not yet at the point where we can say definitely . . . that such weapon stocks . . . existed before the war . . . 6 months after a war waged under the auspices of weapon stocks existing before the war?
"We know where the weapons are . . . they are in the region north of Baghdad and around Tikrit . . . "
I guess Kay's team hasn't gotten around to looking there yet.
if saddam never had any 'good intentions', why do then begin to enumerate them ?
as for those 3 syllables - didn't count them - they're still your syllables, written un-apologetically, of obvious meaning,
and followed up with more verbiage.
as for the apolgetics you cite, much of the evidence of saddam's religious tolerance lies buried in mass graves. as for
the shi'ite agitations, well, they were fighting for their rights against the murderous favoritism showed by saddam to
his tikriti tribesmen. but you knew that
aaah, so saddam 'retained some limited wmd capacity' did he ? like the one postulated by pre-war intel and discovered and
described by dr. kay in his report ? thanks. i agree. this admission does not help your arguement at all, but at least it clears
the air. breath deeply.
your not paying attention . . . to your yourself. the balibaydoc of 'saddam retained some limited wmd capability' fame does not jibe
with the balibabydoc of more recent vintage ('nothing to sustantiate'). the report, if you ever dare to read it, clearly states what
was found, and if you reference pre-war intel, especially as summarized in pollack's book ' the case for war', you'll see just how
much the pre-war estimates and prelimanary post-war discoveries are in agreement.
since when were blix's finding conclusive and definitive ? even blix would not tell you this.
what administration filter ?
even blix would tell you his findings were not conclusive; they did not prove saddam did not possesse wmd. blix's findings simply showed
that the sites inspected were free of wmd and that the ba'ath party operatives were better behaved than in past.
besides, blix's adventure was another futile pre-war exercise which saddam had long grown smart to. you don't account for saddam's
learning curve. the boy was a mass murderer (sorry) but he had enough 'neurons' to outwit the u.n.
besides (part deux), kay's preliminary findings prove - again - that the u.n. had been hoodwinked by a mass murderer. blix is the fool
for being so condident about his team's premature conclusions. by the way, have you heard a peep from blix since kay's report was
published ?
uum, this is a unclear. you already conceded the u.n. found and destroyed so much. so we minus that from the mysterious original
sum, and were left with an unknown number of wmd. from this unknown number of wmd, which i assume constitutes your 'reality', we
still managed to locate a good deal of these cladestine facilities, programs, etc, something the old balibabydoc (retained some limited
wmd capacity) conceded. thanks.
It always amazes me how some people who want to come across as solid in their stance and 'right' in their opinion have to resort to putting words in people's mouths and/or twist words.
This is the quote - <<Now that still leaves an opportunity (prospect) that Saddam retained some limited WMD capability.>>
Yet, you purposely left out the 'opportunity'. Numerous times you purposely left out the word 'opportunity'. Now, why on Earth would you do that if you are solid in your argument?
Am I a BBD apologist now?
This is the quote - <<Now that still leaves an opportunity (prospect) that Saddam retained some limited WMD capability.>>
Yet, you purposely left out the 'opportunity'. Numerous times you purposely left out the word 'opportunity'. Now, why on Earth would you do that if you are solid in your argument?
Am I a BBD apologist now?
Thnx for the assistance, Gaard. I was reading his post . . . and had difficulty understanding what the hell he was talking about. syzygy, next time you evacuate your rectum . . . I'm willing to bet you will retain a limited amount of stool. I'm not saying you are FOS . . . what's left is remnants . . . quite capable of smelling bad but little else.
I'm not sure why you bothered to quote my post b/c your statements are quite tangential. Saddam's regime was arguably the MOST tolerant in the region with the exception being radical Islam and its practices (like the whole sword slash to the head ritual). Saddam ruthlessly put down perceived political threats and to the extent a religious group posed a political threat, they certainly suffered at the hands of Saddam's regime. Saddam also actively encouraged the Arabization of areas populated by non-Arabs . . . which means Kurds, Assyrians, etc were displaced . . . but typically not killed. Kurds suffered horribly under Saddam's rule . . . but if that's the standard then we need to overthrow Turkey b/c they've killed Kurds within Turkey AND Iraq at a multiple of Saddam's death toll.
You may remember the member of the Iraqi Council that was assassinated . . . she was a woman . . . and a holdover from Saddam's regime. Fire up Google and see how many women are serving as international representatives of state from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, or "fill in patriarchial and generally oppressive society here". Saddam was no prize but on some accounts he didn't sux quite as much as others . . . granted on other accounts he was donkey rectum #1.
I'm not sure why you bothered to quote my post b/c your statements are quite tangential. Saddam's regime was arguably the MOST tolerant in the region with the exception being radical Islam and its practices (like the whole sword slash to the head ritual). Saddam ruthlessly put down perceived political threats and to the extent a religious group posed a political threat, they certainly suffered at the hands of Saddam's regime. Saddam also actively encouraged the Arabization of areas populated by non-Arabs . . . which means Kurds, Assyrians, etc were displaced . . . but typically not killed. Kurds suffered horribly under Saddam's rule . . . but if that's the standard then we need to overthrow Turkey b/c they've killed Kurds within Turkey AND Iraq at a multiple of Saddam's death toll.
You may remember the member of the Iraqi Council that was assassinated . . . she was a woman . . . and a holdover from Saddam's regime. Fire up Google and see how many women are serving as international representatives of state from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, or "fill in patriarchial and generally oppressive society here". Saddam was no prize but on some accounts he didn't sux quite as much as others . . . granted on other accounts he was donkey rectum #1.
Hmm, the report that says . . . "don't know if there was anything there before we invaded?" I don't know anything about Pollack's book. Seems like the US House and US Senate are finding pre-war intelligence far more suspect than you (or apparently Pollack).
not only did i leave out the word 'opportunity' but i also left out the word 'prospect'. why ? because neither word is germane to the statement's
admission that the u.n.'s numerous inspection regimes might still have failed to thouroghly squeeze the truth from saddam. the truth of that is
borne out by dr. kay's findings, findings which completely eluded the u.n.'s best efforts. lets not forget that dr. kay's findings so far are preliminary
and the full story of dr. blix's hubris and overconfidence is still developing.
'quite tangential' ? humor me, which one ?
i suppose we count your tolerance by the number of dead in the ground, eh ? have you read kana makiya's work or khidir hamza's ?
they are both very prominent iraqi dissidents who escaped from saddam's tolerance and wrote long wonderful books detaling this
dictator's bloody benevolence.
where your own words and statements don't contradict one another, your bizarre morality serves as the coup de grace. latest example:
'arabization' leads to 'displacement' which did not 'typically' involve killing - and this is good ?!?! so how much killing is healthy when persons
are being displaced ? does your humanitarian displacement policy extend to the isrealis too ? did i misquote you again ? let me know and i'll
gladly clarify the confusion (again).
how difficult work it is being a shill for saddam & co.
so you haven't read pollack's book. fine. but your second statement also reveals that you are unaware of the senate's opinion on
dr. kays findings (hint: they don't share your dismissiveness) and, on another level, you seem to be aware of your own ignorance
by referring to the formulaic 'pre-war intelligence' and avoiding the actual accomplishments of hard work being done on the ground
in iraq. on yet still another level, the most basic, your flatly wrong about the pre-war intel not jibing with dr. kay's findings. they are not
in total agreement, ofcourse, and dr. kay himself admits and explains why in the report.
however you dance, shimmy, and move about, you and your ilk will never be able to alter the reality of the report, of the continuing
work, and the numerous, largely unreported successes already achieved. there have been a number of links, some which i put forward,
showing that majority iraqi public opinion supports our work and they dislike both arab and other criticisms.
The House report was highly critical of US intelligence. The Senate appears to be having a partisan feud over "who" to blame for poor pre-war intelligence. My understanding is the GOP was to lay blame at the feet of the intelligence community (primarily CIA) while Democrats are claiming it was not only inadequate intelligence it was also misused by policymakers.
Pollack's book could NOT possibly be based on the quality of intelligence available to Congress b/c the Senate (at least) is still demanding access to what they consider vital pre-war intelligence from the White House. Of course, Pollack can reach conclusion as to the "case for war" b/c who needs evidence when you've got a crusade.
You question my morality but clearly you lack anything resembling a moral compass yourself. I NEVER stated nor implied Saddam was a good man. I never implied Saddam was almost decent. I doubt I even called Saddam least onerous despot in his region. Do you think Saddam killed (or displaced) more people than the Sandinistas, Noreiga, Marcos . . . then you get to people like Sudharto, Pinochet?! Of course that was before Bush's time . . . but more importantly it was coincident with our support for all of those regimes PLUS Saddam. By your logic I was roaming my elementary school begging Reagan to support Iraq in their unprovoked invasion of Iran . . . oops I imagine Saddam would call it pre-emptive.
Of course, I terrorized my high school demanding the US support Saddam in his fight to reclaim Iraqi territory in Kuwait.:Q
Saddam has NEVER been good . . . but he's certainly less bad than some of the people the US has supported in the past and present. Now that the war (I mean major combat) is over we can reflect on what has been done and what can be learned. There should be no doubt that pre-war intelligence as to 1)Saddam's unconventional weapon stores, 2) Saddam's unconventional weapon research capabilities, 3) Iraq civilian infrastructure, and 4) how to replace an authoritarian regime . . . was not very good. I take that back . . . to be clear it wasn't good at all. For those that call this operation a "success" and the pre-war intelligence "good" . . . wouldn't you hate to see what happens when Rumsfeld describes . . . "a REALLY long hard slog."
Pollack's book could NOT possibly be based on the quality of intelligence available to Congress b/c the Senate (at least) is still demanding access to what they consider vital pre-war intelligence from the White House. Of course, Pollack can reach conclusion as to the "case for war" b/c who needs evidence when you've got a crusade.
You question my morality but clearly you lack anything resembling a moral compass yourself. I NEVER stated nor implied Saddam was a good man. I never implied Saddam was almost decent. I doubt I even called Saddam least onerous despot in his region. Do you think Saddam killed (or displaced) more people than the Sandinistas, Noreiga, Marcos . . . then you get to people like Sudharto, Pinochet?! Of course that was before Bush's time . . . but more importantly it was coincident with our support for all of those regimes PLUS Saddam. By your logic I was roaming my elementary school begging Reagan to support Iraq in their unprovoked invasion of Iran . . . oops I imagine Saddam would call it pre-emptive.
Damn lying administration officials appear to be taking this report as truth
Saddam has NEVER been good . . . but he's certainly less bad than some of the people the US has supported in the past and present. Now that the war (I mean major combat) is over we can reflect on what has been done and what can be learned. There should be no doubt that pre-war intelligence as to 1)Saddam's unconventional weapon stores, 2) Saddam's unconventional weapon research capabilities, 3) Iraq civilian infrastructure, and 4) how to replace an authoritarian regime . . . was not very good. I take that back . . . to be clear it wasn't good at all. For those that call this operation a "success" and the pre-war intelligence "good" . . . wouldn't you hate to see what happens when Rumsfeld describes . . . "a REALLY long hard slog."
the YABA's will spin a new story every day
what a pathetic bunch of blind Bush-lite adoring sheep.
what a pathetic bunch of blind Bush-lite adoring sheep.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter