Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

US and UK blocked it.

When?

Continuously for those 12 years. They fought any efforts to lift or relax the sanctions. That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because the US got it.

 

[Genx87]

Continuously for those 12 years. They fought any efforts to lift or relax the sanctions. That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because the US got it.

I need an instance of this, not a general blanket statement of "Through the 12 years".
That is a pointless thing to say and lends zero credibility to the argument.

If the UN wanted to lift the sanctions I am surprised there wouldnt have been a single resolution addressing it or a vote in the general assembly asking the security council to lift the sanctions.

Surely you will come back with something more concrete next time right?

P.S. Your justifying the stealing by certain countries from the Iraqis is quite sad.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.

that is what it's all about. a consperacy theory to invade a nation over a decade later.


manyoursmartiwishiwheremorelikeyou

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, it seems based on what was (not) found, the thread title is correct.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, it seems based on what was (not) found, the thread title is correct.

Yup and imagine if Huessein cooperated through the 12 years leading upto war where we would be today

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BBond
Topic Title: Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong
Topic Summary: Bush administration hid evidence of Iraq WMD destruction

Sadly it doesn't matter.

Just like an entire Country followed their Fealess Liar in the 1930's the U.S. is doing the same thing.

 

[Genx87]

Fealess Liar in the 1930's

FDR?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.

that is what it's all about. a consperacy theory to invade a nation over a decade later.


manyoursmartiwishiwheremorelikeyou

But that's precisely what it IS.

The neocons urged Bush1 to go all the way to Baghdad. They urged Clinton in a letter you can read at PBS Frontline site to invade Iraq in 1998, IIRC. I believe the piece is called "The Long Road to War".

Wolfowitz wrote a 1992 Defence Planning Guidance that had to be re-written by Cheney because it was so radical it wouldn't ever be accepted by Americans. Yet that became the policy of the U.S. government in 2001 when those same radical neocons took control of the government.

Those are the facts. If you don't want to admit them don't expect me to ignore them.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Fealess Liar in the 1930's

FDR?

AH

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Continuously for those 12 years. They fought any efforts to lift or relax the sanctions. That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because the US got it.

I need an instance of this, not a general blanket statement of "Through the 12 years".
That is a pointless thing to say and lends zero credibility to the argument.

If the UN wanted to lift the sanctions I am surprised there wouldnt have been a single resolution addressing it or a vote in the general assembly asking the security council to lift the sanctions.

Surely you will come back with something more concrete next time right?

P.S. Your justifying the stealing by certain countries from the Iraqis is quite sad.

Are you denying that US and UK were the forces behind maintaining the sanctions on Iraq? Where have you been for the last 12 years? Do your own research. Even the administration claims that one of the reasons for going to war was because the sanctions regime could weaken and Iraq could get WMD's.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast...q.sanctions/index.html

Russia, China and France say Iraq needs immediate relief from nine years of crippling economic sanctions, but the United States and Britain strongly disagree.

 

[BBond]

Here we go once again...

PNAC -- note the signatories.

The Long Road to War -- read it. Or watch it. But please stop ignoring it.

The War Behind Closed Doors -- see above.

I linked to PBS Frontline because they do such a good job of compiling and presenting the information. There are myriad news reports that do the same but here they are all in one place.

Have a good read.

 

[raildogg]

Do you have posters of Saddam in your bedroom? BBond

 

[Genx87]

But that's precisely what it IS.

You really have to be out there to believe people would create something like this for 12 years and strike. If they really wanted to take Iraq then they would have in 1991. Nothing was stopping them.

The neocons urged Bush1 to go all the way to Baghdad. They urged Clinton in a letter you can read at PBS Frontline site to invade Iraq in 1998, IIRC. I believe the piece is called "The Long Road to War".

Why do you need to goto the PBS website? Why not look it up right on theirs? btw did you know they also wrote Clinton a note tell him they believed the U.S. needs to take out Milosevik? What grand conspiracy can you drum up from that? Were they just trying to lull Muslims into a trap and make them think we are really their friends then lashout at Iraq 6 years later?

Wolfowitz wrote a 1992 Defence Planning Guidance that had to be re-written by Cheney because it was so radical it wouldn't ever be accepted by Americans. Yet that became the policy of the U.S. government in 2001 when those same radical neocons took control of the government.

Wrong that became policy of the United States in 1997 when Congress passed a resolution calling for regime change in Iraq and Clinton signed it. So what is Clinton then? Is he a neo-con?

Those are the facts. If you don't want to admit them don't expect me to ignore them.

Sadly some people really do believe those to be the fact. Probably why we have such a divide in this country. One side gets it and the other lives off a fantasy world where Saddam was a nice guy who got a bum rap for invading two countries and killing hundreds of thousands of his own people.
9-11 never happened, or at least not the way we remember. And it was the United States fault in the first place. Terrorists are now freedom fighters eventhough they want nothing to do with the process of creating a free Iraq.

So we need to go on?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, it seems based on what was (not) found, the thread title is correct.

Yup and imagine if Huessein cooperated through the 12 years leading upto war where we would be today

Same place we are now. The US would never acknowledge his cooperation. They would say he is lying about destroying those weapons, etc. It's impossible to prove a negative.
Anyways, US got what it wanted, now what? It's stuck in a quagmire with no honorable way out.

 

[rickn]

who is the crazy one again?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond
Here we go once again...

PNAC -- note the signatories.

The Long Road to War -- read it. Or watch it. But please stop ignoring it.

The War Behind Closed Doors -- see above.

I linked to PBS Frontline because they do such a good job of compiling and presenting the information. There are myriad news reports that do the same but here they are all in one place.

Have a good read.

Yes notice the statement of principles of pnac

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Do you have posters of Saddam in your bedroom? BBond

So, do you have posters of babies with limbs blown off in your bedroom?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Do you have posters of Saddam in your bedroom? BBond

I have neither Saddam or Bush in my room.

Based on what has been found, does it seem that Bushes claim of WMDs actually being in Iraq is correct, or that Saddams claim that there were none is right?

Based on what was found mind you.

 

[Genx87]

Are you denying that US and UK were the forces behind maintaining the sanctions on Iraq? Where have you been for the last 12 years? Do your own research. Even the administration claims that one of the reasons for going to war was because the sanctions regime could weaken and Iraq could get WMD's.

Did you even read your own article? Nowhere in does it state the US or UK were going to block lifting of the sanctions. China, France, and Russia wanted to ease the sanctions a bit. But nowhere in it does it state the sanctions will be lifted outright. The resolution you are referring to is 1284. Go look it up and read what it says. It clearly states Iraq must still comply with their ceasefire agreement to allow inspections.

btw it doesnt surprise me at all China, Russia, and France wanted to expand the program. They were making billions already off the backs of the Iraqis. Why not make it easier and more lucrative for themselves?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

But that's precisely what it IS.

You really have to be out there to believe people would create something like this for 12 years and strike. If they really wanted to take Iraq then they would have in 1991. Nothing was stopping them.

The neocons urged Bush1 to go all the way to Baghdad. They urged Clinton in a letter you can read at PBS Frontline site to invade Iraq in 1998, IIRC. I believe the piece is called "The Long Road to War".

Why do you need to goto the PBS website? Why not look it up right on theirs? btw did you know they also wrote Clinton a note tell him they believed the U.S. needs to take out Milosevik? What grand conspiracy can you drum up from that? Were they just trying to lull Muslims into a trap and make them think we are really their friends then lashout at Iraq 6 years later?

Wolfowitz wrote a 1992 Defence Planning Guidance that had to be re-written by Cheney because it was so radical it wouldn't ever be accepted by Americans. Yet that became the policy of the U.S. government in 2001 when those same radical neocons took control of the government.

Wrong that became policy of the United States in 1997 when Congress passed a resolution calling for regime change in Iraq and Clinton signed it. So what is Clinton then? Is he a neo-con?

Those are the facts. If you don't want to admit them don't expect me to ignore them.

Sadly some people really do believe those to be the fact. Probably why we have such a divide in this country. One side gets it and the other lives off a fantasy world where Saddam was a nice guy who got a bum rap for invading two countries and killing hundreds of thousands of his own people.
9-11 never happened, or at least not the way we remember. And it was the United States fault in the first place. Terrorists are now freedom fighters eventhough they want nothing to do with the process of creating a free Iraq.

So we need to go on?

Here you go with your linking 911 and Iraq. Your arguements are bankrupt. They led to nothing but squander of 1500 and rising US lives, countless thousands Iraqi lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, US international prestige and credibility, preparedness and morale of US armed forces, etc and so on. If you want to continue on this path for another 4 years, I feel bad for this country.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: raildogg
Do you have posters of Saddam in your bedroom? BBond

So, do you have posters of babies with limbs blown off in your bedroom?

wow. wow

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Continuously for those 12 years. They fought any efforts to lift or relax the sanctions. That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because the US got it.

I need an instance of this, not a general blanket statement of "Through the 12 years".
That is a pointless thing to say and lends zero credibility to the argument.

If the UN wanted to lift the sanctions I am surprised there wouldnt have been a single resolution addressing it or a vote in the general assembly asking the security council to lift the sanctions.

Surely you will come back with something more concrete next time right?

P.S. Your justifying the stealing by certain countries from the Iraqis is quite sad.

Sanctions Against Iraq

The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When the coalition war had ousted Iraq from Kuwait the following year, the Council did not lift the sanctions, keeping them in place as leverage to press for Iraqi disarmament and other goals. The sanctions remained in place thereafter, despite a harsh impact on innocent Iraqi civilians and an evident lack of pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. A UN "Oil-for-Food Programme," started in late 1997, offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continued. The US and UK governments always made it clear that they would block any lifting or serious reforming of sanctions as long as Hussein remained in power. After more than twelve years of sanctions had passed, the US and the UK made war on Iraq again in March, 2003, sweeping away Hussein's government. Soon after, Washington called for and obtained the lifting of sanctions, a step that gave the US occupation authority full control over Iraq's oil sales and oil industry. This section covers a wide range of sanction issues, including the humanitarian impact, the Oil-for-Food Programme, criticisms of the sanctions and the debate that took place about their termination.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
None of the documentation either way changes the truth one whit. No nuclear program, no wmd's, no links to al qaeda worthy of the term- zero, zip, nada, nothing. Just a very expensive and fruitless war dragged in on the coattails of a lot of fearmongering and misdirection over 9/11, justified and sold on the basis of a great deal of supposition and cherry-picking of intelligence, much of it supplied by Iranian sponsored exile groups...

The decision made was based on the information and documentation we had back then. It's easy to view this through the hindsight microscope and dissect it at this point in time. It wasn't as easy or simple in 2002/2003. Not a single person in this forum could, at the tim, claim with any real confidence or knowledge that Saddam did not have WMDs. If they tried it was nothing more than the hope and crossed-fingers that they weren't actually there. Nobody knew with absolute certainty. Saddam was evasive, obstructive, a liar and manipulator, and had hidden WMDs in the past. It was not even close to a stretch to believe he still had WMDs. He fostered that impression right up to the end as well. The report to the UN could have clarified everything. Why did Iraq not take the opportunity to do that? Was it really something so self-centered and egotistical as Saddam not wanting to lose face in front of his Arab brothers? Would you potentially sacrifice the welfare of tens of millions of people for your own personal ethos of machismo?

Whatever Blix believed, TLC, we'll never know unless he tells us, unless you can successfully represent yourself as the next Kreskin... but we know what he said, and that was that his work would be completed in a matter of months from march 7, 2003- months that the Bush admin refused to allow him in their rush to war...

I really don't care what he believed as beliefs are usually tainted by personal biases. I do know what he said and he said that Iraq, given one last chance to be in compliance, was once again non-compliant.

His prognostication concerning the future of inspections and when they would be completed was meaningless and came off as little more than a deterence tactic. It was hard to swallow as well considering they couldn't do it in 12+ years previously.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, it seems based on what was (not) found, the thread title is correct.

Yup and imagine if Huessein cooperated through the 12 years leading upto war where we would be today

That statement is totally devoid of any cognitive reasoning.

 

[Genx87]

Same place we are now. The US would never acknowledge his cooperation. They would say he is lying about destroying those weapons, etc. It's impossible to prove a negative.
Anyways, US got what it wanted, now what? It's stuck in a quagmire with no honorable way out.

Wasnt just the United States.

Unless of course you consider kicking out the UN staff in 1998 cooperating. :disgust: