TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
The UN made it very clear that they had no intent to do a damn thing about Iraq because certain countries were more interested in backdoor deals with Saddam than following through with the resolutions. Why do you think we dicked around with Saddam for so long in the first place?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Truth to you is whatever you can distort by telling half-truths and the portions of the stories, sprinkled with revisionist rhetoric and anti-war talking points, that you want people to hear.
When the entire truth is brought to bear you end up standing on bloody stumps though because your legs get cut out right from underneath you.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
This was let out last year about his interrogator.
I can't remember if I had figured out before reading this that he must have bluffed to keep Iran away or not, but it certainly makes sense. He obviously had nothing, so why lie about it? Only motive is to make people think he had it--but no smoking gun, so it was a fine balance to keep the US out but Iran scared enough to not attack.
Um, this vindicates the stance that it was a phony war. How are you spinning it? He had nothing, but we've known that for almost five years anyway.
The guy was very close to Saddam post-capture for MONTHS. I'd say he is well informed.
I don't think the US was ever truly worried about losing a lot of troops. I don't feel he was trying to look tough to the US; to the contrary he was trying to be cooperative to just enough of a degree to seed doubt in the UN and other countries that maybe he doesn't need to be attacked while keeping things enough of a question that Iran would think twice itself about something.
Well, of course. I cannot prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist, but it doesn't exclude the possibility, right?
Yes he was but he was also doing a little bit of dicking around here and there--he WAS making life difficult. Hans Blix said as much. He was mostly cooperative, but not 100%. He needed a seed of doubt to remain, which it did.
The UN is a pig, but the reason other countries didn't go along in great part is because there was no smoking gun. Can you imagine how many presidents/prime ministers in the past few years have probably written person letters of thanks to their cabinet for not pushing them into this fvcking mess because their advisors were smarter than those Bush & Blair had? In '03 I came down on Canada in these forums for being lazy pussies and not joining in this righteous mess. Canada clearly made the right decision in the end! But I was spoon fed the same nonsense most of us were and not just that but I looked through it with an uncritical eye and ignorance, again as many of us did. Hopefully I can do better next time!
I can't remember if I had figured out before reading this that he must have bluffed to keep Iran away or not, but it certainly makes sense. He obviously had nothing, so why lie about it? Only motive is to make people think he had it--but no smoking gun, so it was a fine balance to keep the US out but Iran scared enough to not attack.
Um, this vindicates the stance that it was a phony war. How are you spinning it? He had nothing, but we've known that for almost five years anyway.
The guy was very close to Saddam post-capture for MONTHS. I'd say he is well informed.
I don't think the US was ever truly worried about losing a lot of troops. I don't feel he was trying to look tough to the US; to the contrary he was trying to be cooperative to just enough of a degree to seed doubt in the UN and other countries that maybe he doesn't need to be attacked while keeping things enough of a question that Iran would think twice itself about something.
Well, of course. I cannot prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist, but it doesn't exclude the possibility, right?
Yes he was but he was also doing a little bit of dicking around here and there--he WAS making life difficult. Hans Blix said as much. He was mostly cooperative, but not 100%. He needed a seed of doubt to remain, which it did.
The UN is a pig, but the reason other countries didn't go along in great part is because there was no smoking gun. Can you imagine how many presidents/prime ministers in the past few years have probably written person letters of thanks to their cabinet for not pushing them into this fvcking mess because their advisors were smarter than those Bush & Blair had? In '03 I came down on Canada in these forums for being lazy pussies and not joining in this righteous mess. Canada clearly made the right decision in the end! But I was spoon fed the same nonsense most of us were and not just that but I looked through it with an uncritical eye and ignorance, again as many of us did. Hopefully I can do better next time!
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 176
- 106
Wouldn't do a damn thing? You just said they had Charter VII UN sanctions against them. The UN was also sending in weapons inspectors. In fact, the US invasion began before the weapons inspections were completed.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
1) The inspections would have never been complete. Saddam wanted the shread of doubt to exist to protect himself from his enemies.
2) The UN was also back dooring actions against the sanctions at the same time they were spouting off abou thow the sanctions were working.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Saddam was also banking on the US president using, you know, good sense:
"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Cheney, 1992
The was was sold three ways form breakfast. WMD was the one that stuck. But the war never had anything to do with anything other than the PNAC doctrine. The war was on the day the Neocons seized the opportunity of 9/11
You were played like a pack of blood lusting fools and thanks to you gullible stupidity we went from a Nation with great sympathy to one that's hated. And because of your disgusting big fat egos you don't want to see it.
You were played like a pack of blood lusting fools and thanks to you gullible stupidity we went from a Nation with great sympathy to one that's hated. And because of your disgusting big fat egos you don't want to see it.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
:roll:
The "PNAC doctrine," as anyone who has actually read it knows already, advised that we maintain a policy of containment in regard to Saddam and Iraq, not invasion. Claiming that PNAC had anything to do with Iraq is a joyful display of unobstructed ignorance.
The "PNAC doctrine," as anyone who has actually read it knows already, advised that we maintain a policy of containment in regard to Saddam and Iraq, not invasion. Claiming that PNAC had anything to do with Iraq is a joyful display of unobstructed ignorance.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
You are forgetting one HUGE point.
After Gulf War 1 Saddam had to provide PROOF that he had destroyed his WMD.
Which creates a huge catch-22. If Saddam didn?t have any WMD (by the late 90s early 2000 period) how could he prove that he had destroyed his WMD?
If you read through Hans Blix?s statement you will see this thread repeated several times. Saddam was offering more help and more documents, but never provided anything real or substantial. We could have left the inspectors in there forever and they would have never found proof that Saddam had destroyed his WMD. Which would have always left us wondering where his WMD was hiding.
I had this show recorded and just recently watched it. I'm surprised nobody mentioned wjat I thought was one of the most interesting things.
So much for the whole Iraq - Al Quaida connection.
So much for the whole Iraq - Al Quaida connection.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
It wasn't Iraq Al-Quaida... It was Iraq and terrerism... There's a difference.
And there was a terrer connection to Iraq. He was paying cash to the families of suicide bombers in Israel among other things.
Not that I'm a fan of the war... just a fan of accuracy.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That TLC contention is only valid if neocon's themselves regard PNAC as written as a biblical
like text immutable to further modifications once fortuitous opportunities arose.
And becomes only so much more garbage when many of the neocon original authors of PNAC become cheerleaders for the Iraqi invasion.
Nice try TLC, but that one will not fly.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
What about all the Dems who wanted to use force before GWB was even in office? Who were they fooled by? And what about all the Dems who voted for use of force afterwards? They were all tricked and absolutely too stupid to do any research other than what came of the oval office? Since when do the opposing parties take ANYTHING at the word of the other? Or maybe they are part of PNAC also?
Jesus. Wake up.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The blackaigst1 contentions are slightly more subtle to debunk but equally bogus.
1. Its true, on a verbal level democrats and republicans were falling all over themselves to out demonize the other in various bash Saddam speeches. It red raw strong on America chest thumping stuff. And a sure crowd pleasing line unlikely to excite any domestic opposition. But basically, past the speech there was no action other than GWB to marry the speech into an action.
2. The so called Iraqi congressional resolution was not a per say vote for war, it was a vote to give the President the strongest congressional backed negotiating stance possible.
A blank check many would not have written if they were sure GWB would cash it without negotiating first and being forced to cash it as a last available response. But any student of history couldn't fail to see Saddam furious backpeddling his tough guy stance when he realized GWB intended to invade. And Saddam would have allowed inspectors back in and was furious dismantling missiles a few miles over treaty limits.
3. Its a myth to say that EVERYONE in the intelligence community were sure Saddam had WMD. There were many disturbing reports to the contrary that were basically ignored
in the GWB cherry picking process. Even the cited ones like Uranium for Niger and the Aluminum tubes being used to enrich Uranium were already considered dubious within our intelligence community while GWB&co. used those those very dubious reports to beat the war drums.
1. Its true, on a verbal level democrats and republicans were falling all over themselves to out demonize the other in various bash Saddam speeches. It red raw strong on America chest thumping stuff. And a sure crowd pleasing line unlikely to excite any domestic opposition. But basically, past the speech there was no action other than GWB to marry the speech into an action.
2. The so called Iraqi congressional resolution was not a per say vote for war, it was a vote to give the President the strongest congressional backed negotiating stance possible.
A blank check many would not have written if they were sure GWB would cash it without negotiating first and being forced to cash it as a last available response. But any student of history couldn't fail to see Saddam furious backpeddling his tough guy stance when he realized GWB intended to invade. And Saddam would have allowed inspectors back in and was furious dismantling missiles a few miles over treaty limits.
3. Its a myth to say that EVERYONE in the intelligence community were sure Saddam had WMD. There were many disturbing reports to the contrary that were basically ignored
in the GWB cherry picking process. Even the cited ones like Uranium for Niger and the Aluminum tubes being used to enrich Uranium were already considered dubious within our intelligence community while GWB&co. used those those very dubious reports to beat the war drums.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter