Political Crossfire Forums

[Timmytour]

The American wrote: Timmytour wrote: The American wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: The American wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Chingu wrote: The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq said that they had found no WMD - that is true. But that is only part of what they said. Hans Blix also said that they had still not been allowed access to sites unfettered and without warning, that Iraq had failed to present anything substantuially new in their documentation and therefor were not in compliance with the UN resolutions demands. Their job, over 13 years, had been being thwarted by Saddam. This should be clear and inarguable to all. The fact that some people still think that there was any credible evidence that Saddam had destroyed his WMD and related programs is simply not true. The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation. Thiswas one of teh reasons used by Hosni Mubarak for not wanting to get involved in a military confrontation with Egyptian troops in Iraq.

Quote: The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation.
In 1991, Saddam did in fact have a WMD capability yet, did not use it.
Why after 10 years of inspections and the destruction of the vast majority (if not all)
of his WMD capabilities would they think any differently ?

In 1980's, when Saddam forced genocide on his own people, and did in fact have WMD capabilities, why did he use it?

Why after 10 years of shuffling inspectors in and out of the country like a deck of cards, were they not able to access whether he had capability or not? That discovery was not made until after Saddam was removed from power.

Quote: In 1980's, when Saddam forced genocide on his own people, and did in fact have WMD capabilities,
why did he use it?
Because he had the blessing and encouragemnet of the United States Government.
The United States Government issued him a blank check and provided him with military hardware, intelligence, satellite recon photo's in his war against Our mutual enemy, IRAN.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to be the compelling theme of the American Government.
Which is precisely why a large portion of this planet is alligned against the USA today.

8 year war with Iran?

:lol:

I said, on his own people. Maybe you misread. However, if you two didn't, should this administration use the same policy on its opposition in the U.S.?

The question was sarcasm at its worst, as the final question. The question of Saddam not using WMD was answered with why he gassed his own people? Wouldn't these questions be answered more appropriately by Saddam himself? It was his decision.

Saddam´s "own people" were the Kurds who were siding with Iran. They were form a part of Iraq he didn´t really control as later witnessed by the fact that the Iraq National Congress held talks with others about overthrowing him in Northern Iraq in 1992. Amazingly it was an area of Iraq to which some people pointed out the existences of terrorist groups as evidence Saddam harboured them :roll:

That said Saddam should have been condemned outright for his use of chemical weapons by the UN. I dont understand why they didn´t do it. I understand there was one country that effectively vetoed the proposition.......´No wonder he felt emboldened :roll:

They may have been influenced by the Iranian government, however they were still Iraqis. If not so, you could not call it a civil war developing there today? Genocide pretty much brought them under control. Depicting Hussein's innocence of terrorist training camps, they were still operating at the time we moved in and accomplished our mission to remove him from power. Those camps were targeted.

In a nut shell, he didn't care about them, after all, he was an employer to terrorist activities.

Now, addressing the embolden theory, what else was in that proposition?

Trig.

i think we both agree that it was an evil thing Saddam did. Perhaps he considered them traitors or terrorists. In some peoples eyes that justifies such action. Not mine.

But what I didn't see in your response was any referral to the UN and the failure to condemn Iraq outright for it's use of chemical weapons.

What do you think of the country that prevented this form occuring?

What do you think of the only country within the UN that voted against the issuing of a Presidential statement that was non-binding but also over which no members of the Security Council had a veto that declared the UN to be....

Quote: profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops ?

What do you think of the country that removed Iraq from its list of State Sponsors of Terrorism after it was known they had acquired chemical weapons?

What do you think of the country that restored full diplomatic relations with Saddam's Iraq after it was known he had employed those chemical weapons?

It's no wonder, with such support from this country, that Saddam did indeed feel emboldened :shock:

Can you guess what country it is yet?

I think you'll find it was the only country to vote against the UN resolution proposed against Israel condemning its actions in Lebanon.

Plus ca change :roll:

[Etienne]

Chingu wrote: OK, now that you are all done having your little anti-war acedemic psycho-babble - allow me to ask a few pointed questions:

1) Would you prefer that Saddam were still in power?

US invasion wasn't the only means of removing Saddam from power. The US could have supported opposition groups. While removing Saddam was a good thing, it resulted in a power vacuum, the effects of which we are now seeing.

There is also the risk that the Shia, making up 60% of Iraq's population, will dominate any elections in Iraq, and perhaps strengthen ties with Iran...thereby expanding Iran's influence in the region.

Quote: 2) Was it important to find out if Iraq posessed WMD?

That is why the UN Inspectors were there.

Quote: 3) Is it important to live up to your word?

Of course...

Quote: 4) Is the future of IRaq important to the region it is in and the ret of the world?

Iraq has one of the world's largest reserves of oil, so of course it is important. Perhaps this is why the US would like a presence in the country.

Quote: 5) Is it OK to abandon the Iraqi people?

Is it OK to bomb them, killing nearly 200,000 of them? Is it OK not to provide sufficient number of troops to maintain adequate security?

Quote: 6) Is it acceptable to diminish the credibility of the United States by going back on our word?

Credibility was lost when the US invaded because of WMD that didn't exist. Too late for to worry about that.

Quote: 7) Does popular opinion mean that the opinion is correct?

When the evidence has been viewed, and people have had time to think about their views...?

People have had three years to think about the invasion of Iraq, and the justifications given.

Quote: 8) Is it acceptable to allow the terrorists victory in Iraq?

al-Sadr is very much a part of the democratic process in Iraq. Too late to be worrying about this.

Quote: 9) Is it important to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States of America and our allies around the world?

Yes...which is another reason why Iraq has been disastrous for us. The invasion has caused much animosity towards the US.

Quote: 10) Would a war in the nearterm future that is of a far greater scale with far more casualties be an acceptable outcome after prematurely withdrawing from Iraq?

What war? Who would we fight this war against? Where would this war be fought?

Quote: Answer each question honestly if you have the capacity to do that.

OK...