Should I, as a person, be "Anti-Bush?"

[Kazee]

Hi all! This is mostly a troll by virtue of a copy and pasted bit of email spam, but it raises some interesting parallels... I didn't fact check very well ( Read: At All; I have a rapidly advancing and debilitating disease called "Laziness," ) so feel free. :) While I generally agree morally with conservatives, I am a registered Apathist. At least I would be if I ever found time to go and pick up the paperwork...

I guess a good place to start would be to compare the last two presidencies, conveniently enough one Democrat (Who liberals say was the best since Kennedy) and one Republican (Who liberals say should... Well, let's just say it's not a pacifistic sentiment.) I will take it from the Liberal point of view since they have the most experience being Anti-Bush.

Lemme see, have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Clinton bombs Serbs on behalf of Albanian 'terrorists' -good...
Bush 'liberates' 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...
Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Bush believes Entire World when they say WMD in Iraq - bad...
No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy slows under Bush - bad...
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...
Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Ah, it's so confusing. I hope someone can help me.

[Mastgrr]

Some of these are stupid.
Clinton bombs Serbs on behalf of Albanian 'terrorists' -good...
Bush 'liberates' 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton use NATO forces, has international support - good...
Bush ignores evidence, lies (http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/), use Al Qaida who had nothing to do with 9/11 and little or no connection with Saddam (http://www.lindqvist.com/index.php?ID=1197), does not let weapons inspectors do their job by not giving them sufficient time, ignoring building up a sufficient international coalition and support (about 9 out of 10 soldiers are american), bad planning ("They'll greet us with flowers and chocolates!"), stomping over the United Nations insulting the world, moving focus away from the true terrorists which are al qaida - bad....
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad... Clinton not being offered bin Ladin by the Sudanese in the first place (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/21/eveningnews/main625205.shtml) - it'd be better if he would've...
Bush administration ignoring threats and memos called "bin laden determined to strike in the US" and not having a single meeting with the counter-terrorism task force - bad...
Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...Milosevic turned in to the Haag tribunal. - good...
Bush Administration refusing to recognize the Haag war tribunal, thus not giving Saddam to them. - bad...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...
Clinton bomb chinese embassy - bad...
Bush lose spy plane to China - bad...
Bush bombs terrorists camps - good...
Bush letting the taliban regrow in Afghanistan - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad... Ronald Reagan funding, selling weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein's war on Iran - bad...
Ronald Reagan funding, selling weapons to the Taliban on their war against the Soviet Union - bad...

Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction - good...
Bush letting Kim Jung Il who brags about having weapons of mass destruction continue to be. - bad...

[Ryu]

"Bush believes Entire World when they say WMD in Iraq - bad..."


WRONG
Bush goes AGAINST ENTIRE WORLD when they say NO WMD in Iraq - bad

[Bhs Crew]

I guess a good place to start would be to compare the last two presidencies, conveniently enough one Democrat (Who liberals say was the best since Kennedy) and one Republican (Who liberals say should... Well, let's just say it's not a pacifistic sentiment.) I will take it from the Liberal point of view since they have the most experience being Anti-Bush.
I think it's a horrible idea to take it from the liberal's point of view. Sure they're really against Bush but most of them don't have enough of their facts straight to know why (To Eiger, Mastgrr, Essex, and anyone I forgot, I'm not talking about the liberals in this forum, most of you are quite well informed in your hatred of Bush).

None the less I'm bored and I have a few hours until the A's vs. Yankees game so I'll run through this and see what I think.
I may not be a modern liberal but I do hate Bush, so lets see what I can do with this.

Lemme see, have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Now I believe both of these to be bad. No bid contracts are always a horrible idea.

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton did it and managed to balance the budget. Bush has done it and ran a giant deficit. Also while Clinton's one was done with NATO and is for the most part done, Bush's war will cost far more then 87 billion by the time it is completed.

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

See above. I have no problem with Saddam being gone, but getting stuck in Iraq when we already have a giant deficit and we're already fighting a war against a completely different enemy, Al Qeada, is a bad thing.

Clinton bombs Serbs on behalf of Albanian 'terrorists' -good...
Bush 'liberates' 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

I don't know much about the Serb incident so I can't comment on it. The second one is good for Iraq if we pull if off. However that doesn't make it good for America.

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Actually these should be reversed. Clinton got in a fair amount of trouble for bombing the Chinese embassy. It was one of the low points. Bush bombing the terrorist camps was good.

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

Clinton committing perjury was bad. No way around that. Bush landing in the aircraft carrier was a publicity stunt. Can't fault a president for wanting a good photo-op.

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Bush believes Entire World when they say WMD in Iraq - bad...

It was hardly the entire world. Even many people in Bush's cabinet who looked at the information thought it was circumstantial at best.

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Can't comment on the mass graves, as again I don't know much about that conflict. The fact that we haven't found any weapons is bad, though we don't know for sure one way or the other.

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy slows under Bush - bad...

The crash was bad. The economy slowing under bush is also bad. Neither candidate had a huge amount of control over either one. Though Bush has more control over the economy now then Clinton had over the stock market.

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton never got a serious offer to take custody of Bin Laden. Bin Laden was never truly captured and so would not allow himself to be taken custody by the US. Bush can't be faulted a huge amount about the WTC falling but he did step down Clinton's efforts to hunt Bin Laden. Of course Clinton's efforts were mostly hurt by the idiot getting a blow job by an intern and then lying about it under oath.

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

I didn't hear about clinton's quote so I can't comment. If he did it with the same lack of evidence that Bush had then that would be bad as well.

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Here it's all about technique. Clinton called for regime change while in office but they were pursuing plans to get Saddam overthrown by his own people (which was unlikely). Bush actually invaded and took over the country. Now what?

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Well clinton tried to destroy the camps. However he got flack from those everyone when he did because it was assumed that it was a 'Wag the Dog' style misdirection from his domestic problems.
Bush destroyed the camps but then he left and the camps are back.

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Saddam being turned over for trail was good but the fact that he's being prosecuted under a US appointed government makes it process look bad.
Milosevic isn't convicted yet. He will be.

Ah, it's so confusing. I hope someone can help me.
It is confusing. I have tried my best, but of course this sentence was sarcastic.

[SaroDarksbane]

"Bush believes Entire World when they say WMD in Iraq - bad..."


WRONG
Bush goes AGAINST ENTIRE WORLD when they say NO WMD in Iraq - bad
Actually, almost everyone believed he had them; They just didn't want us to invade Iraq to get them (i.e. preferred inspections and such).

[Ryu]

also
before 9/11
ON CAMERA
bush and his administration said flat out iraq did not have wmds or the capability for them atm

[SaroDarksbane]

also
before 9/11
ON CAMERA
bush and his administration said flat out iraq did not have wmds or the capability for them atm
I don't remember that. Have a link to a transcript or the video? Maybe Mastgrr does.

[Andarcel]

Actually, almost everyone believed he had them; They just didn't want us to invade Iraq to get them (i.e. preferred inspections and such).
Not quite so. No serious intelligence community (with the possible exception of the Brits - hard to sort out the political confusion) would have given more than even odds that Saddam had crap. All the affirmative intel besides the yellowcake hornswogling was from defectors, which (surprise!) turned out to be self-serving lies. Most of the informed high school students I know were confident before we ever invaded that we would never find WMD. Great to know we have an administration less competent than a group of reasonably intelligent teenagers. (And yes, I include a few proponents of the war in the "informed" category.) So politicized was the intelligence presented to world leaders, however, that everyone was swept up in the fooforah.

But regardless, it's quite clear now that Saddam had no WMD, no viable WMD programs, no way to get WMD, no way to get or develope a delivery system to the US if he did, and no connection to Al-Quaeda. Yet, Cheney conmtinues to claim that the US is more secure because of the war in Iraq. Someone, please explain to me how this is so. Please tell me how this is not a bald-faced lie when hundreds of US citizens are killed and maimed in the fight, when US popularity is at an all-time low, when we have no plan at all for extracting our forces, and when Al-Quaeda rebuilds itself bigger and better with each passing month.

[Ryu]

and when other countries like north korea have a MUCH better chance to have wmd's

and i knew there wouldnt be wmd's before the war, was in high school atm

[Andarcel]

Should add the SISMA, authors of the yellowcake, as an intel group that believed
Saddam had WMD.

[Suryl]

I don't remember that. Have a link to a transcript or the video? Maybe Mastgrr does.

He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.


I can not provide the links I have as the site has inappropriate (for this site) material on it. The film of the 2 quotes is in a documentary called Breaking the Silence by John Pilger. You can probably search for yourself online and find what you want.

Wanted to say that I wasn't responding to the initial post because I don't usually fact check for those too lazy to fact check for themselves. But I do admire someone who just comes right out and admits it. :thumbsup:

[SaroDarksbane]

Thanks Suryl!

Oh, and as for the yellowcake (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=222) . . .

[ScytheNoire]

i got a WMD right here in my pants, heheheh... :)

[SaroDarksbane]

*refrains from obvious joke about invading Scythe's pants*

[Unreg!stered]

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...


Both bad.

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Clinton bombs Serbs on behalf of Albanian 'terrorists' -good...
Bush 'liberates' 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Bush believes Entire World when they say WMD in Iraq - bad...
No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...


Clinton went in with the aid of Nato and a much stronger coalition then Bush did in Iraq. While liberating the Iraqis was a good thing, it's impossible to tell if they will stay liberated at this rate, and if they do, at what cost to us. With a strong coalition not only does it make a country's actions look better but you can spread out the costs of the war over a bunch of different countries rather than localizing it all on one or two as is the case in the Iraq war.

As for whether you, as a person, should be "Anti-Bush" you shouldn't be Anti-Bush the person. However, there is a very strong case for being Anti-Bush actions and policies.

[Coltaine]

Actually, almost everyone believed he had them; They just didn't want us to invade Iraq to get them (i.e. preferred inspections and such).

To say it in the words of Fischer the Germans Foreign Minister:
"I'm not convincted."

(when the US defense secretary laid out his arguments for war at the Munich security conference in February 2003.)

And since all of you like sources: my source (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-7-2004_pg7_46)

[Kronaus]

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Please, tell me, where did you get this $87 billion figure from? That's the SECOND amount appropriated for the Iraq invasion. Originally, in April of 2003, Congress also signed a bill allowing $79 million. Now, these two amounts were not for the sole purpose of invading Iraq. They were also used for military and reconstruction costs in Afghanistan and for additional foreign aid to support nearby countries - such as Jordan, Egypt, and Israel.

Congress estimated that a total of $135 billion of these monies allocated would be used in the war on Iraq. This figure does not include the interest cost the US will have to repay, since we are in such a financial pothole to begin with.

As for the rest of it, I believe it's been taken care of.

[Leon[fp]]

Actually, almost everyone believed he had them; They just didn't want us to invade Iraq to get them (i.e. preferred inspections and such).

That's odd since that's not how I remember "us" thinking. We wanted inspections to determine whether there were weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't yet confirmed, you see. That's what inspections are for. Makes sense.

[SaroDarksbane]

']That's odd since that's not how I remember "us" thinking. We wanted inspections to determine whether there were weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't yet confirmed, you see. That's what inspections are for. Makes sense.
Although arguably the way we handled it was even worse:

Either we should have just gone in and said "Screw the inspections", or we should not have gone in at all.

All this, "sit around and wait for a few months while Saddam does God knows what, and then attack" was probably a mistake in retrospect.

[Leon[fp]]

Either we should have just gone in and said "Screw the inspections", or we should not have gone in at all.

I don't understand. You need to have a clear reason to invade a country, otherwise it's just outright aggression. Inspections were necessary.

[SaroDarksbane]

But the inspections didn't find anything anyway, so how could we use the inspections to justify the invasion now?

All we really did is give him time to bury anything he might have had.

[Leon[fp]]

Indeed, how could the inspection justify it? Well, they could justify not going. Anyway, with your reasoning, you can attack any country you like.

[SaroDarksbane]

Well, they could justify not going.
Indeed, but since we went anyway, it seems counterproductive to give him the time to prepare beforehand.

[the_guse]

"Bush believes Entire World when they say WMD in Iraq - bad..."


WRONG
Bush goes AGAINST ENTIRE WORLD when they say NO WMD in Iraq - bad

i dont know why ppl continue to say that world leaders "said" saddam had no WWD's when it was a FACT he had them. he used them against iran, against his own ppl, and used some during the first gulf war. it's wasnt a question wether he had them or not, it was his capability to use them that was under question. the majority of the international comminuty agreed that saddam had no meens to attack a US alli under his own accord. what scares me now is where did all the WWD's go? did saddam use them all? i hope to god he did.

But the inspections didn't find anything anyway, so how could we use the inspections to justify the invasion now?

the inspections didn't find anything because they pulled out before they could finnish. would it have mattered if they did? saddam wasn't cooperating with the inspectors, and hans blix would of just said in the end "i dunno if hes got anything". even if the international comminuty backed the war it wouldnt of changed the poorly designed rebuilding process. the french have what, 6 ppl in thier army? the germans cant fight an offensive war, it's against thier constitution. ppl all over the world would still hate americans. you guys can speculate all you want, but i beleive nothing would of changed if the inspectors finnished thier job; wether they found WWD's or not.

[Coltaine]

i dont know why ppl continue to say that world leaders "said" saddam had no WWD's when it was a FACT he had them. he used them against iran, against his own ppl, and used some during the first gulf war. it's wasnt a question wether he had them or not, it was his capability to use them that was under question. the majority of the international comminuty agreed that saddam had no meens to attack a US alli under his own accord. what scares me now is where did all the WWD's go? did saddam use them all? i hope to god he did.

Well i got a different impression.
We all know he had them at some point.
WE don't know if he had any the last 2-3 years. All i can say is, that germanys ruling politicians were no where near convinced that he still had any at that point.

And for beeing mislead by the evil CIA. I read an articel in an well established newmagazin teh "Spiegel" that there was quite an pressure in the CIA to create some proof for the existance of WMD.

[the_guse]

Well i got a different impression.
We all know he had them at some point.
WE don't know if he had any the last 2-3 years. All i can say is, that germanys ruling politicians were no where near convinced that he still had any at that point.

And for beeing mislead by the evil CIA. I read an articel in an well established newmagazin teh "Spiegel" that there was quite an pressure in the CIA to create some proof for the existance of WMD.

ok then let's assume the international comminuty agreed he didn't have them anymore. where did they all go? don't you think it's in the world's best interest to find that out?

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

what scares me now is where did all the WWD's go? did saddam use them all? i hope to god he did.

The U.S. found, and this was agreed by the U.N., satalite images and documents showing large transport cargos going from Iraq to either Syria or Sudan(can't remember exactly which) shortly before the U.S. invasion. My guess is that is where they are. That is assuming they haven't been moved from there.

ppl all over the world would still hate americans. you guys can speculate all you want, but i beleive nothing would of changed if the inspectors finnished thier job; wether they found WWD's or not

My sentiments exactly. Though I don't agree we should have invaded Iraq under the pretense of WMD's(there were plenty of others), the international outlook on the U.S. wouldn't have changed a damn bit. As I've said before, throughout history the most powerful country is ALWAYS the most spit upon by everyone else, regardless of their actions. Envy is alot stronger than most people think.

[Sage the Mage]

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy slows under Bush - bad...
Stock market crashes in 2000. 2000. So much room to fix things yes? Clinton definately had nothing to do with this, though. It was the .com bubble that burst.
Bush - Tax cuts - Minor result. More tax cuts. Major increase of spending. Suggests more tax cuts. He broke the golden rule of republicans: to cut back spending.

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Clinton's a liberal on foreign policy. He'd have gone in there with UN support.

[Suryl]

The U.S. found, and this was agreed by the U.N., satalite images and documents showing large transport cargos going from Iraq to either Syria or Sudan(can't remember exactly which) shortly before the U.S. invasion. My guess is that is where they are. That is assuming they haven't been moved from there.


First of all Iraq is seperated from Sudan by Saudia Arabia and the Red Sea. Secondly, no. Neither the UN, the IAEA nor our government is saying that. And I think it's safe to say if our government thought it could get away with saying that, they would be saying it.

There were no wmds to be found because there were no wmds.

Before you mention how they once had them, please remember the events that occurred after they were last KNOWN to have had them. Gulf War. Inspections during which some were destroyed. The years tha passed degrading any stockpiles that might have existed.

You shouldn't be afraid of Iraq or their wmds. They were never a threat to us. Heck they actually had wmds at the start of the Gulf War and didn't use them. They had no intent of attacking the US. They had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. They had no delivery systems. They had no ties with Al Qeada. And Bin Laden called for Hussein's overthrow as much as he called for America's.

If you want to be afraid, try doing some research on what is going on in Afghanistan (concentrate on the southern region) right now. People still remember them right? The place we all but left in order to attack Iraq.

Or check out the subs Rev Moon sold to North Korea. That can cause some sleepness nights.

[Pongle]

Saddam had them against Iran.. guess where he got them from?

THE USA, THATS WHERE.

[SaroDarksbane]

Saddam had them against Iran.. guess where he got them from?

THE USA, THATS WHERE.
From what I've heard, the US sold him a bunch of helicopters for non-combat purposes, and sent several strains of bacteria to Iraqi medical institutes.

I think that hardly qualifies as the US shipping him WMD to use against Iran.

Feel free to prove me wrong, of course. That's just what I've come up with after searching.

[the_guse]

First of all Iraq is seperated from Sudan by Saudia Arabia and the Red Sea. Secondly, no. Neither the UN, the IAEA nor our government is saying that. And I think it's safe to say if our government thought it could get away with saying that, they would be saying it.

There were no wmds to be found because there were no wmds.

Before you mention how they once had them, please remember the events that occurred after they were last KNOWN to have had them. Gulf War. Inspections during which some were destroyed. The years tha passed degrading any stockpiles that might have existed.

You shouldn't be afraid of Iraq or their wmds. They were never a threat to us. Heck they actually had wmds at the start of the Gulf War and didn't use them. They had no intent of attacking the US. They had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. They had no delivery systems. They had no ties with Al Qeada. And Bin Laden called for Hussein's overthrow as much as he called for America's.

If you want to be afraid, try doing some research on what is going on in Afghanistan (concentrate on the southern region) right now. People still remember them right? The place we all but left in order to attack Iraq.

Or check out the subs Rev Moon sold to North Korea. That can cause some sleepness nights.


there should be evidence of spent WWD's such as the seran gas he used on his own ppl, or even depleated stock piles of WWD's that were never used, but that's not the case. there's no evidence. iraq lacked the capability, and the funding to dispose of the WWD's. saying saddam never had WWD's is ignorant to say the least.
--i do agree the war was unjustified, because he[saddam] lacked the ability to attack the US, with or without WWD's. i also agree iraq had no ties with al-quada. so please don't mistake me for someone trying to prove the war in iraq is justified.

[ScytheNoire]

know what they need to do.

in this upcoming election, all those who vote for Bush, they automatically get recruited for duty to go to war so him and his friends can make more money.

i'm sure all those Bush supporters in here are willing to go to other countries and kill people or die themselves so that Bush can make more money.

but, if you are still here and not willing to go murder and die for Bush, then shut the hell up, and stop voting for the worlds largest terrorist, G.W. Bush.

Terrorists aren't causing Terror in America, it's the freakin' US Government that is causing the terror. remind me again about how Bush's government ignored all the warning signs, helped their Middle East oil friends, and have made trillions on this war.

so if you aren't out there killing for Bush or dying for Bush, shut the hell up.

[Eiger]

Now I believe both of these to be bad. No bid contracts are always a horrible idea.


Just a quick comment. Unfortunately, no bid contracts are often necessary for the sake of expediency. Sometimes you have to get stuff done fast. The problem is with "cost plus" contracts which is what the Halliburton contract in Iraq is. This allows them to charge all costs incurred and add a profit to it. Sounds reasonable on the surface until you find them abandoning expensive vehicles rather than make a minor repair among other things and charging the government for the cost of the vehicle...

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

First of all Iraq is seperated from Sudan by Saudia Arabia and the Red Sea. Secondly, no. Neither the UN, the IAEA nor our government is saying that. And I think it's safe to say if our government thought it could get away with saying that, they would be saying it.


I will give you the benifit of the doubt here since I don't remember you taking part in past discussions so you really wouldn't know my viewpoint of the subject.

First of all, that is why I added the or. I was tired and couldn't remember which it was, it was Syria.

Secondly, yes, read what I said again. I didn't say the U.N. and the U.S. straight out said they confirmed it was a weapons transport, I simply said several transports were made from Iraq to Syria, *but* it is unclear what they were. My personal opinion is it was a weapons transport, the timing and size of the transport tends to make me believe it was a little more than pure coincidence.

There were no wmds to be found because there were no wmds.

I never said otherwise, but I will now. There have been, as you then point out in your next sentence, weapons. Where at they? I doubt we'll ever find them in Iraq, but the point still stands, they were there. Were they dismantled? Unlikely seeing as Saddam refused to save his sorry little butt by simply proving they were dismantled. If there were no weapons, why deny weapons inspectors? I think that much is pretty much common sense. They obviously couldn't have used everything they had against us in the very short time the "war" lasted.

The years tha passed degrading any stockpiles that might have existed.

Somehow I think you have about as much proof to back that up as I have proof that Saddam continued making weapons after the war that he was not allowed to. In both cases it is merely a matter of difference of opinion.

You shouldn't be afraid of Iraq or their wmds. They were never a threat to us.

And you never heard me say otherwise. I have been adamantly against going to war in Iraq in persuit of WMDs, because quite frankly you are right, we were never in any danger from Iraq.

Heck they actually had wmds at the start of the Gulf War and didn't use them. They had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Actually it is pretty common knowledge by now that many soldiers came back with all types of problems after the Gulf War, problems caused by chemical/biological weapons. I could even introduce you to a couple, including a man who never had a breathing problem in his life and came back with a violent case of athsma. In all honesty you can ask around to people who were there and chances are they will know of someone who developed some type of illness during their stay. So unless you want to put on your tin foil hat and tell me our own government did it in order to test OUR weapons, then you are wrong.

But I think before we continue this discussion, we need to gain a better definition of what your opinion of a WMD is. You say they had WMDS but no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, so what exactly are you considering a WMD?

Edit: For clarification.

[Bhs Crew]

Just a quick comment. Unfortunately, no bid contracts are often necessary for the sake of expediency. Sometimes you have to get stuff done fast. The problem is with "cost plus" contracts which is what the Halliburton contract in Iraq is. This allows them to charge all costs incurred and add a profit to it. Sounds reasonable on the surface until you find them abandoning expensive vehicles rather than make a minor repair among other things and charging the government for the cost of the vehicle...
I never understood why a company can make a bid and then is allowed to go over. I say if a company starts work, makes a bid and then goes over you dump them and take new bids on finishing the job.

As for the no bid contracts I’d prefer the job to be done right rather than fast. We're going to be rebuilding Iraq for many years, who cares if it takes a little longer?

[Eiger]

I never understood why a company can make a bid and then is allowed to go over. I say if a company starts work, makes a bid and then goes over you dump them and take new bids on finishing the job.

As for the no bid contracts I’d prefer the job to be done right rather than fast. We're going to be rebuilding Iraq for many years, who cares if it takes a little longer?
They're allowed to go over by getting change orders - basically add ons or changes to the contract that the agency agrees to. You'll find these on almost every construction contract ever done. Sounds good to dump the contractor, but delays the project, transitions can be difficult, etc etc. Depends on the situation whether this is possible and how the contract was initially negotiated.

Halliburton's doing more than just rebuilding Iraq - I believe they also do a lot of logistics for the armed forces which used to be military ops, but have been privatized in the last few decades. And that that's the main reason for the quick no bid contract - they needed this done quickly. A big govt contract can take a looong time to implement when done right. 6 months to a year is fairly normal from concept to signed documents. There's a whole lot of process in there to safeguard a lot of public interests.

[Bhs Crew]

Isn't the pentagon investigating Halliburton for overcharging them? I seem to remember something.

Oh well, it's not like I expected the government to be free of corruption or anything.

[SaroDarksbane]

*Removed by Saro*

[Drakeon]

ahh Why'd you remove the post saro?

Guess I was one of the only ones to read it...

[SaroDarksbane]

It was in bad taste, IMO.

I like Scythe generally, so I didn't want to ruin a good thing with a rant that won't accomplish anything anyway.

[Bartleby]

Did anyone read the latest issue of time, specifically an article called Citizen Clinton? He defends Bush's actions in Iraq, says the whole Iraq for oil line is nonsense, and his only suggestion would've been to stick it out longer with the UN, even though he conceded it didn't appear to be going anywhere and decisive action was needed. He said Bush was faced with a bunch of really tough decisions and had done as well as any could have (not exceptional, but good), but he disagreed with the timing of the tax cuts and he said that he believed Kerry would be a good president.

[Leon[fp]]

Indeed, but since we went anyway, it seems counterproductive to give him the time to prepare beforehand.

Which begs the question, why did the US government went anyway? A reason given was Saddam had WMD's, but inspections didn' reveal them. So then one could conclude that since the reason given is false, you can't invade.

And what's your point anyway? Given that "we" went anyway, we shouldn't give Saddam time to prepare? Well, sure. But that wasn't really a discussion point, not with me at least.

[Leon[fp]]

Unlikely seeing as Saddam refused to save his sorry little butt by simply proving they were dismantled. If there were no weapons, why deny weapons inspectors? I think that much is pretty much common sense. They obviously couldn't have used everything they had against us in the very short time the "war" lasted.

That is, if he denied weapon inspections. He has denied them in the past, but to my knowledge the last time he didn't deny them. Anyway, if Saddam had WMD's, wouldn't he have used them in his final battle, when he still had the power? If he really had WMD's then it was very reckless of the US to invade, since that would give Saddam a clear motivation to actually use them.

[Coltaine]

Another reason to deny inspections when you don't have WMD is that you don't want any person to got thru all you stuff. You want some ppl to think you still got them and there are proberbly some more reasons.

I wouldn't let the police search my house just because someone said i hide drugs under my bed. If they don't got a search warrent they wont come in my house.
Same thing with countrys.

[Eiger]

Isn't the pentagon investigating Halliburton for overcharging them? I seem to remember something.

Oh well, it's not like I expected the government to be free of corruption or anything.
I believe there are some charges that the government is looking at as inappropriate. Like the abandoned truck. I don't know about overcharges as I haven't been following the Halliburton stuff much. But it is more difficult to get companies on overcharging with a cost plus contract. Overcharges are more the case where a company charges $100 for a wrench or a toilet seat or something and I haven't heard of any of those.

[Bartleby]

A reason given was Saddam had WMD's, but inspections didn' reveal them. So then one could conclude that since the reason given is false, you can't invade.
If he really had WMD's then it was very reckless of the US to invade, since that would give Saddam a clear motivation to actually use them.
Leon are you saying that you believed that Saddam since cooperated fully with the inspections (which he didn't) and that no WMD's were found that the US should not have overthrown his regime, but if WMD had been found that the US should not have overthrown his regime anyway? :scratch:

[Leon[fp]]

Leon are you saying that you believed that Saddam since cooperated fully with the inspections (which he didn't)

I remember otherwise but then I guess I'm wrong.

but if WMD had been found that the US should not have overthrown his regime anyway? :scratch:

They would have had to be more careful about it. Try letting him hand over the WMDs, find other solutions, be inventive. Only after careful consideration attack him since you're endangering the US soldiers and the local population. We're talking weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION here. Don't just provoke the use of them like that.

[Bartleby]

On the issue of his cooperation, he made every attempt possible to ban, bar, hamper or otherwise dissuade inspectors.
Fair enough, it is good to be cautious, but we all have a pretty good idea about how well other solutions would have played out with Saddam.

[Leon[fp]]

but we all have a pretty good idea about how well other solutions would have played out with Saddam.

I don't, so please, elaborate.

[Bhs Crew]

What about Iran? I mean they got WMD's. They're allied with Al Qaeda. They even have they're own state sponsered terrorist group Hezbollah. I mean the only thing they didn't do is try to kill GWB's dad.

On a national level it would have made much more sense to go after Iran. On a personal level GWB had a score to settle with Saddam.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Before I move on to the posts, I want to make it clear again that my stance has NEVER been that we invaded Iraq simply because of their WMDs, there were many reasons involved that I won't bother going into right now. Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt. The only reason I'm debating this much is because my original post was blown out of context in the first place.

I never agreed with invading Iraq, at least not at the time we did it. There were others who were much more deserving of being removed from power before we even considered Saddam... thought don't get me wrong, I DO think Saddam needed to be taken out. I will never deny that.

']That is, if he denied weapon inspections. He has denied them in the past, but to my knowledge the last time he didn't deny them. Anyway, if Saddam had WMD's, wouldn't he have used them in his final battle, when he still had the power? If he really had WMD's then it was very reckless of the US to invade, since that would give Saddam a clear motivation to actually use them.

Not only did he deny them, he expelled them. I'm too lazy to go link searching right now.

Having WMD's is one thing, using them is another. Saddam knew he would not be killed by U.S. troops. The will to live and fear of death in many people thus if he had used WMD's then he would surely be killed, no one would have complaints about "offing" him. It was made very clear long before the invasion that Bush wanted him alive.

Even then Saddam still did not, to our knowledge, have the capability of attacking U.S. soil using his WMD, only those around him. That was never a concern... regardless what Bush might have said. - :lol: - The bottom line is who would he have used them on by the time we invaded, since those were the only americans he could reach? We were at his doorstep, what would be gained by destroying your own land? Then again, my position has always been that he did NOT have them by the time we invaded.

Now ask yourself, Saddam literally bought himself YEARS by denying weapons inspectors, do you honestly think he could not have had enough time to either hide or send the weapons out of the country?(which was my original point in my first post).

Another reason to deny inspections when you don't have WMD is that you don't want any person to got thru all you stuff. You want some ppl to think you still got them and there are proberbly some more reasons.

I wouldn't let the police search my house just because someone said i hide drugs under my bed. If they don't got a search warrent they wont come in my house.
Same thing with countrys.

Huh? It isn't even close to a comparison. Having drugs hidden under your bed is slightly different then nuclear/chemical/biological weapons. Tell you what, when you have an entire states police force knocking on your door with weapons drawn telling you to let them search or face the consequence, then tell me you wouldn't let them search. Common sense dictates that is certainly not the time or place to start acting like some rebellious teenager. Sorry.

[Bartleby]

Well Leon let's see what I can put together... considering that Saddam has murdered multiple members of his own family, had members of his own party killed, forced Kurds to flee to Iran, killed 180,000 Kurds and destroyed 4,000 villages, declared war with Iran to take their oil, forced the then president of Iraq to resign and later had him killed, had a Kurdish town gassed (about 5,000 people died)a month after honoring himself with the Order of the People award, liked it so much he started gassing a bunch of Kurdish villages along the Turkish border, captured Kuwait for their oil, broke the peace terms after the Gulf War, booted UN weapons inspectors in 1998, delayed and intimidated UN weapons inspectors for the month he allowed them in Iraq in 2002 and refused to leave Iraq with the remaining sons he had not yet killed even though it would have prevented the invasion.

I'd say Saddam's track record on cooperation with anyone pretty much blows and that if he had agreed to anything it would only have been to allow him time to plan and execute an offensive strategy of his own.

I love how people think that Saddam was the kind of person that could be reasoned with... it was tried, time and again starting since before most of us here could vote and every attempt to reason with this maniac failed.

[Coltaine]

Huh? It isn't even close to a comparison. Having drugs hidden under your bed is slightly different then nuclear/chemical/biological weapons. Tell you what, when you have an entire states police force knocking on your door with weapons drawn telling you to let them search or face the consequence, then tell me you wouldn't let them search. Common sense dictates that is certainly not the time or place to start acting like some rebellious teenager. Sorry.

He had no reasonable army. He only had the potential threat of WMD. If he gave that up, he would have no instrument of pressure against other states. He would have shown the public that he is weak. So no reason?

And not letting the police search your house without a permit to do so is 'acting like some rebellious teenage'? Sorry but i call that upholding my rights as a citizen. Wouldn't you have a problem with a search of your house?
I don't like it if people i don't know are going through my things. Sorry.

[Eiger]

He had no reasonable army. He only had the potential threat of WMD. If he gave that up, he would have no instrument of pressure against other states. He would have shown the public that he is weak. So no reason?

That's really a very good point.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

He had no reasonable army. He only had the potential threat of WMD. If he gave that up, he would have no instrument of pressure against other states. He would have shown the public that he is weak. So no reason?

A good point, but it changes nothing. When dealing with WMD claiming to have is just as bad as having them in the eyes of those who don't want you using them. The Bush premise was Saddam had weapons, if Saddam refused to show proof of them, no matter what the reason, then that only solidifies Bush’s' position. Now if he didn’t have weapons but led people to think he had them in order to use them as pressure instruments, then it really was no different than him actually having them. He would be leading people to believe he DID in fact have them.

As far as his reasonable army, Iraq had one of the most powerful in the middle east. He did not need the thread of WMDs to push around countries around him. Granted the forces were nowhere near the extent of the U.S., but they weren’t exactly in any position to be pushing us around. For a break down:

Although Iraq’s forces have many serious defects, Iraq remains the most effective military power
in the Gulf, despite the Gulf War, and the loss of some 40% of its army and air force order of
battle. Iraq still has armed forces with around 389,000 full time actives. Its army had some
350,000 actives, including some 100,000 called- up reservists, before it began a serious build-up
in reaction to US and British deployments, and an inventory of some 2,200-2,600 main battle
tanks, 3,700 other armored vehicles, and 2,400 major artillery weapons.
The Air Force has 20,000 men and over 300 combat aircraft with potential operational status—
although many have little, if any, sustainability or effective combat capability.i It had a 17,000
man air defense command with over 850 surface-to-air missile launchers and some 3,000 antiaircraft
guns, and a small 2,000 man navy with nine small combat ships and an unknown number
of mines and Silkworm land-based anti-ship missiles.
As weak as many aspects of Iraq’s forces may be, it is still a major military power by regional
standards and has at least some chemical and biological weapons. Iraq must be taken seriously
both in regional terms and in any military effort to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein.

To compare it back to your original point, that would mean the cops had caught you on weapons possession charges in the past and you were known to have killed several people. Now they have information that shows once again you have guns in your house and plan to use them once again. You then refuse to show them you don't have any? They have more reason to believe in your guilt than innocence, and they have more than enough reason to gain a search warrant based solely on your past actions alone.

And not letting the police search your house without a permit to do so is 'acting like some rebellious teenage'? Sorry but i call that upholding my rights as a citizen. Wouldn't you have a problem with a search of your house?
I don't like it if people i don't know are going through my things. Sorry.

In your drug position, no it wouldn't be childish. But you were trying to make a real life comparison, one that was no where close to being accurate enough for the reasons pointed out above. But given the slightly more accurate description of what type of person you would need to be in order to be compared to Saddam, then yes, it would not only be childish but very stupid as well.

Regardless if you don’t like it or not, if you’ve given them reason because you are known to have committed certain crimes in the past, then you really have no right complaining about them searching through your stuff.

[ScytheNoire]

It was in bad taste, IMO.

I like Scythe generally, so I didn't want to ruin a good thing with a rant that won't accomplish anything anyway.
what? you want to vote for Bush but you aren't willing to stand infront of him and go to war for him?
obviously you don't trust him that much, as no one should.

[Graav Wolfsong]

what? you want to vote for Bush but you aren't willing to stand infront of him and go to war for him?
obviously you don't trust him that much, as no one should.

I dunno. For what its worth, I think I'd trust him to wash my car on Saturdays.

I'd warn him about the terrible wrath he would face if he scratches the paint a few times before I let him get started tho'.

[the_guse]

what? you want to vote for Bush but you aren't willing to stand infront of him and go to war for him?
obviously you don't trust him that much, as no one should.

Kerry also supports the war in iraq, so according to you, if your an american that votes this november, then you should goto war.
--good thing i'm voting for nader.

[Sage the Mage]

As far as his reasonable army, Iraq had one of the most powerful in the middle east. He did not need the thread of WMDs to push around countries around him. Granted the forces were nowhere near the extent of the U.S., but they weren’t exactly in any position to be pushing us around. For a break down:

That was during the Gulf War, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Saddams army had been rebuilt to the extent it was in the early 90s.


I wonder if we can setup a way to catch Bush lying under oath too :P

[Coltaine]

That was during the Gulf War, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Saddams army had been rebuilt to the extent it was in the early 90s.

I think so too. And for a country with a bigger army i would just point in the direction of isreal. He had only a few tanks and no aircraft (or am i mistaken?). He had some airdefense aye, but that were mostly so outdated that the only plane/helicoper that was claimed to be shot down was with an AK47.
And look at the recent past wars. The all relied heavyly on aircrafts. Any other nation with a small for of attackhelicopters or Mig planes could easyly destroy a force of tanks.
The only thing that did cost time during the invasion was the speed of the tanks.

I also think that saddam never actually said he had WMD. He only did give the inspectors a hard time and left a serious part of doubt.

[the_guse]

I wonder if we can setup a way to catch Bush lying under oath too :P


why? what would be the point of that? getting a president to lie under oath doesnt meen anything. just look at clinton.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Hey, if Clinton lied or not is a matter of definition.
And on the positive side, he gave us one of the best presidential quotes of all time: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!".

I like Clinton, hes cool. :thumbsup:

[SaroDarksbane]

what? you want to vote for Bush but you aren't willing to stand infront of him and go to war for him?
No, because I'm not in the military. Was I in the military and Bush sent me to Iraq, I would go.
obviously you don't trust him that much, as no one should.
Trust has nothing to do with it.

1. People sign up for military service.
2. This includes going places they may or may not agree with.
3. I am not in the military.

I honestly don't see what you're implying by "If you vote for Bush you have to join the military!!!!", as it makes absolutely no sense at all.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

That was during the Gulf War, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Saddams army had been rebuilt to the extent it was in the early 90s.

I think so too. And for a country with a bigger army i would just point in the direction of isreal. He had only a few tanks and no aircraft (or am i mistaken?). He had some airdefense aye, but that were mostly so outdated that the only plane/helicoper that was claimed to be shot down was with an AK47.
And look at the recent past wars. The all relied heavyly on aircrafts. Any other nation with a small for of attackhelicopters or Mig planes could easyly destroy a force of tanks.

Nope, this is pre-operation Iraqi Freedom, long after the Gulf War.

Although Iraq’s forces have many serious defects, Iraq remains the most effective military power
in the Gulf, despite the Gulf War...*snip*

[Coltaine]

"The Air Force has 20,000 men and over 300 combat aircraft with potential operational status?
although many have little, if any, sustainability or effective combat capability.i It had a 17,000
man air defense command with over 850 surface-to-air missile launchers and some 3,000 antiaircraft
guns"

I don't want to know what potential operation status means. And none of them seems to be a primary combat plane/helicopter.
Isreal ist planing on getting some of these (http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=6&docid=22959&Pos=1&page=1&bScope=False&subject=22963)
I didn't find any on their current number of fighters or bombers but i doubt that they don't have any with combat capebillities.
Since we got at least one from israel on these boards, he/she might clear this up some further.

"an inventory of some 2,200-2,600 main battletanks, 3,700 other armored vehicles, and 2,400 major artillery weapons."

Israel has 1200 of
these (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava/) alone. Coulnd find anything for the total Number but that are not the only tanks they got. To atillery i didn't search, but found out that they have some attilery shels to deploy nuclear weapons. so i think that is at least an even.

For naval forces: Isreal is triing this year to get another 2 subs for 500million each.

"As weak as many aspects of Iraq?s forces may be, it is still a major military power by regional standards and has at least some chemical and biological weapons."

Well there the Irak is just pathetic if you look to Isreal. Look what i fund on the WMD of Israel (http://www.kommunikationssystem.de/foren/cl.politik.frieden/%3C8tvKmmAPENB@lange.nadeshda.gun.de%3E.html)
For those of you that don't want to read all that, in summery it states that israel has showed GB from place 5 of the Top 10 of nuclear powers. And they also got some chemical and biological weapons.

In modern times manpower is not the factor that wins a war. With getting the airspace safe, you done a big step towards at least holding them back from attacking. Irak might got a lot of more soldiers than the US or israel. Undoubly so. But that doesn't make them THE mayor power in the middle east. And that is what i was getting to with the potential thread.

I am not totaly sure so maybe someone can clear this up a bit more. But i remember from school that in the 60s there was a crisis when the boardering countrys tryed to invade or nearly tryed to invade isreal. Well it didn't happen. Sure a part of that might be the support of the US, but one part is even as sure the full deployment capabilitys of israel.

I hope this shows you that the forces of irak in comparison to the forces of israel are pathetic.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Pathetic is too strong a word. The deal is though Isreal military has no bearing on Iraq who has shown aggression toward Kuwait, Iran, and its own people. I'm not trying to show Iraq as being some super power, I am simply proving you wrong on the idea that Iraq needed WMD as an excuse to push or threaten. I believe I have done so. If necessary I will gather the information about the military strength of every middle east country to do so. Iraq did NOT deter inspecters so that it could *pretend* to have WMD. Therefore there must have been some other reason for the years of deterence.

[Coltaine]

So you are telling me Irak was not an enemy of israel and wanted to have some kind of pressure instrument against the israelits?

Edit: you don't need to give a summery of every other country. I will give you that there irak was maybe the biggest. But ony enemy you have nothing to strike fear into is enough for the wish to have some kind of thread for them.
I chose pathetic because of what we saw during "iraqi freedom" outside the cities there was near to 0 resistance. I might be wrong, but i think israel could have pulled off something close to it. Sure had to be a bit more causous but with total airspace control (which i belive israel would have) you are very hard to stop.

edit2: And there is still the aspect that the public would be shown that he is weak and has nothing to hold against the devil USA :evil:
If you are a dictator i would belive that showing the public that you are strong and you enemy can't do anything that he want is a big portion to help you stay in power.

[ChristopherK]

Actually, almost everyone believed he had them; They just didn't want us to invade Iraq to get them (i.e. preferred inspections and such).
"almost everyone"... Everyone in the US or the whole world?
I never believed he had them, and a majority of other swedes didn't either.

[Bhs Crew]

What could Saddam's army do?
It wasn't strong enough to beat Iran even before the Gulf War.
It couldn't invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia because we were protecting them.
It couldn't even drive the Kurds out of northern Iraq which it would've had to do to attack Turkey.
The only countries Saddam could potentially invade would have been Jordan or Syria. Both of these would've required his supply line going over that desert in western Iraq and would've made Israel edgy. He couldn't even come close to defeating Israel.

As far as I can tell we had the man trapped in a box. There had to be better uses of our time, money, and troops then going into his box and taking him out of power.

I still believe that the main reason GWB spent so much time and energy proving we had to go after Saddam was personal. I mean who here wouldn't want to take out the man who almost succeeded in killing your dad?

[Eiger]

Yup, it's pretty clear that Saddam was pretty darn weak and posed little threat to the US or its interests. I sure as hell wasn't worried about him.

[Eiger]

Isn't the pentagon investigating Halliburton for overcharging them? I seem to remember something.Yup, story here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=24&u=/nm/20040811/ts_nm/energy_halliburton_iraq_dc

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Pentagon auditors have concluded that Halliburton Co. failed to adequately account for more than $1.8 billion of work in Iraq and Kuwait, the Wall Street Journal said on Wednesday, citing a Pentagon report.

The amount represents 43 percent of the $4.18 billion that Houston-based Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root unit has billed the Pentagon to feed and house troops in the region, the newspaper said.

It said the findings in the 60-page Pentagon audit report, dated Aug. 4 but not publicly released are likely to increase pressure on the U.S. government to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars of payments to Halliburton.

This, it said, potentially threatens the services that KBR provides U.S. troops and other personnel in Iraq and Kuwait.

Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive from 1995 to 2000.
No one at Halliburton was immediately available to comment on the report. But the newspaper said KBR officials dispute the report's conclusions.

The officials say they have worked within the same Defense Department system for more than 10 years without problems, and believe differences can be resolved without the withholding of large payments, the newspaper said.

In a June securities filing Halliburton said a move by the Pentagon to withhold substantial payments or demand refunds could "materially and adversely affect our liquidity."
KBR filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last December under the weight of asbestos claims.

According to the newspaper Halliburton has until Sunday, after two prior extensions, to provide Army officials with all necessary cost information for its logistical work in Iraq and other locales.

This could lead to the withholding of as much as $600 million of payments, though KBR officials are confident the Army will again extend the deadline, and the Army is considering doing so, it said.

Halliburton shares closed on Tuesday at $29.83 on the New York Stock Exchange.

[Lord Chad]

What about Iran? I mean they got WMD's. They're allied with Al Qaeda. They even have they're own state sponsered terrorist group Hezbollah. I mean the only thing they didn't do is try to kill GWB's dad.

On a national level it would have made much more sense to go after Iran. On a personal level GWB had a score to settle with Saddam.

You forgot something.If we invaded Iran we would have to draft proablly.Lets face it their military is twice the size of iraq and the country is bigger and they have more terriost.And if we had to draft you know that Bush wouldnt qin election and so he didint invade Iran.

[Lord Chad]

Kerry also supports the war in iraq, so according to you, if your an american that votes this november, then you should goto war.
--good thing i'm voting for nader.


We all know nader isnt going to get elected so vote kerry if you want a better america in my oppinion or vote Bush.Just dont vote nader becuase you are only helping Bush.

[SaroDarksbane]

We all know nader isnt going to get elected so vote kerry if you want a better america in my oppinion or vote Bush.Just dont vote nader becuase you are only helping Bush.
So voting Bush is okay but Nader isn't? That doesn't make sense.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.

[Bartleby]

I never believed he had them, and a majority of other swedes didn't either.

"everyone" being the international intelligence community: Britain, Russia, France, Germany, etc.
I am unsure of Sweden's contributions to the intelligence gathering on matters of this sort, seeing as how (as I understand it) most of Scandanavia isn't inclined to get involved.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

So you are telling me Irak was not an enemy of israel and wanted to have some kind of pressure instrument against the israelits?

As far as Isreal is concerned, no one would touch Isreal because they know fully well it is under U.S. protection. Iraq is no exception. Isreal was never in any danger from Iraq.

1)And there is still the aspect that the public would be shown that he is weak and has nothing to hold against the devil USA :evil:
2)If you are a dictator i would belive that showing the public that you are strong and you enemy can't do anything that he want is a big portion to help you stay in power.

1)He never needed anything to hold against the U.S. in the first place. He had no capability to attack the U.S. and everyone knew that. The WMD's he had and then was accused of still having were not capable of reaching anywhere close to the U.S. So the question really becomes, why would he need the threat of WMD to appear stronger? His military might was sufficient to hold his own in the middle east. Keep in mind weak is relatively speaking, to the U.S. he was weak, to the countries in the middle east he was not. The Iraqi forces would have never made a good attack force after the Gulf War, but they were more than sufficient as a defensive force against any neighboring country. Iraq made no offensive moves after the Gulf War so he did not need the illusion of WMD as a show of power, unless of course he had them.



2) Iraq was being bombed by the U.S and Britain on a consistant basis from the time the Gulf War ended to before the U.S. invasion, so showing the enemy they can't do anything doesn't apply. As far as the public goes, no one in Iraq could stand against Saddam. He had a monopoly on power in the country and was basically free to do whatever he wished with his own people. He didn't need WMD to do that. No one but an outside influence like the U.S. could have ever removed Saddam from power.

Iraq showed no aggression to any country after the Gulf War, they couldn't mount a full offensive against any country if they had wanted to at that point. So being as Iraq was not trying to invade any other countries, they did not need the threat of WMD for that either.

What could Saddam's army do?

Sorry for not entirely quoting you, but your entire post applies.

My point exactly. They could do nothing and tried to do nothing. The only thing that could have changed that was the use of WMD. I'm debating the idea of Saddam using WMD as an idle threat as opposed to him actually having them. The idle threat arguement just does not make sense, especially under circumstances where you have bombers flying overhead on a daily basis. So why, after years of this, would Saddam not have caved in and allowed a search to prove he did not have them thereby forcing the U.S. to withdraw their sanctions and bombers which were literally destroying Iraq? The U.S. was the one in control and we know fully well that no weapon Iraq was ever in possession of could have reached the U.S. Saddam may have been a sadistic bastard, but he was not stupid. He would not have covered up his military information for 10 years under constant *attack*(for lack of a better word) unless he had something to hide.

[Eiger=Yup, it's pretty clear that Saddam was pretty darn weak and posed little threat to the US or its interests. I sure as hell wasn't worried about him.[/quote]

Relative term and yes. Iraq was easily defendable by their forces(unless again the U.S. obviously) yet could not mount an offense against anyone without… you had to see this coming… WMD. Now with what I said above in mind, and hopefully agreeing that there is no way in hell anyone would be dumb enough to feign possession of such weapons under such circumstances(which are actually much worse than what I typed), also knowing fully what that the U.S. was about to move in and remove him from power unless he complied, why did Saddam not comply? My opinion is there was something to hide. Whether it be the weapons themselves, or information about where they were.

[Eiger]

So voting Bush is okay but Nader isn't? That doesn't make sense.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.
Well, a vote for Nader is better than a vote for Bush.

[Eiger]

also knowing fully what that the U.S. was about to move in and remove him from power unless he complied, why did Saddam not comply? My opinion is there was something to hide. Whether it be the weapons themselves, or information about where they were.
Could be. But then again maybe he gambled that we wouldn't actually do it - and lost. People in power make some pretty screwy mistakes, especially when surrounded by fearful "yes" men.

Either he had them and had something to hide or he didn't and gambled. I can see it going either way.

Actually, I'm really liking BhsCrew's (I think) theory that he was trying to look more powerful than he was. Nothing like having other countries (especially Iran) think twice before messing with you. Nothing like getting "respect" without having to pay for it, too.

People in power have a different mindset than the rest of us. Politics of deception, mind games, smoke and mirrors - they're a large part of the game.

[Bartleby]

You know, Dragon's argument makes a lot more sense to me now that I read it. When you think about it, there was no compelling reason for Saddam to give anyone the slightest impression he had WMD, and there were plenty of really big reasons for him to show he didn't possess them, so why did he act like he was hiding something? I think it's because he did have something to hide after all.

[Bhs Crew]

Could be. But then again maybe he gambled that we wouldn't actually do it - and lost. People in power make some pretty screwy mistakes, especially when surrounded by fearful "yes" men.

Either he had them and had something to hide or he didn't and gambled. I can see it going either way.

Actually, I'm really liking BhsCrew's (I think) theory that he was trying to look more powerful than he was. Nothing like having other countries (especially Iran) think twice before messing with you. Nothing like getting "respect" without having to pay for it, too.

People in power have a different mindset than the rest of us. Politics of deception, mind games, smoke and mirrors - they're a large part of the game.
That wasn't my theory*, though I have to say that most of Saddam's actions during his reign didn't make much sense. His problem was that he was surrounded by fearful yes men, as Eiger said, that would tell him whatever he wanted to hear. This inevitably leads to stupid decisions.

*my theory is the one where George Bush wanted to remove Saddam because he was a little upset over Saddam trying to kill his dad. I don't got a theory on the WMD's.

[Eiger]

That wasn't my theory
It was Coltaine's, posted on the previous page as it turns out. Thanks Coltaine!

[Bartleby]

Yeah I regret the Switzerland comment (being as I realized I was wrong) so I apologize for that.
Yeah, we all get something wrong sooner or later :thumbsup:
As for the draft. We don't need a draft to go after Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda reached us but they hardly conquered us and our volunteer army is plenty good to do the small amount of fighting that needs to be done against them.
I never said we needed one now or would need one later, seeing as how I do not see it as a necessity to defend our country (we have plenty of volunteers) but I did say and do believe that a mandatory service period, military or civil, of two years would do the citizens of this country a world of good. It has less to do with protecting the country and more to do with educating people.

BTW, thanks I've got a couple other good avs I just made too ^^

[Lord Chad]

So voting Bush is okay but Nader isn't? That doesn't make sense.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.


No what I mean is if you vote for nader you are helping Bush.But what you said is true a vote for nader is a vote for nader.

[Lord Chad]

Well, a vote for Nader is better than a vote for Bush.


No what I mean is a vot for Nader is only helping Bush Look at the last election if it wasnt for Nader Al gore would have been elected.

[the_guse]

No what I mean is a vot for Nader is only helping Bush Look at the last election if it wasnt for Nader Al gore would have been elected.

that's not true at all. nader's main campaign goal is to reform the election process, and institute a popular vote instead of the electoral vote we have now. if that was in place prior to the last election, gore would be our president by over 100 thousand votes.
--instead the election was decided by only a few hundred votes in miami-day county in florida. the system is broken, you cant deny that. where i live, kerry is so far ahead in polls, that when election time comes, i could vote for bush, nader, hell i could vote for micky mouse, and because the process is fooked up, all 4 electoral points form connecticut will go to kerry. if you lived in texas, and voted for kerry, you better believe your vote will goto bush.
--dont tell me a vote for nader is a vote for bush, when if you look at the big picture, your vote really doesnt count.

[SaroDarksbane]

The electoral system exists for a reason, no matter how much we've bastardized it over the years . . .

[Leon[fp]]

Well Leon let's see what I can put together... considering that Saddam has murdered multiple members of his own family, had members of his own party killed, forced Kurds to flee to Iran, killed 180,000 Kurds and destroyed 4,000 villages, declared war with Iran to take their oil, forced the then president of Iraq to resign and later had him killed, had a Kurdish town gassed (about 5,000 people died)a month after honoring himself with the Order of the People award, liked it so much he started gassing a bunch of Kurdish villages along the Turkish border, captured Kuwait for their oil, broke the peace terms after the Gulf War, booted UN weapons inspectors in 1998, delayed and intimidated UN weapons inspectors for the month he allowed them in Iraq in 2002 and refused to leave Iraq with the remaining sons he had not yet killed even though it would have prevented the invasion.

I'd say Saddam's track record on cooperation with anyone pretty much blows and that if he had agreed to anything it would only have been to allow him time to plan and execute an offensive strategy of his own.

I love how people think that Saddam was the kind of person that could be reasoned with... it was tried, time and again starting since before most of us here could vote and every attempt to reason with this maniac failed.

I never said Saddam was a reasonable man.

[Bartleby]

']I never said Saddam was a reasonable man.
Then why would you suggest we continue to try to reason with him?

There's only two kinds of diplomacy (very blunt and simplified):
1) With a pen and paper: A offers B things, B offers A things
2) With a gun to the head: A offers B things, B promises not to kill A

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Then why would you suggest we continue to try to reason with him?

Touche ^^.

[Coltaine]

Lets say a totaly unreasonable person own a piece of land.
The city wants this piece of land to build a garage for a Mall. The 2nd or 3rd that is which isn't really needed but a person in the cityhall decided the city needs.
What should the city do?
a) Try to reason with the person and see if they can achive some kind of agreement?
b) Move in with the police and remove the man from his property. Them bulldoze it and build the garage?

Not to mistake me that this was the state in which the iraq lay. Just an example were i would certainly try to reason with the man.
so touché?

[Bartleby]

Sorry, no touche' there.
Completely unrelated considering the individual in your argument poses no threat (perceived or actual) to anyone. WMDs and land are not in any way comparable. Edit #1 - Saddam and the owner are not in any way comparable (unless of course your property owner is a confirmed mass-murder who has perpetuated genocide of a group of individuals in his immediate area in which case he should be executed anyway and his property would then pass to the state)

But if we must engage in this silliness:
1) Zoning would prevent this from ever being an issue 99.5% of the time.
2) It's called eminant domain, and (assuming this is the 0.5%)if the owner held out hoping to take advantage of the city's desire to build out an area according to it's highest and best use (by gaining better than FMV for his property), the city can take the property from the owner and give him FMV for his property.

Edit #2 - Do you understand why your point is moot?

[Eiger]

No what I mean is a vot for Nader is only helping Bush Look at the last election if it wasnt for Nader Al gore would have been elected.
I know. My point was that while a vote for Nader is not a vote for Al Gore and thus it helps Bush since presumably the vast majority of Nader voters wouldn't vote for him anyway. However, a vote for Nader is better than a direct vote for Bush, from a liberal perspective of course. :bow:

[Coltaine]

Sorry, no touche' there.
Completely unrelated considering the individual in your argument poses no threat (perceived or actual) to anyone. WMDs and land are not in anyway comparable.

But if we must engage in this silliness:
1) Zoning would prevent this from ever being an issue 99.5% of the time.
2) It's called eminant domain, and (assuming this is the 0.5%)if the owner held out hoping to take advantage of the city's desire to build out an area according to it's highest and best use (by gaining better than FMV for his property), the city can take the property from the owner and give him FMV for his property.

All i wanted to say, that you don't land from unreasonable at don't reason with that person.

As for the second part. Sorry but that is happening right now here in hamburg. Nor for a mal but for the landingway for the plane that fly to the constuction building of airbus. The said i think now 3 times, that the rollway needed to be larger than they before though. And now the court didn't give in.

[Coltaine]

What you should think about too is if the iraqy civilits are better of now.
Yes Sadam was a mass murderer and a tyran.
But how many iraqy citizen have died in the last year? I don't know but every odd day i read about another bomb that exploded somewhere in iraq and about the casulties. One this week caused 137.

[Bartleby]

Yeah, except it's the insurgents and (insert cleric in Fallujah's name here)'s militia that are killing Iraqi citizens. The Iraqis are thanking the Iraqi police/gaurd and US military for cracking down on these gangs.

[Coltaine]

Sure. Never said the US-army killed them. Still some civilians sure were killed by the army. That is something that happens in the war.
But still i'm asking are they better of now? And why?
Will they elect a moderate person in the upcoming election of some fundamental crackhead?

[Bartleby]

Yes they are better off now, because they have a right to choose. If they choose a fundamental crackhead, then that's their choice because that's what the majority of their voting population wants.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Yes they are better off now, because they have a right to choose. If they choose a fundamental crackhead, then that's their choice because that's what the majority of their voting population wants.

As an addition to Bartleby's post: They are also better off because we no longer need sanctions on Iraq to keep Saddam in check. Thousands per year literally starved to death as a result of U.S. imposed sanctions. The price of bread alone is now estimated to be over 100 times what it was before our sanctions.

With Saddam out, so go the sanctions. Iraq is now free to build itself up again economically.

Not to mention we can now stop wasting our time and bombs(likewise innocent Iraqi civilians) through the use of useless bombing campaigns meant to teach Saddam a lesson for breaking sanctions and not complying with demands.

[Bhs Crew]

In the long run I hope the Iraqi people are better off. I don't believe anything until I see the elections. It could be that the current dictator in Iraq will manage somehow to keep elections from happening. If that happens then the Iraqi people are much much worse off.

I hope that the US makes sure the elections take place but we've let people down before.

[Leon[fp]]

Then why would you suggest we continue to try to reason with him?

You can use diplomatic force. Sanctions, for example, which happened to have been used for about a decade against Iraq. Those sanctions helped make sure he couldn't develop a good military or WMD's. WMD's have still not been found, remember?

There are lots of unreasonable rulers on this planet and if war were the only option, we would have had a lot more wars.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

']You can use diplomatic force. Sanctions, for example, which happened to have been used for about a decade against Iraq. Those sanctions helped make sure he couldn't develop a good military or WMD's. WMD's have still not been found, remember?

Yes sanctions are always a good idea. Just look how well they worked in Iraq. Saddam lived like a king while month after month, year after year, his people grew more poor. U.S./U.N. imposed sanctions are responsible for thousands of deaths through starvation a year in Iraq. Sanctions punish the people, not the leadership. This is especially true in a dictatorship which has already shown a total disregard for its own people and only use them as a source of income. Saddam was rich his entire life and this stayed true up to the time he went into hiding.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Nice post Dragon. :thumbsup:

[Bhs Crew]

Yeah, I was never a big fan of sanctions myself. Which brings us to Cuba...

[Eiger]

Yeah, I was never a big fan of sanctions myself. Which brings us to Cuba...
Oh, don't even get me started. Pisses me off to no end that I can't get a Cohiba unless I head up to Vancouver. Well, ok I did actually buy a Dominican Cohiba once, but it just wasn't the same...

A long time ago I heard someone's theory that the reason we've still got sanctions and restrictions related to Cuba after all this time is because the Kennedy assassination was actually masterminded and carried out by Cuba. And that all the incoming presidents get briefed on this and so keep up the sanctions, but keep it classified because the info's too hot to allow it to go public. I thought it was a cute little story, but sometimes I wonder because (Cuban American lobby aside) it seems just a little too extreme to still have those sanctions after 40+ years - especially since just about every other country trades with them. Oh well, whatever.

[Bartleby]

Sanctions are soft acts of war, and they were oh so effective against Saddam weren't they? If you have enough drug money running through your country and you starve your people, you don't really worry about economic sanctions. The only people suffering under sanctions are the general population, not the dictator or his cronies.

edit #1 - Sorry, didn't realize Dragon had already answered in kind.

[Bhs Crew]

Oh, don't even get me started. Pisses me off to no end that I can't get a Cohiba unless I head up to Vancouver. Well, ok I did actually buy a Dominican Cohiba once, but it just wasn't the same...

A long time ago I heard someone's theory that the reason we've still got sanctions and restrictions related to Cuba after all this time is because the Kennedy assassination was actually masterminded and carried out by Cuba. And that all the incoming presidents get briefed on this and so keep up the sanctions, but keep it classified because the info's too hot to allow it to go public. I thought it was a cute little story, but sometimes I wonder because (Cuban American lobby aside) it seems just a little too extreme to still have those sanctions after 40+ years - especially since just about every other country trades with them. Oh well, whatever.
...and here I thought Johnson killed Kenedy.

Obviously since Bush pointed out that sanctions don't work, first thing tomorrow he's going to lift the sanctions on Cuba. Of course that would cost him votes in Florida.

[Leon[fp]]

Yes sanctions are always a good idea. Just look how well they worked in Iraq. Saddam lived like a king while month after month, year after year, his people grew more poor. U.S./U.N. imposed sanctions are responsible for thousands of deaths through starvation a year in Iraq. Sanctions punish the people, not the leadership. This is especially true in a dictatorship which has already shown a total disregard for its own people and only use them as a source of income. Saddam was rich his entire life and this stayed true up to the time he went into hiding.

Sure, the sanctions were horrible to the population, there's no denying that. But the sanctions did prevent Saddam gaining WMD. Another thing preventing Saddam getting WMD was the US not selling them again. That's another good idea to stop the spread of WMD. Another bad side effect of the sanctions was that the population became more dependant on Saddam for their well-being (as ironic as that may sound), which decreased the chance for popular revolt.

On a side note, one major reason why the people in Iraq are better off now than before the war is because the sanctions have been lifted.

[Ravashak]

The Iraqis better off after the war... keep saying that, maybe you'll believe it
The extremists are maybe better of, but with the invasion the US also put a *shoot me* sign on the 800.000 to 2,5 million Assyrian Christians in Iraq. Like it or not, Saddam made sure that the extremists inside Iraq were kept under the thumb. Congratulations US, you just made a new Iran.

http://www.tweevandaag.nl/index.php?module=PX_Story&func=view&cid=2&sid=28561# (big parts in dutch though, but stuff in english too)

I wonder how popular an invasion of us (Netherlands) by the US will be, because a UN institute did what it was supposed to do. Yes, Bush made a law saying the US'd invade the Netherlands if the international court of law even dared to think about trialing a US soldier for warcrimes. (not sure if the law got through)
8 juni 2002
Met correspondente Greet de Keyser en Amerika Deskundingen Maarten van Rossem en prof. De Waardt spreken we over de aankondiging van president Bush dat er een superministerie komt dat alle inspanningen van Amerikaanse opsporingsdiensten moet coordineren. Daarnaast gaan we in op het besluit van de Amerikaanse senaat dat dat indien Amerikaanse soldaten voor het Internationaal gerechtshof moeten verschijnen een militaire bevrijdingsoperatie is toegestaan. In dat geval kunnen we dus een Amerikaanse troepenmacht verwachten die de Scheveningse gevangenis bestormt.
Rough translation:

8th of June 2002
With correspondant Greet de Keyser and America experts Maarten van Rossum and prof. De Waardt we talk about the announcement of president Bush that there will be a superministry that'll coordinate the efforts of the American FBI, CIA, etc. Besides that we talk about the decision by the American senate that if American soldiers appear before the International court of law, it is allowed to use a military rescue-operation. In that case we can expect an American force storming the Scheveningse prison.

http://www.tweevandaag.nl/index.php?module=PX_Story&func=view&cid=2&sid=24709# (totally dutch)

[Bartleby]

*yawn*
Okay that's just silly. Assuming that's not a load of horse pucky, that would be completely different than invading the Netherlands, that's a covert smash n' grab to recover troops. Why would any country want to take over the Netherlands anyway? On second thought... I hear they have oil :wink2:

[Bhs Crew]

That international court. It's kind of useless without an international army to back up its rulings. Hehehe.