Middle East meddling were pretty common practice for the 80's. Iran-Contra and others. I don't get what the point or relevance is on this one. It is a known thing that the US did a lot of weapons giving/selling and screwing around in the 80's in the Middle East.
help swing a swing voter
- Thread starter slug420
- Start date
point being, saddam was a tyrant then, was a tyrant in 1991, and was still a tyrant in 2003. we did not repremand him for his use of biological weapons when he was actively using them. after he's used all of them and/or sold what he didn't use on iranians and kurds, we go into iraq like it's some sort of new threat from some new tyrant. don rumsfeld's visit made no mention of the CW's that saddam was using, rather only dealt with this:
Well 83 is a little while ago as far as the current political scene is considered. Hell Russia was a massive cold war enemy at the time, far cry from now. So what Rumsfeld did then, and what happens now I see as completely different and completely irrelevant to one another. But that is of course MY opinion and view of the matter which I certainly don't think is the "better" view or any such thing... just my opinion 
For years/decades the doves have maintained that diplomacy would change Saddam's ways. Many have been opposed to sanctions and the like. Saddam played games with the inspectors for years. I have to give Bush serious credit with a quote from the debate, "What were we supposed to do, sign ANOTHER U.N. resolution" saying the same thing? Resolution after resolution and no action upon failure to comply in accordance with the resolution. But people argued more diplomacy was needed, so more words, more lackluster results, and more repetition? What does that mean then in 10 years when a different threat arises and the UN becomes involved? We'll resolution them into compliance by signing them over and over and over and not do anything about it? If they know they have 10-15 years before someone get's pissed off and invades that's a pretty good head start. He was still a tyrant in 2003 and finally a world leader said enough with the resolutions we need to do something about it. Based on what was known by the "intelligence" agencies (note sarcasm there) it was the proper thing to do and the best option. We get in there and find out it is NOT what the intelligence agencies said... so what now we get back out and say, "our bad!" And we should be needing the approval of France? France who was selling them commodities illegally? Like they would actually want us to get in there?
And for anyone who says it was a unilateral action needs to double check the definition... it means ONE country. It was more than one country that went in there and agreed that it had to be done. Plain and simple, no iffs ands buts or conditions.
For years/decades the doves have maintained that diplomacy would change Saddam's ways. Many have been opposed to sanctions and the like. Saddam played games with the inspectors for years. I have to give Bush serious credit with a quote from the debate, "What were we supposed to do, sign ANOTHER U.N. resolution" saying the same thing? Resolution after resolution and no action upon failure to comply in accordance with the resolution. But people argued more diplomacy was needed, so more words, more lackluster results, and more repetition? What does that mean then in 10 years when a different threat arises and the UN becomes involved? We'll resolution them into compliance by signing them over and over and over and not do anything about it? If they know they have 10-15 years before someone get's pissed off and invades that's a pretty good head start. He was still a tyrant in 2003 and finally a world leader said enough with the resolutions we need to do something about it. Based on what was known by the "intelligence" agencies (note sarcasm there) it was the proper thing to do and the best option. We get in there and find out it is NOT what the intelligence agencies said... so what now we get back out and say, "our bad!" And we should be needing the approval of France? France who was selling them commodities illegally? Like they would actually want us to get in there?
And for anyone who says it was a unilateral action needs to double check the definition... it means ONE country. It was more than one country that went in there and agreed that it had to be done. Plain and simple, no iffs ands buts or conditions.
Last edited:
What are you talking about the sanctions didn't work...they clearly worked!! The report that came out today states in clear text that Sadam neither had the WMD or the capability of producing them after 1991 due specifically to the sanctions. Where was the clear and present danger? Where is the connection to Al Qaeda? The administration cherry picked the evidence that fit its case, ignored massive amounts of evidence to the contrary and misled this country and our allies into supporting the war effort. It is so transparent and obvious, yet there are still people who believe it was the right thing to do. Boggles my mind.
They did nothing to deter Saddam from his pursuit. They simply made it far more difficult.M=SP^2 said:
Here is a list of Al Qaeda Links for you:
*Saddam Hussein hosted regular conferences for terrorists in Baghdad throughout the 1990s. Mark Fineman, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, reported on one such gathering in an article published January 26, 1993. "There are delegates from the most committed Islamic organizations on Earth," he wrote. "Afghan mujahideen (holy warriors), Palestinian militants, Sudanese fundamentalists, the Islamic Brotherhood and Pakistan's Party of Islam." One speaker praised "the mujahid Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers. Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state."
* Abdul Rahman Yasin is an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the bomb used in the first World Trade Center attack on February 26, 1993. We know this because he has confessed--twice to the FBI and once on national television in the United States. He fled to Iraq on March 5,1993, with the help of an Iraqi Intelligence operative working under cover in the Iraqi Embassy in Amman, Jordan. A reporter for Newsweek interviewed Yasin's neighbors in Baghdad who reported that he was living freely and "working for the government." U.S. soldiers uncovered Iraqi government documents in postwar Iraq that confirm this. The documents show Yasin was given both safe haven and financing by the Iraqi regime until the eve of the war in Iraq.
* Later that same month--March 1993--Wali al Ghazali was approached by an Iraqi Intelligence officer named Abdel Hussein. Ghazali, a male nurse from Najaf, met another IIS agent named Abu Mrouwah who gave him an urgent mission: assassinate former President George H.W. Bush on his upcoming trip to Kuwait. On April 14, Kuwaiti police found Ghazali and other Iraqi Intelligence assets with two hundred pounds of explosives in a Toyota Landcruiser. Ghazali, the would-be assassin, told a Kuwait court that he had "been pushed by people who had no mercy." He said: "I fear the Iraqi regime, the Iraqi regime pushed me."
* According to numerous press reports, the deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, Faruq Hijazi, met face-to-face with Osama bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden asked for anti-ship mines and al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. There is no indication that Iraq made good on his requests.
* That same year, according to internal Iraqi Intelligence documents authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community and reported in the June 25, 2004, New York Times, a Sudanese government official met with Uday Hussein and the director of Iraqi Intelligence to facilitate the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
* According to the New York Times, the same Iraqi Intelligence document said that bin Laden earlier "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative" and that "presidential approval" had been granted to the Iraqi Intelligence service to meet with him. Bin Laden "also requested join operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. At bin Laden's request, Saddam Hussein also agreed to broadcast on Iraqi television sermons of an anti-Saudi cleric.
* The Clinton administration cited an "understanding" between Iraq and al Qaeda in its 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden. "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
* The 9/11 Commission reports that Iraq and al Qaeda had a series of "friendly contacts" that did not appear to have developed into a "collaborative operations relationship." The final report provides details of meetings between senior Iraqi Intelligence officials and al Qaeda terrorists throughout the spring and summer of 1998 and indicates that "Iraqi official offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq."
* The offer of asylum was also included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's unanimous, bipartisan review of prewar intelligence. From p. 335 of the Senate report: "A [CIA Counterterrorism Center] operational summary from April 13, 1999, notes four other intelligence reports mentioning Saddam Hussein's "standing offer of safe haven to Osama bin Laden."
* This, from p. 316 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report: "From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel. The CIA summarized nearly 50 intelligence reports as examples, using language directly from the intelligence reports. Ten intelligence reports, from multiple sources, indicated IIS 'casing' operations against Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in Prague began in 1998 and continued into early 2003. The CIA assessed, based on the Prague casings and a variety of other reporting, that throughout 2002 the IIS was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests."
* Page 331 of the Senate report: "Twelve reports received [redacted] from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability, cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda's CBW [chemical and biological weapons] efforts."
* Abu Musab al Zarqawi traveled to Iraq in May 2002. He lived in Baghdad with the knowledge--and perhaps sponsorship--of the Iraqi regime. A passage from p. 337 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report cites a CIA report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism: "A variety of reporting indicates that senior al Qaeda terrorist planner al Zarqawi was in Baghdad [redacted]. A foreign government service asserted that the IIS knew where al Zarqawi was located despite Baghdad's claims it could not find him." More, from p. 338: "Al Zarqawi and his network were operating both in Baghdad and in the Kurdish-controlled region of Iraq. The HUMINT reporting indicated that the Iraqi regime certainly knew that al Zarqawi was in Baghdad because a foreign government service gave that information to Iraq."
* More recently, Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, told Agence France Presse that the Iraqi regime worked closely with al Qaeda in Iraq before the war. "Saddam Hussein's regime welcomed them with open arms and young al Qaeda members entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," he said in an interview published August 29, 2004. Azzam added that al Qaeda fighters "infiltrated into Iraq with the help of Kurdish mujahideen from Afghanistan, across mountains in Iran" and that once they arrived, Saddam "strictly and directly" controlled their activities.
- :
- 2001 Pro 2.0 LX
there was no evidence of WMD, hell Iraq didn't even have RPG's that worked right or shoot them 100% accurate and correctly, let alone produce and use WMD.
I already read through that... and it is posted above... and if you read it, it says a fair bit more than that... but paste it in... I just pasted a list of counter views. My point is you say there is no link, but I just pasted purported links... that was all... I'm just providing a set of information, I'm not saying there is a link, or that we needed to go there for that. My point is there is so much information out there that we dont' all know.M=SP^2 said:
I already posted about the WMD's and the reason for going in... "intelligence" was followed as best as we know (yes it may not have been the case, but as far as we KNOW at this point that is the case). And then they weren't found initially.slug420 said:
read the 9/11 report if you want to know where they all came from. I'll paste that later if you like.
www.kerry-for-president.org << this is a fun site for anyone who wants to know some of the real issues here
I just want to know how someone as stupid as everyone makes G.W.B. to be can alter English, French, German, and Russian intelligence to make them all show that there are WMD's in Iraq. That sounds pretty fzcking brilliant (read: nigh-inhuman) to me
I just want to know how someone as stupid as everyone makes G.W.B. to be can alter English, French, German, and Russian intelligence to make them all show that there are WMD's in Iraq. That sounds pretty fzcking brilliant (read: nigh-inhuman) to me
Actually they had missiles that exceeded the 150km range set by the UN. So they did certainly have that. At one point in time they had more than that. But again, reasons were followed to go in there that ended up not being true. It doesn't change that the administration was given that initial information. It doesn't change that we are there.vindication said:
also.. read this if you want more information...
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
There is information all over every view on these issues..
THAT'S MY POINT!
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
There is information all over every view on these issues..
THAT'S MY POINT!
- :
- 2001 Pro 2.0 LX
well the way I see it is that every great empire has to fall. This has been so and will continue to be so and Amirica is no exception unless something major is changed in the government. Frankly, I don't see Kerry or Bush doing anything to save this country but I see Kerry doing a better job than Bush.
I'll answer with a question.M=SP^2 said:
Can you honestly say with certainty that the administration didn't go to war as a last resort and that they did cherry pick their intelligence?
I don't think either of us can... we don't know everything that happens at a governmental level.
I find it frustrating that people will say that they abused intelligence for the war, and that they didn't use the intelligence for the 9/11 attack when they would be essentially the same leaps. If you read the 9/11 August 9th memo that everyone makes a big deal out of for the planes it would require a vast leap for them to go after these guys who might do it etc... and there are a lot of people in this nation that think they should have made that leap, but then turn around and condemn the administration for a possibly similar leap for the Iraq thing. In one case we want the leap and in another we don't... it's not intellectually true of a thought process.
Kopel claims to be an independent. I don't know enough about him to know one way or another.M=SP^2 said:
But I also read Michael Moore's website. I read the Times, BBC, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Kerry's website, Bush's website, and quite a few others.. I take in extreme to extreme and the middle road. THAT is the only way to get any real perspective becaues I don't trust ANY of them. Can you also say that you troll both sides of this fence? I comfortably can.
Which is further to my point.. you can find information to support and counter any point of view you can come up with on any topic in this election.
Look at all the dem condemnations about Cheney and Halliburton. Then if you can get on factcheck.org (when it isn't crashed) you'll read another entirely different view...
I've also seen all the rabid claims by the Republicans about Kerry's flip flopping... and seen how some of it is out of context, and most of it is blown vastly out of proportion.
I've seen complete misrepresentation of facts from all sides, and that is ridiculous, and it is impossible to know if a "bipartisan" organization really is or isn't...So I assume none are and read them all.
Last edited:
But by doing what? I mean honestly, exactly what? I don't think either will do a better job than the other if you want to know my stance. I don't think Bush is going to be any different in the next 4 years, and I don't think Kerry is going to be vastly different in his effect on the country or its course either. I think it is a horse a piece. I like that Bush does what he says and is pretty predictable. I like that Kerry has a fresh view and the enthusiasm to go about things in a new way. I don't like that Bush seems to mire himself down with his sense of mission at times, but I also don't like that Kerry seems a bit unpredictable and whimsical to public opinion.vindication said:
Fact is in any election and no matter what all the candidates are less than desireable. You have to find someone you identify with in some form, and who you believe will actually follow through on campaign propoganda, and who you think will be who they actually are in the office.
